federal register - Occupational Safety and Health ...

fede

ral r

egiste

r

43451

ThursdayAugust 13, 1998

Part II

Department of LaborOccupational Safety and HealthAdministration

29 CFR Part 1926Safety Standards for Steel Erection;Proposed Rule

43452 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 156 / Thursday, August 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration

29 CFR Part l926

[Docket No. S–775]

RIN No. 1218–AA65

Safety Standards for Steel Erection

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration (OSHA), U.S.Department of Labor.ACTION: Proposed rule; Notice ofhearing.

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety andHealth Administration (OSHA) proposesto revise the construction industrysafety standards addressing steelerection. The intent of this revision is toenhance the protections provided toworkers engaged in steel erection and toupdate and strengthen the generalprovisions that address steel erection.This proposal contains requirements forhoisting and rigging, structural steelassembly, beam and columnconnections, joist erection, pre-engineered metal building erection, fallprotection and training. The proposedrequirements address significanthazards in the steel erection industry.The principal hazards addressed by thisproposal are those associated withworking under loads; hoisting, landingand placing decking; column stability;double connections; hoisting, landingand placing steel joists; and falls tolower levels. Notice is also given of aninformal public hearing.DATES: Written comments on theproposed rule and notices of intentionto appear at the informal public hearingon the proposed rule must bepostmarked by November 12, 1998.Parties who request more than 10minutes for their presentations at theinformal public hearing and parties whowill submit documentary evidence atthe hearing must submit the full text oftheir testimony and all documentaryevidence postmarked no later thanNovember 17, 1998. The hearing willtake place in Washington, DC and isscheduled to begin on December 1,1998.ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposalare to be submitted in quadruplicate or1 original (hardcopy) and 1 disk (51⁄4 or31⁄2) in WP 5.0, 5.1, 6.0, 6.1, 8.0 or ASCIIto: the Docket Officer, Docket S–775,U.S. Department of Labor, OccupationalSafety 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 byfacsimile (fax) to the Docket Office at(202) 219–5046, provided an originaland three (3) copies are sent to theDocket Office thereafter. Comments maybe submitted electronically by e-mail [email protected]. If the e-mail contains attached electronic files,the files must be in WordPerfect 5.0, 5.1,6.0, 6.1, 8.0 or ASCII. When submittinga comment by e-mail, please includeyour name and address.

Any information not contained on thedisk or in the e-mail (e.g., studies,articles) must be submitted inquadruplicate. Specific comments onthe collection of informationrequirements may also be submitted to:The Office of Information andRegulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB DeskOfficer for OSHA, Office of Managementand Budget, Room 10235, Washington,DC 20503, (202) 395–7316.

Notices of intention to appear at thehearing, and testimony anddocumentary evidence which will beintroduced into the hearing record, mustbe submitted in quadruplicate to: theDocket Officer, Docket S–775, U.S.Department of Labor, OccupationalSafety and Health Administration,Room N2625, 200 Constitution Avenue,N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210, (202)219–7894. The hearing will be held inWashington, D.C., beginning December1, 1998 at 10:00 a.m. in the Auditoriumof the Frances Perkins Building, U.S.Department of Labor, 200 ConstitutionAvenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Office of Information and ConsumerAffairs, OSHA, U.S. Department ofLabor, Room N3647, 200 ConstitutionAvenue, N.W., Washington D.C. 20210,(202) 219–8151.

For an electronic copy of this FederalRegister notice, contact the Labor NewsBulletin Board, (202) 219–4784 (callersmust 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); orOSHA’s Webpage on Internet at http://www.osha.gov/ and http://www.osha-slc.gov/. For news releases, fact sheets,and other documents, contact OSHAFAX at (900) 555–3400 at $1.50 perminute.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Congress amended the Contract WorkHours and Safety Standards Act(CWHSA) (40 U.S.C. 327 et seq.) in 1969by adding a new Section 107 (40 U.S.C.333) to provide employees in theconstruction industry with a safer workenvironment and to reduce the

frequency and severity of constructionaccidents and injuries. The amendment,commonly known as the ConstructionSafety Act (CSA) [P.L. 91–54; August 9,1969], significantly strengthenedemployee protection by providing foroccupational safety and healthstandards for employees of the buildingtrades and construction industry inFederal and Federally-financed orFederally-assisted construction projects.Accordingly, the Secretary of Laborissued Safety and Health Regulations forConstruction in 29 CFR Part 1518 (36 FR7340, April 17, 1971) pursuant toSection 107 of the Contract Work Hoursand Safety Standards Act.

The Occupational Safety and HealthAct (the Act) (84 Stat. 1590; 29 U.S.C.651 et seq.), was enacted by Congress in1970 and authorized the Secretary ofLabor to adopt established Federalstandards issued under other statutes,including the CSA, as occupationalsafety and health standards.Accordingly, the Secretary of Laboradopted the construction standardswhich had been issued under the CSA,in accordance with Section 6(a) of theAct (36 FR 10466, May 29, 1971). TheSafety and Health Regulations forConstruction were redesignated as Part1926 of 29 CFR later in 1971 (36 FR25232, December 30, 1971). Subpart R ofPart 1926, currently entitled ‘‘SteelErection,’’ incorporating §§ 1926.750through 1926.752, was adopted as anOSHA standard during this process. Therequirements in the existing standardcover flooring, steel assembly, bolting,plumbing-up and related operations. In1974 a revision in the temporaryflooring requirement was madepursuant to a rulemaking conductedunder section 6(b) of the Act (39 FR24361).

Since that time, OSHA has receivedseveral requests for clarification ofvarious provisions, including thosepertaining to fall protection. TheAgency began drafting a proposed ruleto revise several provisions of its steelerection standard in 1984 and on severaloccasions discussed its intention withits Advisory Committee on ConstructionSafety and Health (ACCSH). Duringthese discussions, the fall protectionrequirements of the standard oftenaroused controversy. The discussionswith ACCSH led to the development ofseveral draft notices requestinginformation or proposing changes to therule. None of these draft notices waspublished, nor was public commentsought, except through the proceedingsof the Advisory Committee.

In 1986, the Agency issued a Noticeof Proposed Rulemaking for subpart M(Fall Protection) and announced that it

43453Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 156 / Thursday, August 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules

intended the proposed rule to apply toall walking/working surfaces found inconstruction, alteration, repair(including painting and decorating), anddemolition work, except for five specificareas. Although none of the specificareas pertained to steel erection, theAgency noted that ‘‘Additionalrequirements to have fall protection forconnectors and for workers on derrickand erection floors during steel erectionwould remain in subpart R—SteelErection.’’

This statement led to confusion. Manyof the commenters to the subpart Mrulemaking noted that they were notsure whether subpart M or subpart Rwould govern their activities. In onecase, two sets of comments wereprovided, one to be used if subpart Mapplied and the other if subpart Rapplied. In the face of this uncertainty,the Agency decided that it wouldregulate the fall hazards associated withsteel erection in its planned revision ofsubpart R.

OSHA announced its intention toregulate the hazards associated withsteel erection, and in particular the fallhazards associated with steel erection,in a notice published in the FederalRegister on January 26, 1988 (53 FR2048). In that notice OSHA stated thefollowing:

The rulemaking record developed to dateindicates that the Agency needs moreinformation in order to develop a revisedstandard covering fall protection foremployees engaged in steel erectionactivities. The comments received to datehave convinced the Agency to develop aseparate proposed rule which will providecomprehensive coverage for fall protection insteel erection. OSHA intends, therefore, thatthe consolidation and revision of fallprotection provisions in subpart M do notapply to steel erection and that the currentfall protection requirements of Part 1926continue to cover steel erection until the steelerection rulemaking is completed.Accordingly, in order to maintain coverageunder existing fall protection standardspending completion of the separate steelerection fall protection rulemaking, OSHAplans to redesignate existing §§ 1926.104,1926.105, 1926.107(b), 1926.107(c),1926.107(f), 1926.500 (with Appendix A),1926.501, and 1926.502 into subpart R whenthe Agency issues the final rule for thesubpart M rulemaking.

Since that time, the Agency draftedseveral documents which it presented toACCSH for comment. The Agency wasalso petitioned by affected parties toinstitute negotiated rulemaking. Thefirst request for negotiated rulemakingwas submitted to the Agency in 1990. Atthat time, it appeared the Agency wouldsoon publish a Notice of ProposedRulemaking in the Federal Register and,

therefore, the request was denied.However, affected parties once againmade their concerns known, and theAgency delayed publication of theNPRM while it made a further, morecomprehensive study of the concernsraised.

OSHA retained an independentconsultant to review the fall protectionissues raised by the draft revisions tosubpart R, to render an independentopinion on how to resolve the issues,and to recommend a course of action. In1991, the consultant recommended thatOSHA address the issue of fallprotection as well as other potentialrevisions to subpart R by using thenegotiated rulemaking process (Ex. 4–18A).

Based on this recommendation andcontinued requests for negotiatedrulemaking by affected stakeholders, onDecember 29, 1992, OSHA published aFederal Register notice of intent toestablish a negotiated rulemakingcommittee (57 FR 61860). The noticerequested nominations for membershipon the Committee and comments on theappropriateness of using negotiatedrulemaking to develop a steel erectionproposed rule. In addition, the noticedescribed the negotiated rulemakingprocess and identified some key issuesfor negotiation.

In response to the notice of intent,OSHA received more than 225submissions, including more than 60nominations for membership on theCommittee and several sets ofcomments. After an evaluation of thesubmissions, it was apparent that anoverwhelming majority of commenterssupported this action, and OSHAdecided to go forward with thenegotiated rulemaking process. TheAgency selected the members of theCommittee from among thenominations.

On May 11, 1994, OSHA announcedthat it had established the Steel ErectionNegotiated Rulemaking AdvisoryCommittee (SENRAC) (59 FR 24389) inaccordance with the Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App.I), the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of1990 (NRA) (5 U.S.C. 561 et seq.) andsection 7(b) of the Occupational Safetyand Health Act (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C.656 (b)) to resolve issues associated withthe development of a Notice of ProposedRulemaking on Steel Erection.Appointees to the Committee includedrepresentatives from labor, industry,public interests and governmentagencies. OSHA was a member of thecommittee, representing the Agency’sinterests.

II. Establishing the Steel ErectionNegotiated Rulemaking AdvisoryCommittee (SENRAC)

Negotiated rulemaking is a process bywhich a proposed rule is developedthrough negotiation of differingviewpoints by a committee that isintended to be composed ofrepresentatives of all the interests thatwill be significantly affected by the rule.The negotiated rulemaking process isthus fundamentally different fromOSHA’s usual development process forproposed rules. Negotiation allowsinterested parties to discuss possibleapproaches to various issues rather thanthe Agency asking them to respond tothe details of an OSHA draft proposal.The negotiation process involves amutual education of the parties on thereasons for different positions on theissues as well as on the concerns aboutthe practical impact of variousapproaches.

Each committee member participatesin resolving the interests and concernsof other members instead of leaving itup to OSHA to bridge different points ofview.

A key principle of negotiatedrulemaking is that agreement is reachedby consensus of all the interests. TheNRA defines consensus as unanimousconcurrence among the interestsrepresented on a negotiated rulemakingcommittee, unless the committee itselfunanimously agrees to use a differentdefinition of consensus.

SENRAC was formed with particularattention to obtaining full and adequaterepresentation of those interests thatmay be significantly affected by theproposed rule. Section 562 of the NRAdefines the term ‘‘interest’’ as follows:

‘‘interest’’ means, with respect to an issueor matter, multiple parties which have asimilar point of view or which are likely tobe affected in a similar manner.

Particular care was taken to identifyany unique interests which weredetermined to be significantly affectedby the proposed rule and ensure thatthey were fully represented on theCommittee.

The members of the Committee are:Richard Adams—Army Corps ofEngineers, who was later replaced byDonald Pittinger; William W. Brown—Ben Hur Construction Company; BartChadwick—Regional Administrator,Region VIII, Occupational Safety andHealth Administration (since retired);James E. Cole—InternationalAssociation of Bridge, Structural &Ornamental Iron Workers; Stephen D.Cooper—International Association ofBridge, Structural & Ornamental IronWorkers; Phillip H. Cordova—El Paso


Crane & Rigging, Inc.; Perry A. Day—International Brotherhood ofBoilermakers, Iron Ship Builders,Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers; JamesR. Hinson—J. Hinson Network, Inc.; JimLapping—Building and ConstructionTrades Department (AFL–CIO), replacedby Brad Sant and later replaced bySandy Tillett; Richard King—Black &Veatch; John R. Molovich—UnitedSteelworkers of America; CarolMurkland—Gilbane Building Company;John J. Murphy—Williams Enterprisesof Georgia, Inc.; Steven L. Rank—Holton& Associates, Ltd.; Ray Rooth—CAL/OSHA; Alan Simmons—InternationalAssociation of Bridge, Structural &Ornamental Iron Workers; William J.Smith—International Union ofOperating Engineers; RonaldStanevich—National Institute forOccupational Safety and Health(NIOSH) later replaced by Tim Pizatella,Division of Safety Research; C. RockwellTurner—L.P.R. Construction Co.; andEric Waterman—National ErectorsAssociation.

SENRAC was chaired by Philip J.Harter, Esq., a trained facilitator. Therole of the facilitator was to applyproven consensus building techniquesto the OSHA advisory committeesetting. This individual was notinvolved with the substantivedevelopment of the standard. Rather,the facilitator’s role generally included:

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

(2) Impartially assisting the membersof the committee in conductingdiscussions and negotiations;

(3) Acting as disclosure officer forcommittee records under the Freedomof Information Act (FOIA); and

(4) In accordance with FACA’srequirements, keeping minutes of allcommittee meetings.

SENRAC consists of 20 members.Although these members representparticular interests, natural coalitionsformed around particular issues, andcertain members were identified asspokespersons for these coalitions.

Interested parties who were notselected to membership on theCommittee were provided anopportunity to contribute to thenegotiated rulemaking effort in thefollowing ways:

(1) by being placed on the Committeemailing list and submitting writtencomments to the Committee asappropriate;

(2) by attending the Committeemeetings, which were open to thepublic, caucusing with the SENRACmember representing his or her intereston the Committee, and addressing theCommittee (usually allowed at the end

of the discussion of an issue or the endof a session, as time permitted); and/or

(3) by participating in a workgroupestablished by the Committee.

Informal workgroups were establishedby SENRAC to assist the Committee in‘‘staffing’’ various technical matters(e.g., researching or preparingsummaries of the technical literature orcommenting on particular mattersbefore the Committee) to facilitateCommittee deliberations. They alsoassisted in drafting regulatory text. Theworkgroups were made up of SENRACmembers and other parties who hadexpertise or a particular interest in thetechnical matter(s) being studied.

SENRAC began negotiations in mid-June, 1994, and has met 11 times. Initialmeetings dealt with procedural matters,including schedules, agendas and theestablishment of workgroups.Workgroups addressed major issues,such as Scope, Fall Protection, Joists,Slippery Surfaces, Pre-Engineered MetalBuildings, and Cranes. Duringsubsequent meetings, the foundationsfor negotiations were established andpreliminary resolutions of issues werereached. Through negotiations at fullCommittee meetings and optionsdeveloped by Committee workgroups,the Committee reached consensus on aproposed revision to the regulatory textfor subpart R. This preamble addressesthat text, which is the basis for OSHA’sproposed rule.

During SENRAC negotiations, theCommittee addressed some difficultissues. Particularly controversial wasthe relationship between the fallprotection requirements of subpart M(OSHA’s standard for Fall Protection inconstruction) and such requirements inthe steel erection context. Subpart Mwas published in the Federal Registeron August 9, 1994 (59 FR 40672), andbecame effective on February 6, 1995.Initially, that standard applied to steelerection in non-building structures suchas tanks, towers and bridges but not tosteel erection in buildings. On October7, 1994, five steel erection companiespetitioned OSHA for an administrativestay of final subpart M to the extent thatthe standard applied to steel erectionactivities. The companies alleged thatthey had not received fair notice that therequirements of subpart M would applyto steel erection in non-buildingstructures such as bridges, tanks andtowers and that, in consequence, theyhad not had the opportunity tocomment on the issue. Subsequently,OSHA agreed to stay subpart M as itapplied to such activities andannounced this decision to SENRAC onDecember 8, 1994. The Committee wasinformed that the Agency had decided

to consider fall protection standards forall steel erection activities in the subpartR rulemaking as part of the SENRACprocess. OSHA also indicated that itintends to address any aspects of steelerection fall protection not ultimatelyaddressed by SENRAC by proposing toinclude them under subpart M or in aseparate regulation, after notice andcomment.

On January 26, 1995, OSHA issued anotice in the Federal Register (60 FR5131) delaying the application ofsubpart M to non-building steel erectionactivities until August 6, 1995. OnAugust 2, 1995, OSHA published afollow-up notice in the Federal Register(60 FR 39254) amending subpart M toindicate that its provisions did not coversteel erection, and that requirementsrelating to fall protection for employeesperforming steel erection work areincluded in § 1926.105 and in subpart R.The notice also stated that, until suchtime as subparts M and R have beenrevised, the Agency’s enforcementpolicy on fall protection during steelerection would be the policy outlined inDeputy Assistant Secretary James R.Stanley’s July 10, 1995, memorandum tothe Office of Field Programs, ‘‘FallProtection in Steel Erection’’ (Ex. 9–13F)(see full discussion of this memo inthe fall protection section below). Thenotice also noted the Agency’s intentionto conduct a supplemental rulemakingin the near future, to provide anopportunity for public comment on theextension of subpart M coverage to anysteel erection activity that subpart Rdoes not address.

OSHA believes that the proposedsubpart R will help to reduce thesignificant risk of death and seriousinjury that has continued to confrontworkers engaged in steel erectionactivities. In addition, the clarified andrevised language of the proposal willhelp employers and employeesunderstand the requirements of the steelerection standard and will improveworker safety by clarifying andconsolidating current requirements intoa single set of provisions that will beeasier for employers to understand.OSHA is also proposing changes andadditions to the current rules to providemore protective requirements and toclose gaps in the current rule’s coverageof steel erection hazards. Theseproposed revisions have been achievedthrough the SENRAC negotiations, withactive participation from workgroupmembers such as the Steel Joist Institute(SJI), American Institute for SteelConstruction (AISC), Steel ErectorsAssociation of America (SEAA),American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI),Metal Building Manufacturers


Association (MBMA), Steel DeckInstitute (SDI), National Association ofMiscellaneous, Ornamental andArchitectural Products Contractors(NAMOA), the Institute of theIronworking Industry (III), theIronworkers Employers Associations ofWashington, D.C. and WesternPennsylvania (IWEA), and the AlliedBuilding Metal Industries. Theseorganizations, although not members ofthe Committee, were able to contributesignificantly to the negotiations throughrecommendations they made at variousfull Committee and workgroupmeetings. This proposal has also beenreviewed by OSHA’s AdvisoryCommittee on Construction Safety andHealth (ACCSH). ACCSH was keptinformed of SENRAC’s progressthroughout the negotiated rulemakingprocess and was given copies of thedraft consensus regulatory text (Exs. 9–147, 9–148).

In summary, the SENRAC Committeewas established by OSHA to negotiate adraft revision of the steel erectionstandard to serve as the basis for aproposed rule. The Committee and itsworkgroups met over an 18-monthperiod and recommended a consensusdocument to OSHA. OSHA believes thatthe consensus document reflects theconcerted effort of the entire steelerection community—steel erectors(both union and non-union); employeerepresentatives; steel fabricators; majorproducers of domestic steel;manufacturers of steel joists, steel deck,steel coatings, pre-engineered metalbuildings and safety equipment;insurance interests; safety consultants;and construction safety associations—todevelop a comprehensive, workable andenforceable proposed standard for thesafe erection of steel. In accordance withthe Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990and the Department of Labor’sNegotiated Rulemaking Policy (57 FR61925), the draft regulatory text andaccompanying rationale presented toOSHA by the SENRAC Committeeconstitute the basis for this proposedrule.

In this Notice of ProposedRulemaking (NPRM), OSHA providesnotice to all affected employers andemployees of these proposed revisionsto subpart R, which the Agency believesare necessary to protect employees.OSHA believes the clarified language ofthe proposal will help employers toprotect their employees more effectivelyand to comply more readily.

III. Pertinent Legal AuthorityThe purpose of the Occupational

Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 651et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), is ‘‘to assure so far

as possible every working man andwoman in the Nation safe and healthfulworking conditions and to preserve ourhuman resources.’’ 29 U.S.C. § 651(b).To achieve this goal, Congressauthorized the Secretary of Labor topromulgate and enforce occupationalsafety and health standards (see 29U.S.C. §§ 655(a) (authorizing summaryadoption of existing consensus andfederal standards within two years ofAct’s enactment), 655(b) (authorizingpromulgation of standards pursuant tonotice and comment), 654(b) (requiringemployers to comply with OSHAstandards)).

A safety or health standard is astandard ‘‘which requires conditions, orthe adoption or use of one or morepractices, means, methods, operations,or processes, reasonably necessary orappropriate to provide safe or healthfulemployment’’ (29 U.S.C. § 652(8)).

A standard is reasonably necessary orappropriate within the meaning ofSection 652(8) if it substantially reducesor eliminates significant risk, and iseconomically feasible, technologicallyfeasible, and cost effective, and isconsistent with prior Agency action oris a justified departure, is supported bysubstantial evidence, and is better ableto effectuate the Act’s purposes than anynational consensus standard itsupersedes. See 58 FR 16612—16616(March 30, 1993).

OSHA has generally considered, atminimum, a fatality risk of 1/1000 overa 45-year working lifetime to be asignificant health risk. See the Benzenedecision Industrial Union Dep’t v.American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S.607, 646 (1980); the Asbestos decisionBuilding and Constr. Trades Dep’t, AFL–CIO v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258, 1265 (D.C.Cir. 1988); the Formaldehyde decisionInternational Union, UAW v.Pendergrass, 878 F.2d 389, 392 (D.C.Cir. 1989).

A standard is technologically feasibleif the protective measures it requiresalready exist, can be brought intoexistence with available technology, orcan be created with technology that canreasonably be expected to be developed.American Textile Mfrs. Institute v.OSHA, 452 U.S. 490, 513(1981)(‘‘ATMI’’); AISI v. OSHA, 939F.2d 975, 980 (D.C. Cir. 1991)(‘‘AISI’’).

A standard is economically feasible ifindustry can absorb or pass on the costsof compliance without threatening itslong term profitability or competitivestructure. See ATMI, 452 U.S. at 530 n.55; AISI, 939 F.2d at 980. A standard iscost effective if the protective measuresit requires are the least costly of theavailable alternatives that achieve thesame level of protection. ATMI, 453 U.S.

at 514 n. 32; International Union, UAWv. OSHA, 37 F.3d 665, 668 (D.C. Cir.1994) (‘‘LOTO III’’).

Section 6(b)(7) authorizes OSHA toinclude among a standard’srequirements labeling, monitoring,medical testing and other informationgathering and transmittal provisions. 29U.S.C. § 655(b)(7).

All standards must be highlyprotective. See 58 FR at 16614–16615;LOTO III, 37 F.3d at 669. Finally,whenever practical, standards shall ‘‘beexpressed in terms of objective criteriaand of the performance desired.’’ Id.

IV. Hazards in Steel ErectionAccidents during steel erection

continue to cause injuries and fatalitiesat construction sites. Based on a reviewof compliance problems and publiccomments over the past several years,OSHA believes that the currentstandard, which has been in place withlittle change for 25 years, needs acomplete revision to provide greaterprotection and eliminate ambiguity andconfusion. OSHA believes thatreorganizing the standard’srequirements into a more logicalsequence and providing more effectiveprotection will help employers tounderstand better how to protect theiremployees from the hazards associatedwith steel erection and will thus reducethe incidence of injuries and fatalities inthis workforce.

OSHA tracks fatalities through itsIntegrated Management InformationSystem (IMIS), which captures a largepercentage of the fatalities in the steelerection industry; however, detailedinformation on the conditions that giverise to steel erection accidents is lessreadily available. The best available dataare derived from NIOSH and industrystudies and from the Bureau of LaborStatistics (BLS) (Ex. 9–39). DuringSENRAC negotiations, OSHA staff and aCommittee statistical workgroupanalyzed accident information derivedfrom OSHA’s IMIS system (Exs. 9–14Aand 9–42). Of the data reviewed, theIMIS fatality/catastrophe reportsprovided the richest source of accidentdescriptions. However, it was frequentlydifficult for OSHA and the Committee todetermine several critical elements,such as the precise activity beingundertaken at the time of the accident,whether the victim was a trainedironworker, or the type of structureunder construction or repair.

Nevertheless, OSHA believes that theIMIS reports, combined with thecollective experience of the members ofthe SENRAC workgroup, provide a solidbasis for identifying the types of hazardsthat result in accidents during steel


erection. An analysis of OSHA fatality/catastrophe data was performed by theSENRAC Statistical Workgroup whichanalyzed an eleven-year period (January1984 through November 1994) anddetermined that 323 fatal accidentsinvolved factors that are addressed bothby OSHA’s current and proposed steelerection standards [Ex. 9–42,Attachment C]. After categorizing theaccidents according to primarycontributing factors, the SENRACworkgroup concluded that the leadinginitial cause of accidents was slips (23.8percent). The next highest categorieswere unknown (17.3 percent) andcollapse (15.8 percent). Categorizing theaccidents in the IMIS database by theimmediate (final) cause of death, theSENRAC analysis reveals that 284 of the323 fatalities (87.9 percent) involvedfalls from various heights where fallprotection was either not provided ornot used. Categorized by activity,decking was associated with the mostfatalities (22.9 percent), followed byconnecting (17.0 percent) and bolting(11.5 percent). An OSHA staffevaluation of these reports for an eightyear period (January 1984 throughDecember 1990) revealed that fatalitiesassociated with various types ofaccidents were caused by the followingfactors:

• Collapses while landing or placinga load—most were the result of placingloads on unsecured or unbridged joists.

• Collapses while connecting joists ortrusses—most were the result ofprematurely disconnecting the cranebefore the piece was secure.

• Workers struck by objects duringmiscellaneous activities—most were theresult of walking or working under aload.

• Workers struck by objects and thenfalling—most were the result of beingstruck while landing a load or makinga connection, by a tool slipping, or bya piece of decking being blown off a pilewhen fall protection was not providedor used.

• Improper use or failure of fallprotection—most were the result ofemployee failure to use available fallprotection systems even though theworker was wearing a belt (and in somecases lifelines were rigged).

• Unsecured or unstable decking—most were the result of stepping onto orworking on unsecured decking thatslipped out of place when fallprotection was not provided or used.

• Other falls during deckingactivities—most were the result ofstepping off the metal decking ontoinsulation (and then falling to theground) during roofing operations

where fall protection was not providedor used.

• Plumbing, bolting, welding andcutting—most were the result of theworker not being tied off while at thework station (whether or not fallprotection was provided).

• Walking/standing on the beam/joist(i.e., moving point-to-point)—most wereslips or falls where fall protection wasnot provided or used.

Based upon these analyses, OSHA haspreliminarily determined that theSENRAC recommendations would,taken together, generally address thosesituations that have caused a significantnumber of ironworker catastrophes andfatalities in the past.

For the time period examined, thefatality/catastrophe reports describedaccidents that involved at least onefatality or 5 hospitalizations. (In April,1994, the reporting criterion waschanged to 1 fatality or 3hospitalizations (59 FR 15594).) Thesereports do not cover the entire universeof steel erection accidents; for example,an individual accident that did notresult in a fatality would not be reportedin the IMIS reports. Nonetheless, theIMIS data enabled OSHA to broadlycharacterize the fatality data in a waythat permitted the estimation of baselinerisk for specific types of steel erectionhazards.

For its assessment of baseline risk insteel erection, OSHA used fatality datafrom the Bureau of Labor Statistics’(BLS) Census of Fatal OccupationalInjuries and distributed the dataaccording to the committee’scategorization of the OSHA IMISaccident data. BLS reports that over theperiod 1982–1993, structural metalworkers experienced an average of 40fatalities per year. OSHA determinedthat, of these fatalities, approximately28 deaths per year were caused byfactors that are addressed by theproposed standard (see the preliminaryeconomic analysis, Chapter III,summarized below in Section VII).Furthermore, results from the 1992 BLSinjury survey identify 1,836 lost-workday injuries (1,164 ‘‘struck-by’’injuries and 672 ‘‘falls to lower levels’’)whose circumstances would beaddressed by provisions in the proposedstandard. With an estimated workforceof 38,980 iron workers in construction([BLS, Occupational EmploymentStatistics Survey, 1993]; see thepreliminary economic analysis), OSHAconcludes that these baseline fatalityand injury levels are high and clearlypose a significant risk to these workersthat justifies Agency action. Therefore,OSHA has undertaken this negotiatedrulemaking to reduce these significant

risk levels. OSHA preliminarilyconcludes that the proposed standardwill substantially reduce this significantrisk.

Even though detailed data targetedexclusively at steel erection accidentsare not available, steel erection isknown to have a high rate of seriousaccidents. Available sources ofinformation on steel erection injuriesand fatalities include a draft report onfatal work-related falls in structural steelerection (Ex. 9–13E); a draft NationalInstitute for Occupational Safety andHealth (NIOSH) document entitled‘‘Structural Steel Erection: Falls’’ (Ex. 9–15); the report of the SENRAC StatisticalWorkgroup (Exs. 9–42 and 9–49); acomparison of non-union and unioncontractor construction fatalities (Ex. 9–85); and a report on fatalities in theconstruction industry in the UnitedStates, 1992 and 1993, by the Center toProtect Workers’ Rights (Ex. 9–119). TheCommittee urged OSHA to useimproved technology to collect moredetailed steel erection fatalityinspection data. OSHA agrees withSENRAC on this issue, because animproved fatality data base will permita more in-depth analysis of constructionfatalities and provide information notavailable at the time of the negotiationson the most hazardous types ofconstruction and construction activitiesby occupation. In response, OSHA hasdeveloped and implemented anenhanced coding system which must beused by OSHA compliance officerswhen recording construction fatalityinvestigations for entry into theAgency’s IMIS. This system wasimplemented nationally on January 1,1997. The data OSHA is now recordingwhen making fatality investigations willprovide a rich source of detailedinformation indicating how and whereconstruction fatalities occur.

Three years after the rule becomesfinal, OSHA will use the improvedfatality data to evaluate the rule’seffectiveness. Based upon thisevaluation, a determination will bemade as to whether modifications to thestandard are necessary (see Ex. 9–130).

The following examples from OSHA’sIMIS reports of accident investigationsillustrate the types of accidents thatoccur in steel erection (Ex. 9–157):

1. April 25, 1990: 1 Fatality and 3injuries. Four employees were sitting onsteel roof beams. Two employees werebolting beams to columns and the othertwo employees were sitting on thebeams connecting roof purlins. A gust ofwind caused the columns to topple ina domino fashion. One of the employeesconnecting roof purlins fell 25 feet tohis death and the other three employees


fell and were hospitalized. OSHAbelieves that compliance with theanchor bolt requirements of proposed§ 1926.755(a) could have prevented thisaccident by requiring that all columnsbe anchored by a minimum of fouranchor bolts and that unstable columnsbe guyed or braced where deemednecessary by a competent person.

2. July 23, 1984: Fatality. Anemployee was welding roof deckingadjacent to an unguarded staircaseopening. The employee fell through theopening 57 feet to the sub-level anddied of multiple injuries. OSHAbelieves that compliance with proposed§ 1926.754(e)(2) could have preventedthis accident by requiring properprocedures for cutting and coveringfloor and roof openings.

3. October 5, 1988: Fatality. Whilewalking atop structural steel checkingjoints and bolts, an employee slipped ormisjudged his footing and fellapproximately 20 feet to the concretefloor below, resulting in his death.OSHA believes that compliance withthe fall protection requirements ofproposed § 1926.760(a)(1) could haveprevented the accident by ensuring thatthe employee was properly protectedfrom fall hazards.

4. July 24, 1987: Fatality. Whilebolting-up, an employee’s foot slipped,causing him to fall nearly 24 feet headfirst to the concrete below. OSHAbelieves that compliance with the fallprotection requirements of proposed§ 1926.760(a)(1) could have preventedthe accident by ensuring that theemployee was properly protected fromfall hazards.

OSHA believes that in this case andthe case before, compliance with theproposed fall protection requirements in§ 1926.760(a)(1) could have preventedthese fatalities by requiring thatemployees on a walking/workingsurface with an unprotected side or edgemore than 15 feet above a lower level beprotected from fall hazards.

5. November 12, 1987: Fatality. Anemployee was connecting X-bracing atthe end of a bar joist. The joist was 40feet long and welded at one end. Theemployee was sitting on the joistconnecting the X-bracing when the joistslipped. The employee rode the joistdown 25 feet and died of massive headinjuries. OSHA believes that compliancewith existing § 1926.751(c)(3) or theclarified and more comprehensiveprovisions of proposed § 1926.757, theopen web steel joist section, and morespecifically with paragraph (d)(1), couldhave prevented the accident by ensuringthat specific erection bridgingrequirements were met before thehoisting cable was released from a joist.

6. April 2, 1987: 1 Fatality, 1hospitalized injury. Two employees hadunloaded 2 bundles of metal decking, 2bundles of bridging and 2 bundles ofroof frames onto 6 open web steel joists25 feet above ground level. The joistswere at 51⁄2 foot centers and welded onthe end to the ‘‘I’’ beam. The employeeshad just unhooked the second bundle offrames when the joist rolled, causing theemployees to fall. All six joists brokefrom the welds and collapsed, landingon the employee. OSHA believes thatthis accident also could have beenprevented by compliance with theproposed open web steel joist section ofthe proposed standard. Specifically, theproposed provisions of § 1926.757(e)provide criteria to be met before landingloads on joists. The requirements ofcurrent subpart R are not as complete orcomprehensive in this regard.

OSHA believes that the proposedprovisions will enhance employeeprotections by adding new requirementsto close gaps in current coverage,strengthening many of the existingrequirements, and promotingcompliance by clarifying andconsolidating current requirements. Forfurther discussion of accident rates andsignificant risk, see Section VII,Preliminary Economic Analysis.

Based on the available informationreferenced in OSHA’s preliminaryeconomic analysis and other recordevidence, OSHA finds that structuralmetal workers are faced with asignificant risk of serious injury or deaththat can be reduced substantially by therevisions contained in this proposal.The Agency has estimated that, eachyear, approximately 38,980 workers inthe United States suffer 1,836 serious(i.e., lost-workday) steel erectioninjuries. In addition, an estimated 28steel erection workers die every yearbecause of preventable hazardousworkplace conditions. OSHA’s analysishas estimated that, of the 28 annualsteel erection fatalities, 26 (93 percent)will be averted by compliance with theproposed standard. Additionally, of the1,836 lost-workday steel erectioninjuries occurring annually, OSHA’sanalysis estimates that 1,151 (63percent) will be averted by compliancewith the proposed standard. Therefore,OSHA preliminarily finds it bothnecessary and appropriate to proceedwith rulemaking for steel erectionactivities.

V. Summary and Explanation of theProposed Standard

The following discussion summarizesand explains each provision in theproposal and the substantive changesproposed to be made to the provisions

of OSHA’s existing steel erectionstandard.

Section 1926.750 Scope andapplication

The existing standard does notcontain a scope and application section.OSHA is proposing to add this newsection to clarify that the standardwould apply to employers engaged inthe erection, alteration and/or repair ofsteel in single and multi-story buildings,bridges and other structures where steelerection occurs as well as to identifysome of the specific activities that maybe included in steel erection.

Paragraph (a) Scope. This proposedparagraph states the purpose of thesubpart, which is to protect employeesfrom the hazards associated with steelerection in the construction, alterationand/or repair of single and multi-storybuildings, bridges, and other structureswhere steel erection occurs. The factthat the existing standard does notclearly address scope has caused muchdebate in the past over what structuresare covered by subpart R. Thisparagraph would also clarify thatsubpart R does not apply to electricaltransmission towers, communicationand broadcast towers, or tanks. Thesestructures are covered by provisions inother subparts of Part 1926.

Paragraph (b) Application. In thisparagraph, OSHA lists the steel erectionactivities that may be covered bysubpart R.

When SENRAC began negotiations onsubpart R, the scope and application ofsubpart R was anticipated to be a majorissue for deliberation. At the firstmeeting, the Committee formed aworkgroup to determine what theproposed scope of subpart R should be.The Committee wanted to state clearlythat this proposed steel erectionstandard would apply to more thanmulti-story buildings. The workgrouprecommended, and the Committeeagreed, that steel erection activitiesshould include hoisting, connecting,welding, bolting, and rigging structuralsteel, steel joists and metal buildings.The Committee also decided that steelerection activities should include theinstallation of metal deck, sidingsystems, miscellaneous metals,ornamental iron and similar materials aswell as moving point-to-point whileperforming these activities. OSHA isproposing to include these activitiesamong those considered to be steelerection activities, as recommended bythe Committee.

In an attempt to clarify whatstructures and activities could beconsidered steel erection, the scope andapplication paragraph includes an


extensive list of structures and activitiesas developed by SENRAC (see notes toparagraphs (a) and (b) of proposed§ 1926.750). The notes are an attempt toensure that employers performing thelisted activities will be aware that theycould potentially be covered by theproposed steel erection standard.

SENRAC intended the notes toenhance compliance by listingstructures where steel erection couldoccur since many of the structures listeddo not always involve steel erection.Likewise, the steel erection activitieslisted include examples of constructionactivities that are sometimes involved insteel erection but may not always beconducted by the steel erector. Simplybecause an employee is working on alisted structure or is performing a listedactivity does not necessarily mean thatthe employee is engaged in steelerection. Thus, there is no presumptionthat every listed item constitutes a steelerection activity or operation. Todetermine whether a given activity on aparticular structure does indeedconstitute steel erection, the employerfirst must determine that steel erectionis actually being performed and that theactivities being performed are coveredby this subpart. This determinationwould be based on the followingcriteria: (1) Whether the work fallswithin the definition of steel erectionfound in proposed § 1926.751; and (2)Whether the structure being erected andthe activities being performed fallwithin the scope and applicationparagraphs found in proposed§ 1926.750. In other words, in order tobe covered by subpart R, as proposed,work would have to fit within thedefinition of steel erection, the scope ofthe proposed standard, and theapplication of the proposed standard.

The Committee discussed at lengththe differences between constructionand maintenance because theconstruction industry performs millionsof manhours per year of ‘‘industrialmaintenance’’ work. The definition ofconstruction contained in the Davis-Bacon Act is:

Construction work means work forconstruction, alteration, and/or repair,including painting and decorating.

OSHA has interpreted this definition toinclude alteration, repair, renovation,rehabilitation and remodeling ofexisting facilities or structure.

After clarifying that work is definedbased on the nature of the work beingperformed rather than on the job title ofthe worker performing it, SENRACagreed that the scope of proposedsubpart R should be governed by thedefinition of construction work

contained in § 1910.12(b), § 1926.13 and§ 1926.32(g).

SENRAC debated extensively thedetailed lists of structures and activities.The Committee decided that these listsshould be placed in the standard itselfin paragraphs (a) and (b), respectively,because they stated the broad range ofstructures and activities that might becovered by subpart R. The lists areintended to enhance compliance bylisting structures where steel erectioncould occur. OSHA is proposing theselists for comment from interestedparties. Specifically, are these listsnecessary? Do they clarify the extent ofsteel erection activities? Will theyintroduce confusion by suggesting thatall steel erection activities andstructures are included in these lists or,alternatively, that any listed activityperformed on a listed structurenecessarily constitutes steel erection?Because of their size, would they bemore effective as an appendix to therule or in compliance materials?

OSHA is proposing that the scope ofsubpart R exclude electricaltransmission towers, communicationand broadcast towers, and tanks fromcoverage. The Committee concludedthat tower erection is a specialized formof steel erection and that electricaltransmission towers are regulated undersubpart V of 29 CFR Part 1926. Indiscussing potential exclusions from thescope of the proposed standard, theCommittee as a whole expresseduncertainty about the extent to whichthese towers were currently covered byOSHA standards. OSHA provided amemo to the Committee (Ex. 9–53)describing the current coverage oftowers in OSHA standards. Based onthat information and the tower erectionindustry’s reasons for exclusion fromcoverage by subpart R (Ex. 9–127), theCommittee agreed that it would beappropriate to exclude electricaltransmission, communication, andbroadcast towers from the proposedscope. The Committee also believes thattanks should not be included in thescope of subpart R since tankconstruction is also, based on its use ofcylindrical construction techniques, aspecialized industry. In addition, thetank industry has clearly stated itsreasons for not being covered by subpartR (Ex. 9–32F). Since tanks have neverbeen covered by subpart R, OSHA isproposing to exclude them from thescope of revised subpart R, as well, andthe Committee is in agreement with thisapproach. In the case of water towers,OSHA intends subpart R to cover thesteel structure upon which the watertank is supported but not the water tankitself, as recommended by the

Committee. OSHA specifically solicitscomments on the appropriateness ofthese exclusions from the scope of theproposed standard.

Section 1926.751 DefinitionsThe current standard does not contain

a definitions section. Since the proposalis more comprehensive than the existingstandard and refers to many technicalconcepts, terms and materials, adefinition section is being proposed.The proposed definition section listsand defines all major terms used in theproposed standard to assist employersin understanding the proposedprovisions and thus facilitatecompliance.

Anchored bridging. This term wouldbe defined by OSHA to mean that thesteel joist bridging is connected to abridging terminus point. This definitionwas recommended by the Steel JoistInstitute (SJI), accepted by theCommittee and is being proposed byOSHA.

Bolted diagonal bridging. OSHA isproposing to define this term to meandiagonal bridging which is bolted to asteel joist or joists. This definition wasdeveloped by a SENRAC workgroup,was accepted by the Committee, and isbeing proposed by OSHA.

Bridging clip. OSHA is proposing thatthis term be defined as a device that isattached to the steel joist to allow thebolting of the bridging to the steel joist.This definition was recommended bySJI and accepted by the Committee.

Bridging terminus point. This termwould be defined to mean a wall, beam,tandem joists (with all bridging installedand a horizontal truss in the plane of thetop chord) or other element at an end orintermediate point(s) of a line ofbridging that provides an anchor pointfor the steel joist bridging. Thisdefinition was recommended by SJI,accepted by the Committee, and is beingproposed by OSHA.

Choker. OSHA would define this termto mean a wire rope or synthetic fiberrigging assembly that is used to attacha load to a hoisting device. Thisdefinition was developed by a SENRACworkgroup and accepted by theCommittee.

Clipped connection. This term wouldbe defined by OSHA to mean theconnection material on the end of astructural member intended for use in adouble connection which has a notch atthe bottom and/or top to allow thebolt(s) of the first member placed on theopposite side of the central member toremain in place. The notch(es) fitsaround the nut or bolt head of theopposing member to allow the secondmember to be bolted up without


removing the bolt(s) holding the firstmember. This definition was developedby a workgroup of the Committee andaccepted by SENRAC.

Cold formed joist. OSHA defines thisterm as an open web joist fabricatedwith cold formed steel components.This definition was recommended bySJI, was accepted by the Committee, andis being proposed by OSHA.

Cold forming. This term would bedefined by OSHA to mean the processof using press brakes, rolls, or othermethods to shape steel into desiredcross sections at room temperature. Thisdefinition was recommended by theSteel Deck Institute, was accepted bythe Committee, and is being proposedby the Agency.

Competent person. This term isdefined in § 1926.32(f) as one who iscapable of identifying existing andpredictable hazards in the surroundingsor working conditions which areunsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous toemployees, and who has authorizationto take prompt corrective measures toeliminate them. Because of the frequentuse of the term in this proposal, theCommittee urged OSHA to repeat thisdefinition in subpart R even though thedefinition appears in § 1926.32 andapplies to all of the standards containedin 29 CFR Part 1926, and OSHA agreeswith the Committee’s recommendation.The Committee reasoned that anemployer performing steel erectionshould be able to locate the competentperson definition in subpart R instead ofhaving to search for it elsewhere in Part1926.

Composite joists. OSHA defines thisterm to mean steel joists designed to actin composite action with concrete floorand (or) concrete roof slabs. Typically,a portion of the top chord of the joist (ora lug or similar device attached to thetop chord of the joist) is embedded inthe concrete slab. This definition wasdeveloped by a SENRAC workgroup andaccepted by the Committee.

Connector. OSHA would define thisterm to mean an employee who,working with hoisting equipment, isplacing and connecting structuralmembers and/or components. Afterlengthy discussion on how to definewhat a connector is and what tasks aconnector performs, the Committeedecided to define as narrowly aspossible the activities that a connectorperforms in light of the connector-specific proposed fall protectionprovisions in § 1926.760, which will bediscussed later in the preamble. OSHArequests comment on this definition.

Construction load for joist erection.This term would be defined to mean anyload other than the weight of the

employee(s), the joists and the bridgingbundle. This definition wasrecommended by SJI, accepted by theCommittee, and is being proposed byOSHA.

Controlled Decking Zone (CDZ). Thisterm would be defined by OSHA tomean an area in which certain work(e.g., initial installation and placementof metal deck) may take place withoutthe use of guardrail systems, personalfall arrest systems or safety net systemsprovided that alternative procedures(e.g., controlled access, worker training,use of control lines or equivalent) areimplemented. Controlled decking zonesare discussed in proposed § 1926.760(c).OSHA requests comment on thenecessity of defining a CDZ since all ofthe requirements for a CDZ are inproposed § 1926.760(c). If it is necessaryto define a CDZ, is this an appropriatedefinition?

Controlled load lowering. OSHAwould define this term to meanlowering a load by means of amechanical hoist drum device thatallows a hoisted load to be lowered withmaximum control using the gear train orhydraulic components of the hoistmechanism. Controlled load loweringrequires the use of the hoist drive motorto lower the load. This definition wasdeveloped by a SENRAC workgroup andaccepted by the Committee. Controlledload lowering is an essential componentof the multiple lift rigging procedureand the hoisting of personnel platformsaddressed in proposed § 1926.753.

Controlling contractor. OSHA woulddefine this term to mean a primecontractor, general contractor,construction manager or any other legalentity at the site who has, by contractwith other parties, the overallresponsibility for the project, itsplanning, quality and completion and isintended to describe an entity inaddition to the steel erector who isresponsible for hazards that result frompoor performance, pre-planning, orcommunication. Based on its analysis ofactual steel erection fatalities,catastrophes and collapses, theCommittee agreed that many hazardoussituations could have been avoided if,for example, concrete foundations hadbeen properly cured, anchor bolts thatwere replaced had been properlyrepaired, or cranes had beenappropriately placed to avoid overheadexposure. All of these primarily fallwithin the responsibility of thecontrolling contractor. In several of theproposed revisions, therefore, OSHA isproposing, based on the Committee’srecommendation, that the controllingcontractor be held responsible forcommunicating with the steel erector to

prevent accidents from happeningduring certain activities; see, forexample, § 1926.752(a), (b) and (c)(Approval to begin steel erection, sitelayout and overhead protection,respectively); § 1926.755(b)(3) (Repair,replacement or field modification ofanchor bolts); § 1926.759(b) (Fallingobject protection); and § 1926.760(e)(Fall protection). OSHA solicitscomments from interested parties on theappropriateness of this approach toensuring accountability for adequateplanning and coordination.

Critical lift. OSHA proposes to definethis term to mean a lift that (1) exceeds75% of the rated capacity of the craneor derrick, or (2) requires the use ofmore than one crane or derrick. Thisdefinition was developed by a SENRACworkgroup and accepted by theCommittee.

Decking hole. OSHA would definethis term to mean a gap or void morethan 2 inches (5.1 cm) in its leastdimension and less than 12 inches (30.5cm) in its greatest dimension in a floor,roof or other walking/working surface.Pre-engineered holes in cellular deckingare not included in this definition. Thisdefinition was developed by a SENRACworkgroup to be industry specific andwas accepted by the Committee. Theworkgroup borrowed part of thisdefinition from the subpart M definitionof ‘‘hole.’’ The subpart M definition wasmodified, however, to limit the size ofa hole to more than 2 inches in its leastdimension and less than 12 inches in itsgreatest dimension to be compatiblewith the definition of an opening(defined later). The proposed definitionof decking hole and the proposeddefinition of opening differ from thesubpart M definitions in that subpart Muses the term ‘‘hole’’ to describe allholes and openings in floors, roofs andother walking/working surfaces anduses the term ‘‘opening’’ to apply onlyto holes and openings in walls. Bycustom and practice, the common usageof these same terms in steel erectionrefers to different situations andhazards. In steel erection, a hole is acommonly used term that means a smallgap or void that presents a trippinghazard or a falling object hazard and anopening is a larger gap or void in awalking/working surface that presents afall hazard to the employee. Therefore,to be more industry specific, OSHA isproposing to define ‘‘decking hole’’ and‘‘opening’’ based on the size of the gapor void in a floor, roof or other walking/working surface only. This proposalcontains requirements that treat‘‘decking holes’’ and ‘‘openings’’differently, which necessitates having


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

Derrick floor. This term, which wasdeveloped by a SENRAC workgroup andaccepted by the Committee, would bedefined by OSHA to mean that elevatedfloor of a building or structure that hasbeen designated to receive hoistedpieces of steel prior to their finalplacement.

Double connection. OSHA proposes todefine this term to mean an attachmentmethod where the connection point isintended for two pieces of steel whichshare common bolts on either side of acentral piece. This definition wasdeveloped by the Committee to addressthe serious collapse hazard involved inmaking this complex connection.Double connections are discussed inproposed § 1926.756(c).

Erection bridging. OSHA woulddefine this term to mean the bolteddiagonal bridging that must be installedprior to releasing the hoisting cablesfrom the steel joists. This definition wasrecommended by SJI and accepted bythe Committee and the term is found inproposed § 1926.757, Open Web SteelJoists.

Fall restraint (Positioning device)system. This term would be defined byOSHA to mean a body belt or bodyharness used to prevent an employeefrom free falling more than 24 inches(61 cm) and where self rescue can beassured. Such a system consists of ananchorage, connectors, a body belt orharness and may include a lanyard,deceleration device, lifeline, or suitablecombination of these. This definitionwas developed by the Committee, andthe term is used in proposed § 1926.760,Fall Protection. The criteria for‘‘positioning device systems’’ found in§ 1926.502(e) would apply to thesetypes of fall restraint systems used insteel erection.

Girt (in pre-engineered metalbuildings). This term would be definedby OSHA to mean a ‘‘Z’’ or ‘‘C’’ shapedmember formed from sheet steelspanning between primary framing andsupporting wall material. Thisdefinition was developed by a SENRACworkgroup, accepted by the Committee,and the term is used in proposed§ 1926.758, Pre-engineered MetalBuildings.

Headache ball. OSHA proposes todefine this term to mean a weightedhook that is used to attach loads to thehoist load line of the crane. Thisdefinition was developed by a SENRACworkgroup, accepted by the Committee,and is used in proposed § 1926.753,Hoisting and Rigging.

Hoisting equipment. This term wouldbe defined to mean commercially

manufactured lifting equipmentdesigned to lift and position a load ofknown weight to an erection location atsome known elevation and horizontaldistance from the equipment’s center ofrotation. ‘‘Hoisting equipment’’ includesbut is not limited to cranes, derricks,tower cranes, barge-mounted derricks orcranes, gin poles and gantry hoistsystems. The Committee developed adefinition for hoisting equipment thatwould include all equipment that isused in steel erection to lift loads to aspecified location. The intent was toensure that this equipment is not strictlylimited to cranes. The definition wasalso crafted to avoid a situation wherea steel erector might elect tocharacterize employees who are not trueconnectors, e.g., detailers, as connectorsby providing them with a ‘‘come-a-long’’to meet the definition of connector.Thus, a ‘‘come-a-long’’ would not beincluded in the definition of hoistingequipment because a ‘‘come-a-long’’ is amechanical device, usually consisting ofa chain or cable attached at each end,that is used to facilitate movement ofmaterials through leverage rather thantrue hoisting equipment.

Leading edge. OSHA proposes todefine this term to mean theunprotected side and edge of a floor,roof, or formwork for a floor or otherwalking/working surface (such as deck)which changes location as additionalfloor, roof, decking or formworksections are placed, formed orconstructed. This definition is based onthe subpart M definition of ‘‘leadingedge’’ but was enhanced by theCommittee which added ‘‘unprotectedside and’’ before ‘‘edge’’ to clarify thatall unprotected sides and edges wouldbe defined in subpart R as leadingedges.

Metal deck. This term would bedefined by OSHA to mean acommercially manufactured, structuralgrade, cold rolled metal panel formedinto a series of parallel ribs; for thissubpart, this would include metal floorand roof decks, standing seam metalroofs, other metal roof systems andother products such as bar gratings,checker plate, expanded metal panels,and similar products. After installationand proper fastening, these deckingmaterials serve a combination offunctions including, but not limited to:a structural element designed incombination with the structure to resist,distribute and transfer loads, stiffen thestructure and provide a diaphragmaction; a walking/working surface; aform for concrete slabs; a support forroofing systems; and a finished floor orroof. This definition was developed bya SENRAC workgroup and accepted by

the Committee. This workgroup believesthat, for the purposes of steel erection,rather than referring to several similarbuilding materials associated with aparticular hazard, a generic term shouldbe defined and then be usedconsistently in the standard. Since thematerials listed in this definition are allsimilarly installed and eventuallybecome walking/working surfaces, theworkgroup believes that a single termwould provide both greater clarity andfacilitate compliance. In developing thisdefinition, the workgroup relied on theSteel Deck Institute (SDI) ‘‘Manual ofConstruction with Steel Deck,’’ inaddition to its own collective expertise.

Multiple lift rigging. OSHA woulddefine this term to mean a riggingassembly manufactured by wire roperigging suppliers that facilitates theattachment of up to five independentloads to the hoist rigging of a crane. Thisdefinition was developed by a SENRACworkgroup and accepted by theCommittee.

Opening. OSHA would define thisterm to mean a gap or void 12 inches(30.5 cm) or more in its least dimensionin a floor, roof or other walking/workingsurface. For the purposes of thissubpart, skylights and smoke domes thatdo not meet the strength requirementsfor covered openings in § 1926.760(d)(1)would be regarded as openings. Thisdefinition was developed by a SENRACworkgroup to prevent workers fromsitting or walking on covers that areinsufficient to support their weight. Thelast sentence of the definition wasadded to ensure that skylights andsmoke domes would not be consideredcovered if they do not meet the strengthrequirements for covered openings in§ 1926.760(d)(1) and therefore must beprotected by other means. Thisdefinition differs from the definition insubpart M of this part as discussedearlier in the definition of ‘‘deckinghole.’’

Permanent floor. This term would bedefined by OSHA to mean a structurallycompleted floor at any level or elevation(including slab on grade). A floor wouldbe considered a permanent floor whenall the work contained on the structuralcontract documents has been completedfor that floor. Concrete poured on metaldeck and grating or floor plate appliedto structural members would beconsidered permanent floors. Thisdefinition was developed by theCommittee to promote clarity.

Personal fall arrest system. OSHAwould define this term to mean a systemused to arrest an employee in a fall froma working level; a personal fall arrestsystem consists of an anchorage,connectors, and a body harness and may


include a lanyard, deceleration device,lifeline, or suitable combination ofthese. The Committee recommendedthat this definition be identical to thedefinition used in subpart M of thispart.

Pre-engineered metal building. Thisterm would be defined by OSHA tomean a field-assembled building systemconsisting of framing, roof and wallcoverings, and generally made of steel.Typically, in a pre-engineered metalbuilding, many of these components arecold-formed shapes. These individualparts are fabricated in one or moremanufacturing facilities and shipped tothe job site for assembly into the finalstructure. Engineering design of thesystem is normally the responsibility ofthe pre-engineered metal buildingmanufacturer. This definition wasdeveloped by a SENRAC workgroup andaccepted by the Committee.

Project structural engineer of record.This term, which was developed by theCommittee and is used throughout theproposed standard, would be defined byOSHA to mean the registered, licensedprofessional responsible for the designof structural steel framing and whoseseal appears on the structural contractdocuments.

Purlin (in pre-engineered metalbuildings). OSHA proposes to definethis term to mean a ‘‘Z’’ or ‘‘C’’ shapedmember formed from sheet steelspanning between primary framing andsupporting roof material. This definitionwas developed by a SENRAC workgroupand accepted by the Committee.

Qualified person. This term, which isalso defined in § 1926.32(m), would bedefined in the proposed standard tomean one who, by possession of arecognized degree, certificate, orprofessional standing, or who byextensive knowledge, training, andexperience, has successfullydemonstrated the ability to solve orresolve problems relating to the subjectmatter, the work, or the project. As withthe definition of competent person,because of the frequent use of the termin this proposal, the Committee urgedOSHA to repeat this definition insubpart R even though the definitionalready exists in § 1926.32 and appliesto all of the standards contained in 29CFR Part 1926 because repeating itwould enable an employer performingsteel erection to locate the qualifiedperson definition in subpart R instead ofhaving to search for it somewhere elsein Part 1926.

Safety deck attachment. OSHA isproposing to define this term to mean aninitial attachment that is used to securean initially placed sheet of decking tokeep proper alignment and bearing with

structural support members. The termoriginally used in the controlleddecking zone (CDZ) working draft was‘‘safety deck welding’’ and ‘‘tackwelds.’’ Committee members pointedout that there were ways to attach thedecking other than welding, e.g.,mechanical fastening. Since the intent isto safely ‘‘attach’’ the newly placeddecking panels, the proposed rule usesthe broader language recommended bythe Committee.

Seat. This term would be defined byOSHA to mean a structural attachmentmounted to a structural member beneatha connection point, designed to supportan incoming member that is to beconnected to the first member. Thisterm, which was developed by aSENRAC workgroup and accepted bythe Committee, is used in the doubleconnection section, § 1926.756(c).

Shear connector. OSHA is proposingto define this term to include headedsteel studs, steel bars, steel lugs, andsimilar devices which are attached to astructural member for the purpose ofachieving composite action withconcrete, i.e., strengthening the topflange of the beam by interacting withthe concrete to achieve a higherstrength. This definition was developedby the Committee.

Steel erection. This term would bedefined by OSHA to mean the erectionof steel buildings, bridges and otherstructures, including the installation ofsteel flooring and roofing members andall planking and decking used duringthe process of erection. This definitionwas developed by the Committee, andOSHA requests comments on theappropriateness of this definition.

Steel joist. OSHA proposes to definethis term to mean an open web,secondary load-carrying member of 144feet (43.9 m) or less suitable for thesupport of floors and roofs. This termdoes not include structural steel trussesor cold-formed joists. This definitionwas recommended by SJI and acceptedby the Committee.

Steel joist girder. OSHA would definethis term to mean an open web, primaryload-carrying member, designed by themanufacturer, suitable for the support offloors and roofs. This does not includestructural steel trusses. This definitionwas recommended by SJI and acceptedby the Committee.

Steel truss. This term would bedefined by OSHA to mean an open webmember designed of structural steelcomponents by the project structuralengineer of record. For the purposes ofthis subpart, a steel truss would beconsidered equivalent to a solid webstructural member. This definition was

recommended by SJI and accepted bythe Committee.

Unprotected sides and edges. OSHAproposes to define this term to meanany side or edge (except at entrances topoints of access) of a walking/workingsurface, e.g., floor, roof, ramp orrunway, where there is no wall orguardrail system at least 39 inches (1.0m) high. This definition is identical tothe corresponding definition in subpartM of this part.

Section 1926.752 Site Layout, Site-specific Erection Plan and ConstructionSequence

After a review of accident reportsinvolving collapses, the Committeereached the conclusion that many ofthese accidents could have been avertedhad adequate pre-erectioncommunication and planning occurred.This section of the proposed rule setsforth OSHA’s requirements for propercommunication between the controllingcontractor and the steel erector prior tothe beginning of the steel erectionoperation and proper pre-planning bythe steel erector to minimize overheadexposure during hoisting operations;Appendix A, which is referred to in thissection, would also provide guidelinesfor employers who elect to develop asite-specific erection plan. OSHA’scurrent standard does not containprovisions similar to those beingproposed in this section.

Paragraph (a) Approval to begin steelerection.

The Committee recognized that undercurrent practices in the industry,erection decisions are often made in thefield when the steel arrives. TheCommittee believes that pre-planningand coordination are currently notoccurring to the extent they should be.

OSHA agrees that lack of adequateplanning and coordination contributesto accidents and is proposing, inparagraph (a)(1), that the controllingcontractor ensure that the concrete infootings, piers, or walls, or the mortar inmasonry piers and walls has achieved aminimum of 75% of its designcompressive strength prior to theimposition of any structural steel loador has achieved a strength that issufficient to support the loads imposed.This proposed requirement agrees witha recommendation by the AmericanInstitute of Steel Construction (AISC)and is similar to the OSHA requirementfor concrete construction found in§ 1926.703(e)(ii), which requires thatformwork not be removed from cast-in-place concrete ‘‘* * * until the concretehas been properly tested with anappropriate American Society forTesting and Materials (ASTM) standard


test method designed to indicate theconcrete compressive strength, and thetest results indicate that the concretehas gained sufficient strength to supportits weight and superimposed loads.’’Since the footings, piers and wallsintended to be covered by this proposedsection will be supporting the steelstructure being erected, OSHA, as wellas the Committee, wishes to ensure thatthis information is provided to the steelerector before the steel is placed on theconcrete.

Paragraph (a)(2) cross-references§ 1926.755(b) and would require thatany repairs, replacements, and fieldmodifications be performed inaccordance with the anchor boltrequirements contained in§ 1926.755(b). As in the case ofproposed paragraph (a)(1), OSHA, alongwith the Committee, wishes to ensurethat the steel erector is informed of anyrepair, replacement, or modification tothe anchor bolts prior to the placementof steel.

Paragraph (b) of this section sets outthe site conditions that would have tobe provided and maintained by thecontrolling contractor in order for thesteel erector to move around the site andperform necessary operations in a safemanner.

Paragraph (b)(1) would require thatthe controlling contractor provide andmaintain adequate access roads into andthrough the site for the safe delivery andmovement of derricks, cranes, trucks,other necessary equipment, and thematerial to be erected as well as meansand methods for pedestrian andvehicular control. Compliance with thisprovision could be achieved bydeveloping access roads and clearlydemonstrated pedestrian areas, andmaintaining these throughout the life ofthe project.

Paragraph (b)(2) would require thatthe controlling contractor also provideand maintain a firm, properly graded,drained area, readily accessible to thework and with adequate space for thesafe storage of materials and the safeoperation of the erector’s equipment.The provisions in paragraphs (b)(1) and(b)(2) are necessary to ensure that a siteis prepared for the safe commencementof steel erection at a site. The Committeedetermined and OSHA agrees that theresponsibility to provide and maintainsite conditions lies primarily with thecontrolling contractor, who isresponsible for the overall project and isthe employer in the best position tominimize the hazards associated withimproper site layout and conditions.The provisions in proposed paragraphs(b)(1) and (b)(2) were derived from the

AISC code of standard practice for steelbuildings and bridges (Ex. 9–36).

Proposed paragraph (c) addresses thehazards associated with overhead loads.Specifically, these hazards includefailure of the lifting device, whichwould create a crushing hazard, anditems falling from the load, whichcreates a struck by hazard. Given thenature of the loads used in steelerection, either of these events couldresult in serious injury or death.

Paragraph (c) would require that allhoisting operations in steel erection bepre-planned to ensure that no employeeis required to be exposed to overheadhazards and that this pre-planning bedone in accordance with § 1926.753(b),which contains criteria for workingunder loads, and § 1926.759, whichcontains requirements for falling objectprotection. (Although the specificrequirements of proposed § 1926.753(b)and § 1926.759 are discussed later in thepreamble, OSHA believes that includinga cross-reference to these overheadprotection requirements along with theother requirements that deal with sitepreparation and pre-planning wouldenhance safety and promotecompliance.)

As a result of site-specificconsiderations, paragraph (d) wouldpermit employers to elect, due toconditions specific to the site, toprovide employee protection by meansother than those specified in§ 1926.753(a)(5), § 1926.757(a)(3), or§ 1926.757(e)(4)(i), if they develop asite-specific erection plan that specifiesalternative means and methods to beused. The site-specific erection planwould have to be developed by aqualified person, and the plan must beavailable to the employees at the site.During initial discussions, theCommittee considered a requirementthat would require every steel erectionemployer to develop a site-specificerection plan in writing for every projectbut decided that such a requirementwould be unnecessarily paperwork-intensive, especially for smallbusinesses. OSHA is providing, inAppendix A, a guideline for establishingthe components of a site-specificerection plan, as recommended by theCommittee. This appendix will assistemployers in developing a site-specificerection plan. A site-specific erectionplan will be easier to complete once theerector has developed a model plan.Some site-specific conditions that mightlead an employer to rely on analternative rather than the requirementsspecified in paragraphs § 1926.753(a)(5),§ 1926.757(a)(3), and § 1926.757(e)(4)(i),and examples of possible alternativemethods, are addressed in the

discussion of these paragraphs later inthis preamble.

Section 1926.753 Hoisting and RiggingAn essential element of steel erection

is the rigging and hoisting of structuralsteel members and materials. Severalhazards are associated with theseoperations. This section proposesrequirements for hoisting and riggingoperations during steel erectionactivities.

Paragraph (a) General.Paragraph (a)(1) would require a pre-

shift visual inspection of cranes to beused for steel erection. Paragraph(a)(1)(i) would require that, in additionto meeting the requirements of§ 1926.550, cranes being used in steelerection activities be visually inspectedprior to each shift by a competentperson; this inspection must includeobservation of the equipment duringoperation to detect any deficiencies.

The current requirements of§ 1926.550 require that all crawler, truckor locomotive cranes in use meet theapplicable requirements for design,inspection, construction, testing,maintenance and operation prescribedin the American National StandardsInstitute (ANSI) standard B30.5–1968,Safety Code for Crawler, Locomotiveand Truck Cranes (Ex. 9–114). Inaddition to the requirements of§ 1926.550, OSHA has preliminarilyconcluded, and the Committee agrees,that a more frequent inspection isneeded for cranes being used for steelerection. An inspection prior to eachshift is necessary to provide an addedmeasure of protection because theproposed rule would permit certainspecialized and potentially hazardoustypes of hoisting operations. Thesehoisting operations include the use ofcranes to hoist employees on apersonnel platform (§ 1926.753(a)(4)); toperform multiple lifts (§ 1926.753(c));and to suspend loads over employees(§ 1926.753(b)). Since these operationsare inherently dangerous, it isparticularly critical for the hoistingequipment to be in proper workingcondition, which means that a completevisual inspection must be performedbefore each shift by a competent person,e.g., the operator or oiler of the hoistingequipment being used or, on a largeproject, the master mechanic whochecks each crane. This pre-shift visualinspection is anticipated to takebetween 10 and 20 minutes. At aminimum, the inspection would includethe items listed in paragraphs (a)(i)(A)through (L); namely, inspection of (A)all control mechanisms formaladjustment; (B) control and drivemechanisms for excessive wear of


components and contamination bylubricants, water or other foreign matter;(C) safety devices, including, but notlimited to, boom angle indicators, boomstops, boom kick-out devices, anti-twoblock devices, and load momentindicators where required; (D) air,hydraulic, and other pressurized linesfor deterioration or leakage, particularlythose which flex in normal operation;(E) hooks and latches for deformation,chemical damage, cracks, or wear; (F)wire rope reeving for compliance withhoisting equipment manufacturer’sspecifications; (G) electrical apparatusfor malfunctioning, signs of excessivedeterioration, dirt, or moistureaccumulation; (H) hydraulic system forproper fluid level; (I) tires for properinflation and condition; (J) groundconditions around the hoistingequipment for proper support, includingground settling under and aroundoutriggers, ground water accumulationor other similar conditions; (K) thehoisting equipment for level position;and (L) the hoisting equipment for levelposition after each move and setup.

These are the inspection criteria listedin the ANSI B30.5–1968 standard; thisstandard is referenced in the currentOSHA crane requirements of § 1926.550.These criteria are also included in theupdated ANSI B30.5–1994, Mobile andLocomotive Cranes standard (Ex. 9–113), as a guideline for items whichshould be included in a pre-shift visualinspection. Items (A) through (I) areessentially the same as the requirementscontained in the ANSI B30.5–1994standard. The Committee recommendedusing the B30.5–1994 standard as thebasis of reference since it reflects themost up-to-date industry practices;OSHA agrees with thisrecommendation. In the B30.5–1994standard, items (a)(1)(i)(A) through (I)must be inspected during frequentinspections which, according to thatstandard, are assumed to take place atdaily to monthly intervals, althoughitems (A) and (D) are specificallyrecommended for daily inspection bythat standard. The Committeeconsidered whether the items in (A)through (L) should be inspected dailyrather than pre–shift. However, theCommittee noted that if a crane or otherpiece of hoisting equipment is not usedfor several days, it is only necessary toinspect that equipment before the shifton which it is to be used. Asrecommended by the Committee, OSHAis proposing that equipment need not beinspected if it is not to be used that day.Items (J), (K) and (L) were added by theCommittee to provide additional safetyduring the critical period when the

hoisting equipment is being set up. Item(J) is important when hoistingequipment is set up to ensure that allground conditions in the area of thehoisting equipment are adequate toprovide proper support for the hoistingequipment. Item (K) would simplyrequire that the operator check a siteglass, carpenter’s level or the levelingmechanism contained on the hoistingequipment. Item (L) would ensure that,if the hoisting equipment is movedduring a shift, it would be checked forlevel after setup. OSHA requestscomment on whether, since items (A)through (K) are pre-shift inspections anditem (L) is actually an inspection thattakes place during the shift, item (L)should be placed elsewhere inparagraph (a).

As indicated above, the Committeeintended these pre-shift inspections toreflect the current safe practices of theindustry while at the same timeimposing as little additional burden onthe employer as possible. OSHA agreeswith SENRAC’s determination that avisual inspection is sufficient toaccomplish these intentions, togetherwith such movement of the crane asmay be necessary to conduct the visualinspection. For example, to visuallyinspect the boom angle indicators thecrane must be moved to determine thatthe indicators are functioning properly.Also, the anti-two blocking device canbe visually inspected only by raising theheadache ball to the crown block toensure that the device automaticallycuts off the power to the hoistingequipment. The ANSI B30.5 language,‘‘[Inspect] tires for recommendedinflation pressure,’’ was interpreted bythe Committee to mean that a tirepressure gauge should be used todetermine inflation pressure. However,the SENRAC Committee believes thatthe tires need only to be visuallyinspected for proper inflation as well asfor overall condition and that no tirepressure gauge is needed. The proposal,therefore, calls for a ‘‘visual inspectionof tires for proper inflation andcondition.’’

Paragraph (a)(1)(ii) would requirethat, after the pre-shift inspection hasbeen completed and a deficiency hasbeen identified, the competent person isto determine immediately whether thedeficiency constitutes a hazard. Thisparagraph is essentially the same as therequirement in ANSI B30.5–1994.Paragraph (a)(1)(iii) proposes to requirethat, if the competent person determinesthat the deficiency constitutes a hazard,the hoisting equipment be removedfrom service until the deficiency hasbeen corrected. The Committee felt andOSHA concurs that it is necessary not

only to determine that there is adeficiency but to ensure that thehoisting equipment is taken out ofservice until corrective actions aretaken.

Paragraph (a)(1)(iv) would require thatthe employer keep a record of theinspection, including the date of theinspection; the signature of the personwho inspected the hoisting equipment;and a serial number or other identifierfor the hoisting equipment inspected.This certification record can be a checksheet or log book in which the operatoror other inspector places a check marknext to the appropriate item on the listafter visually checking it and then signsand dates the sheet or book. A craneoperator’s log book would be sufficient(Ex. 9–112).

Paragraph (a)(1)(v) would require thatequipment operators be responsible forthose operations under their directcontrol. Whenever there is any doubt asto the safety of the hoisting operation,the operator would have the authority tostop and to refuse to continue untilsafety has been assured. Since theoperator is normally the mostknowledgeable person about theequipment being used, OSHA agreesthat the operator should have controlover shutting down the equipment if itis believed to pose a safety concern.This requirement is identical to theparallel requirement in the ANSI B30.5–1968 standard for operating practicesand is currently required since§ 1926.550(b)(2) incorporates the ANSIB30.5–1968 standard by reference. TheCommittee decided that the B30.5–1968requirement assigning responsibility forthe safe operation of the hoistingequipment to the operator provides agreater degree of safety than the ANSIB30.5–1994 requirement, which placesauthority with the supervisor. A letterfrom a professional engineering firm tothe secretary of the ASME B30committee (Exhibit 9–133) addressesthis issue as follows:

* * * Control of a heavy-lifting operationsolely under the direction of a supervisor orany other person who may be less qualifiedthan he, is not prudent. The crane operatorhas instrumentation in the crane to base hisaction upon, and should be the ultimateperson to make decisions about the capacityand safety of both the machine and liftingoperation * * *

A qualified crane operator can makedecisions about handling a crane load. Asupervisor may or may not havequalifications in safe crane operation. Safecrane operation belongs in the domain ofqualified operators, not managers.

Paragraph (a)(2) would require that,prior to each shift, a qualified riggerinspect the rigging in accordance with


§ 1926.251 of this part. OSHA acceptsthe Committee’s conclusion that it is notnecessary to define the term ‘‘qualifiedrigger.’’ A qualified rigger is thus simplya ‘‘qualified person’’ who is performingthe inspection of the rigging equipment.Rigging would be inspected according tothe requirements in § 1926.251 of thispart, Rigging Equipment for MaterialHandling. To promote ease ofcompliance, the proposal provides across reference to that section.

Paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) addressthe issue of transporting employeesusing hoisting equipment. Paragraph(a)(3) would prohibit the direct use ofthe headache ball, hook or load totransport personnel except as providedin paragraph (a)(1)(v)(4) of this section.These practices are widely recognized tobe unsafe since they expose theemployee to hazards of falling off theload or, in a case where the load falls,falling with the load.

Paragraph (a)(4) of the proposal wouldallow the use of cranes and derricks tohoist employees on a personnelplatform (e.g., man basket) when workunder this subpart is being conducted,even though the requirements of§ 1926.550(g)(2), Crane or DerrickSuspended Personnel Platforms,prohibit the use of a crane or derrick tohoist employees on a personnelplatform unless structural design orworksite conditions make conventionalmeans more hazardous or infeasible. Insteel erection, however, the work stationmoves progressively as pieces ofstructural steel are connected to eachother. This means that elevators cannotbe installed until much of the structurehas been completed. Transportingironworkers to a workstation elevatedhundreds of feet in the air by hoistinga personnel platform with a craneeliminates the hazards associated withworker fatigue that can occur fromclimbing or walking up. The Committeealso believes that many steel erectionactivities (particularly repetitiveactivities performed at differentlocations, such as bolting-up, thatrequire a great deal of climbing up anddown) can be performed much moresafely and efficiently, and with greatlyreduced exposure to hazards, whendone from a personnel platform thanfrom scaffolding. The time to performthe activity is only a fraction of the timeto erect and dismantle the scaffoldingthat would be required to do the jobsafely. Exposures to fall hazards andother hazards associated with erectionand dismantling of scaffolds for shortterm, repetitive activities are eliminatedby the use of a personnel platform. TheCommittee further noted that, whencranes or lifts are used to hoist a

personnel platform, employees engagedin steel erection are still protected bythe other requirements of § 1926.550(g).These include hoisting work practices,such as performing the lift in a slow,cautious and controlled manner;holding pre-lift meetings; conductingtrial lifts; requiring a safety factor of ten;and the use of engineering controls,such as anti-two blocking protectionand controlled lowering capability.OSHA agrees that these measuresincrease the safety of employees beinghoisted on a personnel platform; OSHAseeks comment from interested partieson the issue of hoisting employees as aregular practice in steel erection.

Paragraph (a)(5) would prohibit safetylatches on hooks from being deactivatedor made inoperable except: when aqualified rigger has determined that thehoisting and placing of purlins andsingle joists can be performed moresafely by doing so; or when equivalentprotection is provided in a site-specificerection plan. Some activities in steelerection create a situation where it isactually safer to hoist members bydeactivating the safety latch, e.g., whenit eliminates the need for workers toclimb up or onto unstable structuralmembers, such as single columns orsingle bar joists, to unhook the member.The proposal would allow the employerto defeat or tie-back the safety latch intwo situations: first, if a qualified rigger(during hoisting and placing of purlinsand single joists) determines thatdeactivating the safety latch presents alesser hazard than leaving it on, orsecond, if it provides equivalentprotection and is incorporated as a safepractice for particular lifts in a site-specific erection plan. This wouldeliminate abuse of the technique andensure that, when it is performed, thenecessary precautions are taken. OSHAsolicits information on theappropriateness of this approach,particularly with regard to theprotection provided to the workersinvolved in such lifts.

Paragraph (b) Working under loads.The proposed requirements ofparagraph (b) were patterned afterrequirements in § 5002 of the CaliforniaCode of Regulations (Ex. 9–24D1) thatregulate overhead loads for occasionalunavoidable exposure.

Paragraph (b)(1) would require thatroutes for suspended loads be pre-planned to ensure that no employee isrequired to work directly below asuspended load, with exceptions forcertain employees. Normally, hoistingoperations can be performed from onelocation with a clear travel path and nooverhead passes. OSHA understands,however, that overhead passes cannot

be eliminated entirely due to thecomplexity of modern construction,which requires that many activities takeplace concurrently. On many buildingsites, for example, existing buildings,structures, streets, overhead lines and soforth make it possible to hoistconstruction materials from one or twostorage areas. As a result, loads must bemoved over the same work areasthroughout the course of the job. Inaddition, on some large projects, such asthe construction of power plants, manyhoisting operations take placesimultaneously. In such situations,cranes must be located throughout thesite to access every part of the project.Scheduling the work to avoid movingloads over occupied work areas is oftennot feasible. Although the proposedrequirement allows loads to be movedoverhead, it requires the employer tominimize such exposure to the extentpossible.

Employees engaged in the initialconnection of steel and employeesnecessary for hooking or unhooking theload are the only employees allowed towork directly below a suspended load,because they must do so to accomplishtheir jobs. This provision is intended tolimit the number of employees exposedto the hazard of falling overhead loads.

OSHA has allowed employees to workunder overhead loads in certain other,narrowly limited, work situations. Forexample, a similar provision is found inthe OSHA construction standards insubpart Q of this Part, Concrete andMasonry Construction. Section1926.704(e) of that standard provides:

No employee shall be permitted underprecast concrete members being lifted ortilted into position except those employeesrequired for the erection of those members.

Similarly, the lift-slab section,§ 1926.705(k)(1), allows someemployees in certain operations to workunder a suspended load; in this case,the operation involves lifting the slabsinto place by the jacks:

No employee, except those essential to thejacking operation, shall be permitted in thebuilding/structure while any jackingoperation is taking place unless the building/structure has been reinforced sufficiently toensure its integrity during erection.

When employees engaged in steelerection must work under a suspendedload, such exposure must be governedby the criteria in paragraph (b)(2). Thesecriteria require, first, that materialsbeing hoisted be rigged to preventunintentional displacement. In addition,safety hooks with self-closing latches ortheir equivalent must be used to preventcomponents from slipping out of thehook; this precaution eliminates the


chance of components disengaging fromthe hook and causing the load to fall. Anequivalent device could be a hook withanother type of closing device, i.e., ahook with a spring-loaded gate oranother type of safety hook that wouldprovide the same level of safety as asafety hook with a self-closing latch.Finally, the loads must be rigged by aqualified rigger.

Paragraph (c) Multiple lift riggingprocedure.

This section proposes specificperformance and work practicerequirements to be met when a steelerector chooses to lift multiple pieces ofsteel at one time as an alternative tosingle lifting of individual structuralmembers. This procedure, also knownas ‘‘christmas treeing’’ or ‘‘tandemloading,’’ is not addressed in OSHA’sexisting steel erection standard.Although the hazards associated withthe lifting of tandem loads aresubstantial, the Committee believes thatthe practice can be made safe if themeans and methods set forth in thisparagraph are strictly observed. Indrawing this conclusion, the Committeeconsidered the information described inthe following paragraphs.

Floor beams currently in use arecomparatively light and may not bestrong enough to support a bundle ofstructural steel safely. Thus, the steelmust be picked up from the ground.Picking up single beams one at a timeis not always practical, and tandemloads significantly increase efficiency.Some safety benefits are associated withthis procedure, including a reduction inthe length of time connectors and othersare exposed to the hazards posed byoverhead loads because fewer swingsare required, a reduction in the timeconnectors must spend out on the ironbecause tandem loading allows them tocomplete their tasks more quickly, andreduced stress on the crane operatorbecause fewer mechanical operationsare required.

An OSHA letter dated September 9,1993, from the Director of the Office ofConstruction and Engineering to theRegional Administrator of Region 1describes some of the benefits ofchristmas treeing:

Christmas treeing could indeed beproductive and efficient on projects whenerecting floor or roof filler beams, all of thesame length and weight with similar detailsat each end of the beams. In large industrialprojects where the location of the crane ismuch farther away from the bay undererection, christmas treeing could also proveto be efficient. Further, the practice reducesthe total number of swings the crane makesin each project, thus reducing the risk ofexposing the workers located in the vicinity

of the crane or in the path of travel of theload (Ex. 9–13G, p. 2).

Paragraph (c)(1) would provide thecriteria that must be met for a multiplelift to be permitted at all under this rule.A multiple lift rigging assembly, asdefined in the definition section, mustbe utilized. By definition, the assemblymust have been manufactured by a wirerope rigging supplier. Since this is aspecialized type of lift, the riggingassembly must have been designedspecifically for the particular use in amultiple lift and meet the specifics ofthe definition. A multiple lift may notinvolve hoisting more than five (5)members during the lift. Limiting thenumber of members hoisted is essentialto safety, and the Committee hasdetermined that five members is themaximum number that can be hoistedsafely, taking into account the necessityof controlling both the load and theempty rigging. In addition, this limit onthe number of members recognizes thata typical bay, consisting of up to fivemembers, could be filled with a singlelift. Too many members in a lift maycreate a string that is too awkward tocontrol or allow too much empty riggingto dangle loose, creating a hazard toemployees.

In addition, only structural membersmay be lifted during a multiple lift.Other items, such as bundles of decking,do not lend themselves to the multiplelift procedure. A typical multiple liftmember would be a wide flange beamsection between 10 and 30 feet long,typically weighing less than 1,800pounds. Employees engaged in amultiple lift operation must be trainedin these procedures in accordance with§ 1926.761(c)(1), which containsspecific training requirements foremployees engaged in multiple lifts.Due to the specialized nature ofmultiple lifts and the knowledgenecessary to perform them safely, thistraining requirement is necessary toensure that employees are properlytrained in all aspects of multiple liftprocedures.

Paragraph (c)(2) describes how thecomponents of the multiple lift riggingassembly are to be designed andassembled. The employer must ensurethat each multiple lift rigging assemblyis designed and assembled with amaximum capacity for the totalassembly and for each individualattachment point. This capacity,certified by the manufacturer orqualified rigger, would be based on themanufacturer’s specifications andwould have a 5 to 1 safety factor for allcomponents. Since multiple lift riggingis special rigging used only for the

purpose of performing a multiple liftrigging procedure (MLRP), the riggingwould be certified by the qualifiedrigger who assembles or themanufacturer who provides the entireassembly to ensure that the main line iscapable of supporting the whole loadand each hook is capable of supportingthe individual members. Theappropriate rigging assembly to be usedis the lightest one that will support theload. Typically, one assembly ismanufactured and certified for theheaviest anticipated multiple lift on thejob, and this rigging is then used for allthe MLRPs.

To ensure that a MLRP does notoverload the hoisting equipment, theCommittee recommended that OSHApropose a provision in paragraph (c)(3)that would prohibit the total load of theMLRP from exceeding either the ratedcapacity of the hoisting equipment asspecified in the hoisting equipment loadcharts or the rated capacity of therigging as specified in the rigging ratingchart. Several crane manufacturers haverecognized that MLRP is becoming anindustry practice and have accepted theuse of their cranes for this purposeprovided that the crane is utilized in amanner consistent with the safepractices defined in the operator’smanual and crane capacity chart (Ex.9–30). Paragraph (c)(3) proposes theseprovisions.

Paragraphs (c)(4) and (c)(5) addresssafe rigging for the multiple lift.Paragraph (c)(4) would require that themultiple lift rigging assembly be riggedwith the members attached at theircenter of gravity and be kept reasonablylevel, be rigged from the top down, andhave a distance of at least 7 feet (2.1 m)between the members. In practice, theseprocedures mean that the chokerattached to the last structural member ofthe group to be connected would be theone attached on the rigging assemblyclosest to the headache ball. The next tolast member to be connected would beattached to the next lower hook on therigging assembly and so on. As eachmember is attached, it would be liftedapproximately two feet off the ground toverify the location of the center ofgravity and to allow the choker to bechecked for proper connection.Adjustments to choker location wouldbe made during this trial lift procedure.The choker length would then beselected to ensure that the verticaldistance between the bottom flange ofthe higher beam and the top flange ofthe next lower beam is never less than7 feet. Thus, when the connector hasmade the initial end connections of thelower beam and moves to the center ofeach beam to remove the choker, there


will be sufficient clearance to preventcontacting the upper suspended beam.Furthermore, although the OSHA letterreferred to earlier (Ex. 9–13G) suggestedthat the beam spacing could be eight ornine feet, the Committee determined,and OSHA agrees, that seven feet ismore appropriate since, in addition tothe necessary clearance just mentioned,a typical connector could easily reachup and grab the member at seven feetbut might have some trouble doing so ifthe spacing were greater. OSHA requestscomment on whether spacing greaterthan 7 feet would constitute a hazard.

Once the members are ready to be set,paragraph (c)(5) would require that themembers be set from the bottom up.Even though this is the only practicalway that the members can be set, theinclusion of this proposed requirementpromotes clarity.

Paragraph (c)(6) sets forth theproposed requirements for lowering theload. Like the hoisting of personnelplatforms, multiple lifts must employcontrolled load lowering when loweringloads into position for the connectors toset the members. OSHA agrees with theCommittee’s recommendation that sucha device is essential to prevent potentialaccidents if the crane operator’s footshould slip off the brake, the brake fails,or the load slips through the brake.When the load is over the connectorsand is being lowered into place, theoperator must have maximum controlover the load. This proposedrequirement would have prevented theJuly 20, 1990, fatality in Austin, Texas,referred to in Ex. 9–13G (p. 4).

Several members of the Committeestated that the use of a MLRP reducestotal employee exposure to suspendedload hazards as well as to the hazardsassociated with crane supported loadstraveling horizontally. An MLRP istreated as an engineered lift andaccordingly receives the full attention ofthe entire raising gang. The lifts aremade in a more controlled fashion dueto the special rigging and physical sizeof the assembled load. In addition,cranes used for multiple lifts must havecontrolled load lowering devices.

A Committee workgroup was formedto develop the MLRP section of theproposed regulatory text. Thisworkgroup noted several additionalbenefits of MLRPs. For example, theincreased weight of the load hoistedusing an MLRP results in reducedswing, boom, and hoist speeds, whichincreases the amount of control theoperator has over the lift. Theworkgroup also stated that craneoperators report that the swingoperation has the greatest potential foroperator error and loss of load control,

and therefore that reducing the numberof swings enhances safety. Theworkgroup thus believes that thereduced number and speed of swingoperations associated with MLRPs willincrease safety, and that lift precisionwill also be increased because MLRPsrequire that controlled load loweringdevices be used on cranes making suchlifts. When the operator is working inthe blind (where the connectors cannotbe seen), according to the workgroup,reducing the number of swing cycles isparticularly important because itminimizes the opportunity for acommunication error, which couldcause an accident. Furthermore, theworkgroup stated that the totalsuspended load time and the frequencyof loads passing overhead are reducedfor all non-erection personnel on the jobwhen an MLRP is being performed. Thisis particularly important, according tothe workgroup, because these workersnormally are occupied with other tasksand often do not pay attention tosuspended loads that may be passingoverhead. This group of employeesincludes those working under canopiesand partially completed floor systemswho cannot see hoisted material passingoverhead but could be injured if a loadwere dropped.

In addition, when single pieces arehoisted, the emphasis is often on speed.The lift is hoisted, swung and boomedat maximum crane speed in an effort tomaximize production. Under thesecircumstances, the Committee felt thatsingle piece hoisting increases thepotential for problems in the hoistsequence and in the final placement ofeach member and additionallycontributes to operator fatigue.

According to the workgroup, a greatsafety benefit of multiple lifting is thatthe manipulation of the members at thepoint of connection limits themovement of the hoist hook, in mostcases, to an area less than 10 feet indiameter and additionally requires thatsuch movement be done at a slow speedand with maximum control. The hazardthat connectors consider the mostserious, that of a high speed incomingbeam, is thus minimized using theMLRP process.

Section 1926.754 Structural SteelAssembly

This section sets forth the proposedrequirements for the assembly ofstructural steel.

Paragraph (a) would require thatstructural stability be maintained at alltimes during the erection process. Thiswould be a general requirement for anytype of steel structure. Since structuralstability is essential to the successful

erection of steel structures, thisproposed section is intended to preventcollapse due to lack of stability, a majorcause of fatalities in this industry.

Paragraph (b) proposes additionalrequirements specifically for multi-storystructures. Paragraph (b)(1) wouldrequire that permanent floors beinstalled as the erection of structuralmembers progresses and that there benot more than eight stories between theerection floor and the upper-mostpermanent floor, except where thestructural integrity is maintained as aresult of the design. This paragraph isidentical to existing § 1926.750(a)(1) inOSHA’s steel erection standard.

Paragraph (b)(2) would prohibithaving more than four floors or 48 feet(14.6 m), whichever is less, ofunfinished bolting or welding above thefoundation or uppermost permanentlysecured floor, except where thestructural integrity is maintained as aresult of the design. This paragraph isessentially the same as existing§ 1926.750(a)(2), except for the additionpertaining to situations where structuralintegrity is maintained as a result of thedesign. The Committee recommendedan exception similar to that inparagraph (b)(1) to allow for flexibilityin design.

Paragraph (b)(3) would require that afully planked or decked floor or nets bemaintained within 2 stories or 30 feet(9.1 m), whichever is less, directlyunder any erection work beingperformed. This is essentially the sameprovision as existing § 1926.750(b)(2)(i),except that the proposed revision addsthe option of installing nets in additionto the planked or decked floor options.Paragraph (b) thus retains many of therequirements of OSHA’s existing steelerection rule.

Paragraph (c) Walking/workingsurfaces. This paragraph sets forthproposed requirements to control theslipping/tripping hazards encounteredwhen working on steel structures. TheCommittee pointed out that the hazardsposed by shear connectors need to beaddressed in any revision of subpart R.Shear connectors are commonly foundin bridges and in other types of steelerection. When attachments, like shearconnectors, are shop-welded to the topflange of beams, the resultingprojections can create a significanttripping hazard. Field installation ofthese attachments can significantlyreduce exposure to this hazard. Anycosts imposed by field installation of theattachments is likely to be more thanoffset by the increased productivity andsafety for employees who walk on thetop flange of the structural steel. It ismuch safer to walk on a beam that is not


studded with these shear connectors orotherwise covered with a temporaryworking surface. The installation ofthese shear connectors needs to beperformed on a beam in a manner thatallows the installer to maintain a clearwalking surface.

Paragraph (c)(1)(i) would prohibit theattachment of shear connectors (such asheaded steel studs, steel bars or steellugs), reinforcing bars, deformedanchors or threaded studs to the topflanges of beams, joists or beamattachments so that they projectvertically from or horizontally acrossthe top flange of the member until afterthe decking, or other walking/workingsurface, has been installed.Additionally, paragraph (c)(1)(ii) wouldrequire that when shear connectors areutilized in the construction ofcomposite floors, roofs and bridgedecks, employees lay out and install theshear connectors after the decking hasbeen installed, using the deck as aworking platform. This paragraphwould also prohibit the installation ofshear connectors from within acontrolled decking zone (CDZ), asspecified in § 1926.760(c)(8).

SENRAC reviewed the issue ofslippery surfaces caused by painted orcoated steel. The Committee found thata major cause of falls in the steelerection industry is the presence ofslippery walking, working and climbingsurfaces in steel erection operationswhen fall protection is not used. Theproblem initially arises from theapplication of protective coatings onstructural steel used, for example, in theconstruction of mills, chemical plantsand other structures exposed to highlycorrosive materials as well as in theconstruction of stadiums or otherstructures exposed to varying weatherconditions. It is usually impractical toleave the steel uncoated and then topaint the entire structure in the fieldafter erection. Unfortunately, steelcoated with paints or protective coatingscan be extremely slippery. When thereis moisture, snow, or ice on coated steel,the hazard is increased. Related to thisis the issue of the slipperiness of metaldecking.

The problem of slipperiness createdby coated steel has been discussed byindustry and union safety committeesfor more than two decades. In the late1970’s, a study was conducted by theNational Bureau of Standards. Thisstudy, according to a SENRACworkgroup, reached no definiteconclusions and proposed no solution(Ex. 9–10). At the urging of labor andmanagement during the late 1980’s, aNIOSH sponsored study entitled,‘‘Correlation of Subjective Slipperiness

Judgments with Quantitative COFMeasurements For Structural Steel,’’was conducted by the University ofOklahoma’s Institute for Safety &Ergonomics Studies (Ex. 9–10). Thisstudy looked into the effects thatprotective coatings have on theslipperiness of structural steel. Onceagain, according to the SENRACworkgroup, the data did not provide asufficient basis for determiningadequate means for controlling oreliminating the slippery surfaces onpainted structural steel members.

Slipperiness of painted surfaces hasbeen a problem not only in the UnitedStates but also in Canada. In theProvince of Alberta the problem hasbeen addressed by requiring the use ofan anti-skid coating. Although use ofthis coating involves an added cost, thiscost is not significant, according tothose involved (Ex. 9–10).

A SENRAC workgroup considered allthe information available to it andrecommended that SENRAC adopt aperformance standard that wouldmandate a minimum 0.5 staticcoefficient of friction (COF) for allworking, walking and climbing surfaceswhen they arrive on the job site. Theworkgroup noted that the slipperysurface issue was originally limited toslippery paint on structural membersbut had been expanded to include metaldecking.

This recommendation of the SENRACworkgroup was questioned by somemembers of the industry, including theSteel Deck Institute (SDI) (Ex.9–87) andthe Metal Building ManufacturersAssociation (MBMA) (Ex. 9–129). Themain concern expressed by these groupswas how an employer would know thatit was in compliance, and, specifically,how surfaces would be tested todetermine that this COF had beenachieved and what instrument would beused to make this determination. Anexpert on slip prevention made apresentation to the Committee on howto measure the COF of a slipperysurface.

The expert reviewed the primarymethods for testing the slipperiness ofsurfaces. The first instrument wasdescribed as a drag meter. A majorlimitation of this device is that it willnot work on dirty or wet surfaces. Thus,testing wet and dirty surface conditionswhich actually occur on job sites isimpossible using this device. A secondinstrument was an articulated strutdevice. This device is currently beingtested by the American Society forTesting and Materials (ASTM). A thirddevice examined was a pendulum-likedevice. It is limited in that it requires alevel floor for proper measurement.

Lastly, the expert described a measuringdevice that he has developed thatmeasures not COF but slip resistance.He noted that this instrument has beenmodified and is available as a portableunit. He described two major advantagesto this device: it can test wet surfacesand it can be used in the field to testsurfaces as they are actually walked on.

Following this presentation and afterlengthy discussions on the slipperysurface issue, the Committee concludedthat conclusive studies and documentedinformation on the subject of slipperysurfaces in steel erection are notavailable. To obtain more information,the Committee agreed that a studyshould be conducted by the expert totest these slippery surfaces. This study,commissioned by SENRAC, wasconducted in May of 1995 under theguidance of the SENRAC workgroup. Ina final report of the study to SENRAC(Ex. 9–64), the expert summarized themethodology and findings. Sevensurfaces were tested under both wet anddry conditions using two differentinstruments. In addition to thesemechanical tests, five ironworkersranked how slippery these surfaces feltwhile walking on them. The two resultswere compared. A minimum standardfor slip resistance was set forth in thereport.

The study was presented to SENRACand suggested the following tentativedraft regulatory text for discussionbased on the recommendation of thestudy: ‘‘all painted, coated or otherwisevisibly treated skeletal structural steelmembers that are walking/workingsurfaces shall have a finish that has aslip index of .75 or higher as measuredwith an English XL Slip-Resistancetester or a slip index of .60 or higher asmeasured with a Brungraber, Mark IISlip Tester and would have to be testedin accordance with certain testprocedures set out in an appendix.’’ TheCommittee determined, based oninformation obtained from andpresentations given by industry groupsat SENRAC meetings, that the draftlanguage was not acceptable. Theindustry groups providing informationincluded the Steel Deck Institute (Ex. 9–73), the Metal Building ManufacturersAssociation (Ex. 9–74), the MetalConstruction Association (Ex. 9–75),Bethlehem Steel (Exs. 9–106 and 9–110), the National Coil CoatersAssociation (Ex. 9–108), American Ironand Steel Institute (Ex. 1–109), and theAmerican Institute of Steel Construction(Ex. 9–128). The Committee thusconcluded that it could not determine aminimum value for slip resistance orCOF, given all the variables to be


considered, nor could it agree on anacceptable testing method.

The Committee next decided toseparate the issues of slippery surfaceson metal decking and on structuralsteel. Furthermore, based on perceiveddifferences in the feasibility ofcompliance, there was generalagreement that a requirement forstructural steel could be proposed whileone for metal decking should not beproposed at this time.

The Committee, consequently,recommended that OSHA proposeparagraph (c)(3) to prohibit workersfrom walking the top surface of anystructural steel member which has beenfinish coated with paint or similarmaterial unless documentation orcertification, based on an appropriateASTM standard test method, isprovided stating that the finished coathas not decreased the COF from that ofthe original steel before it was finish-coated. This documentation orcertification must be available at the siteand to the steel erector. Rather thandefine a minimum requirement for theCOF, the Committee decided to ensurethat the product on which the workersare walking/working is no more slipperythan bare, uncoated steel, which isconsidered by the Committee to be safeto walk/work on, even when wet. OSHAseeks comments and additionalinformation on this point and on theavailability of methods to increase thesafety of workers in this situation and tomeasure the slipperiness of suchsurfaces. There are currently two ASTMstandardized test methods fordetermining the COF of wet surfaces,thus enabling the painted or coatedsurface to be tested for possiblecertification that the COF has notdecreased (see Appendix B).

With regard to the issue of theslipperiness of metal decking, OSHA isreserving paragraph (c)(2) to allowadditional time to study the slipperysurface aspects of metal decking andidentify a solution to the problem. Acoalition of steel-producing and steel-related organizations has indicated itsintention to gather data and preparecomments with respect to paragraph(c)(2). The coalition intends to identifythe principal factors contributing to slipand fall injuries in steel erection, anddevise feasible and effective approachesto reduce those risks (Ex. 9–151). OSHAinvites additional comments andinformation on walking/workingsurfaces and the slippery aspects ofmetal decking from other interestedparties.

Paragraph (d) Plumbing-up.Paragraph (d)(1) would require thatconnections of the equipment used in

plumbing up be properly secured. Thisis identical to existing § 1926.752(d)(1)of OSHA’s steel erection standard.Paragraph (d)(2) would require thatplumbing-up equipment be removedonly with the approval of a competentperson. This is essentially the same asexisting § 1926.752(d)(4), except that theword ‘‘guys’’ is changed to ‘‘equipment’’and ‘‘under the supervision’’ is changedto ‘‘with the approval.’’ In addition,Committee members noted that, withrespect to open web steel joists, thestabilizer plate requirement of proposed§ 1926.757(a)(4) will greatly facilitatethe plumbing-up of structures. It shouldbe noted that several SENRAC membershave raised an issue (issue #3 in sectionVI, Other Issues) regarding the adequacyof this performance language.

Paragraph (e) Decking. Thisparagraph sets forth the proposedrequirements to protect employeesduring decking operations, includingthe installation of metal deck (metaldeck is defined in the definition sectionof this standard). The Committeerecognized that improper installation ofdecking can cause accidents. Analysesof the fatality/catastrophe reports inOSHA’s IMIS system by SENRAC andOSHA staff (Exs. 9–14A, 9–42 and 9–49)indicate that falls related to deckingwhen fall protection is not used accountfor a large percentage of steel erectionrelated fatalities. The proposedrequirements contained in paragraph (e)attempt to address many of the hazardswhich cause decking accidents.

Paragraph (e)(1) deals with some ofthe common hazards associated withhoisting, landing and placing of deckbundles. Many of the proposedrequirements of this paragraph areadapted from the Steel Deck InstituteManual of Construction With Steel Deck(Ex. 9–34A).

Paragraph (e)(1)(i) would prohibit theuse of bundle packaging and strappingfor hoisting unless specifically designedfor that purpose. Bundle straps usuallyare applied at the factory and areintended to keep the bundle togetheruntil it is placed for erection and thesheets are ready to be spread. Deckingis bundled differently; somemanufacturers design the strapping tobe used as a lifting device. However,hoisting a bundle by straps that are notdesigned for lifting is extremelydangerous. The bundle straps can breakapart or loosen, creating a falling objecthazard or, if a structural member is hitby the bundle or its contents, a potentialcollapse hazard.

Paragraph (e)(1)(ii) would requirethat, if loose items such as dunnage,flashing, or other materials are placedon top of deck bundles which are being

hoisted, such items must be secured tothe bundles. Sometimes, to expediteunloading and hoisting, items such asdunnage or flashing are placed on thedecking bundle to save time. Dunnage,for example, will be sent up with thebundle to help support it on thestructure and to protect the deckingwhich has already been installed. Thisproposal would prevent hoisting looseitems or ‘‘piggy backing’’ unless theitems are secured to prevent them fromfalling off the bundle in the event thatit catches on the structure and tilts.

Paragraph (e)(1)(iii) would requirethat the landing of bundles of deckingon joists be conducted in accordancewith proposed § 1926.757(e)(4). Thisrequirement is a cross-reference to thejoist section of the proposed standard.Paragraph (e)(4) of that section sets outproposed criteria for landing decking onjoists and will be discussed later in thepreamble.

Paragraph (e)(1)(iv) also addresses thelanding of bundles. Under this proposedrequirement, bundles would be landedon framing members that providesufficient support for unbanding thebundles. The bundles would have to beset in such a manner that the deckingcan be unbanded without losing thesupport of the structure. If the blockingshould move while the bundle is beingunbanded, the bundle would berequired to have enough support toprevent it from tilting and falling into‘‘the hole.’’ The analysis of the fatality/catastrophe reports produced fromOSHA’s IMIS system (Exs. 9–14A, 9–42and 9–49) identified the improperlanding of bundles of decking as asignificant factor in decking accidentsbecause it may cause a collapse of thesupport members and/or bundle.Proposed paragraphs (e)(1)(iii) and (iv)are intended to eliminate these hazardsby providing direction for properlylanding decking bundles.

Paragraph (e)(1)(v) would requiredecking to be secured againstdisplacement after the end of the shiftor when environmental or jobsiteconditions warrant. This requirementwould prevent decking from being leftunsecured between shifts or overnightand would prevent decking frombecoming dislodged from the structureor bundle because of environmentalconditions such as high wind. A gust ofwind may cause individual sheets topeel off an unsecured bundle of deckingand fly through the air. Wind can alsomove a sheet of loose decking and createa hazard where an employeeinadvertently steps onto a loose piece ofdecking, believing it to be secured.

Paragraph (e)(2) Roof and flooropenings. This paragraph proposes steel


erection procedures for installing metaldeck at roof and floor openings toprevent, among other things, the hazardof employee falls through deckopenings. The Committee found suchfalls to be a major cause of deckingaccidents.

Paragraph (e)(2)(i) would require that,where structural design andconstructibility allow, framed deckopenings have structural membersturned down to allow continuous deckinstallation. Requiring framed deckopenings to be turned down allowscontinuous decking to be performedwithout having to cut the deck aroundthe opening. This procedure generallyapplies to small openings rather thanlarger openings, such as elevator ormechanical shaft openings; it may notbe appropriate to cut the deckingaround larger openings at a later time.

Paragraph (e)(2)(ii) would require thatroof and floor openings be coveredduring the decking process so thatuncovered openings do not createpotential fall hazards. If the design ofthe structure does not allow for coveringof the roof and floor openings, theymust be protected in accordance withproposed § 1926.760(a)(2). Openings forelevator shafts and stairs are typicallytoo large to cover and would usually beprotected with a guardrail. To decreaseeven further the possibility of anemployee falling through a deckopening, proposed paragraph (e)(2)(iii)would require that decking holes andopenings not be cut until necessary forthe construction process. Once cut,however, openings would have to beprotected immediately in accordancewith § 1926.760(d), which sets forth thecriteria for covering roof and flooropenings, or they would have to beotherwise permanently filled (i.e., filledwith the equipment or structureintended for the opening, at which timethe opening would no longer be a fallhazard).

Paragraph (e)(3) would require thatwire mesh, exterior plywood, or theequivalent, be installed around columnswhere planks or decking do not fittightly. Gauge metal, typically cut out tothe profile of the column, is commonlyused for this purpose and would beconsidered an equivalent material. Thisprovision is identical to existing§ 1926.752(h), except that the proposedprovision adds ‘‘or decking’’ to makeclear that the requirement to cover openareas around columns applies duringdecking operations both to prevent fallsand to prevent items from fallingthrough these openings to lower levels.

Paragraph (e)(4) would require thatdecking be laid tightly and secured toprevent accidental movement or

displacement. This is essentially thesame as existing § 1926.752(f) ofOSHA’s steel erection standard. Theanalysis of the fatality/catastrophereports of data in OSHA’s IMIS system(Exs. 9–14A, 9–42 and 9–49) establishedthat stepping onto or working onunsecured decking is a factor in deckingaccidents.

Paragraph (e)(5)(i) would require thata derrick floor be fully decked and/orplanked and the steel memberconnections be completed so as tosupport the intended floor loading.Paragraph (e)(5)(ii) would require thattemporary loads on a derrick floor bedistributed over the underlying supportmembers to prevent local (spot)overloading of the deck material. Theseprovisions contain essentially the samerequirements as those in existing§ 1926.750(b)(1)(i). OSHA is clarifyingand updating the existing requirement,but the basic concept of the provisionwould be unchanged. This provisionwould apply mainly to multi-storystructures and is intended to ensure thatthe derrick or erection floor has beeninstalled with all required bolts and thatfinal decking has been completed beforethe floor is loaded and the sequence ofconstructing subsequent levels begins.This level, which then becomes theworking level for the erection of floorsabove, may need to support a derrickand the steel members required for theerection of those levels. Such temporaryloads would have to be distributedevenly over the derrick floor to ensurestability.

Section 1926.755 Anchor BoltsThis section addresses the hazards

associated with column stability and,specifically, the proper use of anchorbolts to ensure column stability. TheCommittee concluded that inadequateanchor bolt installation could be a factorin causing structure collapses. Oneparticipant, a connector by trade,addressed the Committee and assertedthat collapses due to poor footings andanchor bolts are currently the primarycause of connector accidents (Ex. 6–3, p.4). The Committee was in generalagreement; OSHA solicits commentsand additional information on therelative importance of these and othercauses of structural collapse and theextent to which they result in fallsduring steel erection activities.

This section sets out parameters forproperly installing and, when necessary,modifying anchor bolts. Paragraph (a)proposes general requirements forensuring erection stability. Paragraph(a)(1) would require that all columns beanchored by a minimum of 4 anchorbolts. Additionally, as discussed below,

this paragraph would require thatcolumn anchor bolt assemblies,including the welding of the column tothe base plate, be designed to resist a300 pound (136.2 kg) eccentric loadlocated 18 inches (.46 m) from thecolumn face in each direction at the topof the column shaft. The Committeelistened to some presenters who were ofthe opinion that there may be sometypes of columns that may require onlytwo anchor bolts. Also, it wascontended by some participants thatspace limitations or structuralconsiderations may limit the size of thebase plate or the bearing surface(particularly on a masonry wall) so thatit is not wide enough to allow theplacement of four anchor bolts. TheCommittee recommended, however, thatOSHA propose to require a minimum offour anchor bolts for all columns, for thereasons discussed above. In someinstances, installing two anchor bolts atthe column base might create a stablestructure, but this would not be the caseuntil after all of the horizontal beamshave been installed and the frame hasbeen completed. Until the frame hasbeen completed, using two bolts couldcause a hinge effect that could tip thecolumn. Requiring all columnanchorages to have four bolts eliminatesthe possibility of creating this hingeeffect.

Additionally, since a connector witha tool belt must climb the column,which creates an eccentric load on thecolumn, proper anchor bolt installationis doubly necessary. Anchor boltassemblies would have to be designed toresist a 300 pound (136.2 kg) eccentricload located 18 inches (.46 cm) from thecolumn face to prevent the column fromtoppling over with a worker on it. Basedon a SENRAC workgroup determination,300 pounds (136.2 kg) represents themaximum weight of an ironworker witha tool belt. Eighteen (18) inches (.46 cm)off the face of the column is the centerof gravity for an ironworker climbing acolumn.

Paragraph (a)(2) addresses the settingof columns and would require thatcolumns be set on level finished floors,pre-grouted leveling plates, levelingnuts, or shim packs which are adequateto transfer the construction loads. Thisproposed requirement is intended toensure that the column sits on a levelsurface. Placing a column on a surfacethat is not level could allow the columnto pivot and pull out the anchor bolts,creating a collapse hazard.

Paragraph (a)(3) would require thatunstable columns be evaluated by acompetent person and be guyed orbraced where deemed necessary. If it isdetermined, for example, that the


anchor bolts could potentially be pulledout under field conditions, thecompetent person can elect to guy orbrace the column.

Paragraph (b) Repair, replacement orfield modification. This paragraphaddresses the situation where the steelerector may be working after anothercontractor who has repaired, replaced ormodified an anchor bolt. The steelerector often cannot visually tell whenan anchor bolt has been repaired andthus will not be aware of the repairunless notified that a repair has beenmade. If an anchor bolt has beenimproperly repaired, replaced ormodified, it could lead to a collapse.The intent of this proposed paragraph isto ensure that the erector has theopportunity to make sure that any workon anchor bolts has been adequatelyperformed.

Paragraph (b)(1) would prohibit therepair, replacement or fieldmodification of anchor bolts without theapproval of the project structuralengineer of record. This would ensurethat any change to the original anchorbolt is performed in a manner consistentwith original specifications.

Paragraph (b)(2) would require thatany such approval by the projectstructural engineer of record alsoindicate any requirements for specialcolumn guying or bracing as a result ofthe repair, replacement or modification.If the project structural engineer ofrecord has approved the repair,replacement, or field modification,guying or bracing may be required as aprecaution.

Paragraph (b)(3) would require that,prior to the erection of a column, thecontrolling contractor provide writtennotification to the steel erector if therehas been any repair, replacement ormodification of the anchor bolts for thatcolumn. This proposed requirement,working in conjunction with proposed§ 1926.752(a)(2), completes thecommunication loop. Generally, thesteel erector does not have contact withthe project structural engineer of recordand would rely on the controllingcontractor to convey any notificationfrom the project structural engineer ofrecord. This form of communicationbetween the controlling contractor andsteel erector is already a common jobsitepractice.

Section 1926.756 Beams and ColumnsThis section sets forth proposed

requirements for connections of beamsand columns to ensure stability of thesteel structure during the erectionprocess. Recognizing that inappropriateor inadequate connections of beams andcolumns is inherently hazardous and

can lead to collapse and workerfatalities, the Committee recommended,and OSHA proposes, a combination ofperformance and specificationrequirements to address these hazards.

Paragraph (a) General. This paragraphwould require that, during the finalplacing of solid web structuralmembers, the load not be released fromthe hoisting line until the members aresecured with at least two bolts perconnection, drawn up wrench-tight, orthe equivalent as specified by theproject structural engineer of record.This is identical to existing§ 1926.751(a) of OSHA’s steel erectionstandard, except that ‘‘or the equivalentas specified by the project structuralengineer of record’’ has been added toallow for alternative types ofconnections such as welding, or, in thecase of heavy members, allowance formore than two bolts.

Paragraph (b) Diagonal bracing.Paragraph (b) would allow solid webstructural members used as diagonalbracing to be secured by a single boltper connection, drawn up wrench-tightor the equivalent as specified by theproject structural engineer of record. Inmany cases, solid web structuralmembers such as channels or beams areused as diagonal bracing or windbracing. These members technically fallunder paragraph (a) above; however,since they are used in a differentapplication, i.e., as bracing to be weldedat a later time, a one-bolt connection issufficient. These members play adifferent role in erection stability sincethey are designed to provide stability forthe final completed structure and arenot used as walking/working surfaces.Compliance with this provision wouldprovide safe connections for thesemembers.

Paragraph (c) Double connections atcolumns and/or at beam webs over acolumn. ‘‘Double connections’’ are anessential method for connectingstructural steel members in some designconcepts. However, these connectionscan pose significant hazards whileerecting structural steel. When a doubleconnection at a column is not properlyexecuted, the resulting failure can leadto the immediate collapse of the entirestructure, endangering the connectorand every other worker on or around thestructure. At one of the SENRACmeetings, several types of doubleconnections were demonstrated withthe use of scale model structural webmembers, together with a discussion ofwhy they are hazardous and how theycan be made safely. Proposed paragraph(c) would require that, when twostructural members on opposite sides ofa column web, or a beam web over a

column, share common connectionholes, at least one bolt with its wrench-tight nut must remain connected to thefirst member unless a shop-attached orfield-bolted seat or similar connectiondevice is present to secure the secondmember and prevent the column frombeing displaced. When seats areprovided, the connection between theseat and the structural member that itsupports must be bolted together beforethe nuts are removed for the doubleconnection.

A double connection, by definition, isone where more than two pieces of steelare bolted together using the same(common) bolts. This can occur wheretwo beams are bolted to opposite sidesof a column web or to the opposite sidesof a beam or girder. OSHA’s currentsteel erection standard does not addressthis practice. When utilizing a doubleconnection in field erection procedures,a beam is first bolted to another beamor column. Later in the erectionsequence, another beam or othermember is added to the opposite side ofthe existing connection, using the sameholes and the same bolts to ‘‘make up’’the third piece in the connection. Thisis the situation where the practice ofdouble connections becomes a safetyconcern: the nuts must be removed fromthe initially placed connection bolts andthese bolts are then backed out to thepoint where they barely grip the firsttwo pieces of steel, so that the thirdpiece can be lined up with the existingholes. Then the same bolts are pushedback through all the holes and the nutsare tightened on the bolts to secure thethree pieces of steel together. Thismaneuver is extremely dangerous forthe connector because of the tenuousgrip of the loosened bolts and thepossibility that the connector’s spudwrench, which is used to align theincoming piece, may slip. If at any timeduring the process, the carrying member(i.e., the central member to which theother two members are being attached)reacts to residual stresses developedthrough welding and/or misalignedconnections at lower elevations, thecarrying member can move suddenly,causing the bolts or the spud wrench tobecome dislodged. The incoming thirdmember can also cause problems if itbumps up against the fitting or wrenchend. Additionally, crane operators,wind, building movements and theconnector straining to make a toughconnection impose stresses that can leadto disengagement of the connection.

Several methods for performingdouble connections safely werediscussed by the Committee. Forexample, a seat lug could be inserted onone side of a column, below the


connection point. When the first beamis placed, two bolts could be inserteddownward into the seat lug. This wouldleave the other side of the column webclear so that the new beam could bepositioned without disconnecting thebeam on which the connector sits. Inanother method, an extra set of holes onone side of the connection could beadded to secure the first beam installed.This would require that the connectionplate on the end of the first beam beenlarged so that two additional holescould be placed just below the doubleconnection point. Bolts could be placedin these two holes to secure the beam tothe column. Even though these twobolts would go through the web of thecolumn, they would be located belowthe area where the second beam wouldbe aligned. This again would not requirethe connector to disconnect the firstbeam to allow for the second beam to bepositioned. This is the configurationused for a double connection situationin Canada, called the ‘‘clipped end plateconnection’’ (Ex. 9–27).

As mentioned earlier, doubleconnections are essential in steelerection and cannot be eliminated; theycan, however, be performed safely. Theproposed requirements address hazardsthat exist whenever there are doubleconnections which present a danger ofstructural collapse. It should be notedthat double connections of filler beamsin the webs of girders are not consideredto be an unsafe situation and are notsubject to the requirements of paragraph(c). This is because once the bay is‘‘boxed,’’ all filler beams are trappedbetween the girders. The connector sitson the girder while making the doubleconnection and has no exposure tocollapse of the individual members. Inthese cases there is no reason to requirebolts to remain in the connection orseats or other devices to restrain the firstmember while the second is beingerected. The seat or similar devicerequirement of this paragraph is alsoaddressed in the correspondingrequirement in the latest AmericanNational Standards Institute (ANSI)A10.13–1989, Steel Erection-SafetyRequirements standard (Ex. 9–35),which provides that ‘‘when doubleconnections are involved, the structuraldetailer and fabricator shall beconsulted concerning the provisions fora seat lug or flange length extension onone of the beams, and a correspondingbolt hole in the web of the column flooror beam.’’ The ANSI requirement doesnot, however, explicitly require a seat orsimilar device as proposed paragraph (c)would.

Paragraph (d) Column splices. Thisparagraph would require that each

column splice be designed to resist a300 pound (136.2 kg) eccentric loadlocated 18 inches (.46 m) from thecolumn face in each direction at the topof the column shaft. This is similar tothe proposed strength requirement foranchor bolts in § 1926.755(a)(1). In thesame manner as anchor bolts, a columnsplice must be designed to allow for aworker to climb the column to performwork. These splices are joints that aretemporarily fastened until the finalwelding or bolting is performed, andthey must be sufficient to support theworker without folding over.

Paragraph (e) Perimeter columns.This paragraph would require thatperimeter columns extend a minimumof 48 inches (1.2 m) above the finishedfloor to permit installation of perimetercables, prior to erection of the next tierexcept where structural design andconstructibility do not allow.

Paragraph (f) Perimeter safety cables.Paragraph (f)(1) would require thatperimeter safety cables be installedduring the structural steel assembly ofmulti-story structures. Paragraph (f)(2)would require that the perimeter safetycables consist of 1⁄2-inch wire rope orequivalent and be installed at 42–45inches above the finished floor and atthe midpoint between the finished floorand the top cable. Paragraph (f)(3)would require that where structuraldesign and constructibility allow, holesor other devices be provided by thefabricator/supplier in, or attached to,perimeter columns at a height of 42 to45 inches above the finished floor andat the midpoint between the finishedfloor and the top cable to permitinstallation of perimeter cables.

Proposed paragraphs (e) and (f)update and clarify the existingrequirement in § 1926.750(b)(1)(iii) ofOSHA’s steel erection standard. Theyclarify that the columns need to extendfar enough above the floor decking tofacilitate the installation of perimetercable. The perimeter cable must beinstalled at a height of 42 to 45 inchesabove the finished floor and at themidpoint between that cable and thefinished floor level. These safety cablesprovide fall protection at the perimeterof the structure and are to be installedas soon as the deck has been installedto provide protection to subsequentdetail crews. These perimeter safetycables are not intended to be used aslifelines or as attachment points for fallprotection systems but rather as aguardrail system. The holes or otherdevices necessary to accommodate thesafety cables would have to be providedby the fabricator of the columns prior toinstallation to enable the cables to beinstalled readily in the field after the

columns have been erected. The AISCraised concerns regarding the impact ofparagraph (f) on steel fabricators. TheAISC is concerned that this provisionwill create liability for the fabricator,confuse existing contractualrelationships, and create new feasibilityand materials handling problems (Ex. 9–151). However, both SENRAC andOSHA believe that the enhanced safetyafforded by this provision is necessaryand the Agency seeks comment on thisissue.

The proposed requirements inparagraph (e) and (f) do allow for caseswhere the design of a structure wouldnot allow either for the columns toextend 48 inches (1.2 m) above thefinished floor or for the holes or otherdevices to be provided by the fabricator.Proposed Appendix F provides aguideline to assist employers incomplying with these paragraphs.

Section 1926.757 Open Web SteelJoists

Some of the most serious risks facingthe ironworker are encountered duringthe erection of open web steel joists. Alimited analysis of ironworker fatalitiesfrom January 1984 to December 1990,discussed in Section IV—Hazards inSteel Erection, indicated that, of theapproximately 40 fatalities caused bycollapse, more than half were related tothe erection of steel joists (Ex. 9–14A).Although the existing OSHA steelerection standard addresses thesehazards in a limited manner, thisproposed section utilizes a combinationof specification and performancerequirements that will provide morecomprehensive protection to workersengaged in these activities. SENRACdeveloped these proposed requirementsin cooperation with the Steel JoistInstitute (SJI) and many of its membercompanies.

Paragraph (a) General. Paragraph (a)addresses the erection of steel joists ingeneral. Paragraph (a)(1) would providethat where steel joists or steel joistgirders are utilized and columns are notframed in at least two directions withsolid web structural steel members, thesteel joist or steel joist girder must befield-bolted at or near columns toprovide lateral stability to the columnduring erection. This proposedparagraph refines the existing steelerection standard provision,§ 1926.751(c)(1), which is otherwiseidentical to the proposed requirement,by adding the words ‘‘solid web’’ before‘‘structural steel members’’ andexpanding ‘‘bar joist’’ to ‘‘steel joists orsteel joist girders.’’ These additions arenecessary clarification in light oftechnological advances in the industry.


Specifically, the existing language wasdeveloped at a time when the onlystructural steel involved in steel framingwas solid web members. In the mid1970’s, the steel joist industrydeveloped the steel joist girder to beused as a primary member in steelframing to support steel joists. Boltingthese connections is consideredpreferable to other methods ofconnection because bolting provides thegreatest safety while requiring the leastamount of time and equipment.

Several other provisions in thisproposed paragraph refer to specialrequirements for connections at thecolumn. Paragraph (a)(2) would requirethat steel joists at or near the columnthat span 60 feet or less be designedwith sufficient lateral stiffness that,when bolted at both ends, and with thebottom chord restrained at each endwith the required column stabilizerplate (required by paragraph (a)(4) ofthis section), the joist does not neederection bridging to prevent it fromrotating when an employee goes outonto it to release the hoisting cable. Theexisting rule prohibits placing any loadon joists until erection bridging hasbeen installed. However, since the joistat the column is the first joist in place,there is no place to attach erectionbridging and, consequently, the joistitself must possess sufficient lateralstiffness to allow the erection process toprogress safely.

The next provision, paragraph (a)(3),addresses a longer steel joist at the sameposition. The Committee preliminarilydetermined, and OSHA is proposing,that steel joists that span more than 60feet located at columns must be set intandem, i.e., two steel joists must beattached together, usually with bolteddiagonal erection bridging, to ensurestability. These joists are commonlyused in larger open structures such aswarehouses, gymnasiums and arenas.This proposed provision would allowthe use of alternate means of erection ofsuch long span steel joists, providedthat the alternative is designed by aqualified person to ensure equivalentstability 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 thecolumn that would require a stabilizerplate to extend at least 3 inches (76 mm)below the bottom chord of the steel joistor steel joist girder. The plate would berequired to have a 13⁄16 inch (21 mm)hole placed in it to provide anattachment point for guying orplumbing cables. Paragraph (a)(5) worksin conjunction with paragraph (a)(4) andwould require that the bottom chords of

both the primary steel joist girders andthe secondary steel joists at columns bestabilized to prevent rotation.

The foregoing provisions will result ina more stable primary structure uponwhich to erect steel joists. In addition,a stabilizer plate provides a readyattachment point for more efficientguying. The sequence of guying isessential to safety. These proposedrequirements allow the erector moreeasily to guy the structure to preventcollapse as the steel is set in place.Moreover, compliance with theseprovisions should help to satisfy thestability requirements of paragraph(a)(6). Paragraph (a)(6) would prohibitthe placement of steel joists on anysupport structure unless it has beenstabilized. Again, this is essentiallyidentical to the existing requirementfound in § 1926.751(c)(3) of OSHA’ssteel erection standard.

Proposed paragraph (a)(7) addressesthe hazard that arises when a steel joistor joists are placed on the structure andthen left unattended and unattached. Anexample of a situation addressed by thisparagraph involves lighter steel joists,under 40 feet in length, that would notrequire erection bridging under thissection. A common practice in erectingthese lighter joists, which can be set inplace by hand, is to have a crane set thecolumns, steel joist girders, or solid webprimary members as well as the boltablejoists required by OSHA at the columns,thus boxing the bays. The crane wouldthen place a bundle of filler joists at anend or, more likely, at the center of thebay, and then move on to the next bay.Because cranes are among the morecostly pieces of equipment on a steelerection job, minimizing crane time atthe site is cost effective. This provisionwould require that, when steel joists arelanded on structures, they be secured toprevent unintentional displacementprior to installation, i.e., the bundlesmust remain intact until the time comesfor them to be set. This proposedparagraph would also prevent thoseironworkers who are shaking out thefiller joists from getting too far ahead ofthose workers welding the joists, apractice that leaves too many joistsplaced but unattached (paragraph (b)(3)of this proposed section, discussedbelow, requires that at least one end ofeach steel joist be attached immediatelyupon placement in its final erectionposition and before additional joists areplaced). A final example of a situationaddressed by this paragraph would bewhen the exact dimensions of a piece ofmechanical equipment to be installed inthe decking is not known. A commonpractice, when this occurs, is to leave ajoist unattached until the dimension is

known. This paragraph requires such ajoist to be secured (probably to thesupport structure or an attached joist)pending its attachment.

The Committee spent considerabletime debating the appropriateness ofrequiring that certain joists be fabricatedwith bolt holes at the ends to allow forfield bolting to the structure. Asrecommended by SENRAC, OSHA isproposing paragraph (a)(8), whichwould require that, when individualsteel joists are being connected to steelstructures in bays of 40 feet or more,these joists be fabricated to allow forfield bolting.

This provision is necessary becausecertain joists that are thin and flexiblecan be difficult to install because oftheir sweep. Bolting these types of joistsfirst allows straightening of the joist,thus returning its camber andeliminating torque. Additionally, afterbolting, welding can be more easilyaccomplished. Note that this provisionwould not require these joists to bebolted as paragraph (a)(1) would requireof the joist at the column. (Attachmentrequirements and the exceptions to thisparagraph are discussed in connectionwith paragraph (b) below.) Instead,proposed paragraph (a)(8) would requirethat the joists arrive at the jobsite withholes pre-existing, thereby providingsteel erectors with the option either ofbolting or welding the joists. In practice,not requiring the joists to be fabricatedin this manner would require the steelerector to drill holes in the joists inthose cases where bolting is preferable.Just as the joist at the column is aspecial risk situation, long steel joiststhat are placed in bays of 40 feet or morehave a greater tendency to twist orrotate, which creates hazards for theworkers installing them.

SENRAC discussed a number ofhazardous situations for which boltingjoists is a safer method of attachmentthan welding. For example, SENRACnoted that bolting is safer wheneverunattached joists could be displaced bywind or construction activity, by themovement of employees, by trailingwelding leads, by accidental impactagainst the supporting structure by acrane or other equipment, or byharmonic motion or vibration. Inaddition, the vision and balance of anemployee working at elevation can beimpaired while wearing a welding hood,which may make bolting a saferapproach in this situation. Further,joists can roll and pop welds due to themovement of an erector on the joist orthe stresses caused by removing thesweep; if the weld breaks, the joist failsand may cause a structural collapse.Finally, there are special hazards


associated with welding that are notassociated with bolting, such aselectrical and fire hazards.

Both bolting and welding provideconnections of equivalent strength, andboth involve some risk. The Steel JoistInstitute (SJI) asserted that welding joistends is its recommended manner ofattachment and that welding eliminatesthe weakening that holes in thesupporting member can cause. Afterreviewing all relevant options, theCommittee concluded that steel erectorsshould have the option of attachingjoists either by bolting or welding.When conditions for welding areadverse, however, proposed paragraph(a)(8) would allow the steel erector tobolt the joists, thus avoiding many ofthe hazards mentioned above.

As noted, questions were raised aboutthis proposed requirement. SJI andothers questioned whether it is possibleto bolt a joist to a masonry or similarsupport structure. However, theproposal clearly states that the provisionallowing bolting would apply onlywhen the joist is to be attached to a steelsupport structure, usually a solid webbeam or a steel joist girder. Additionalconcerns were raised about the cost andfeasibility of putting holes in the steeljoists and support members (see Ex. 6–8, p. 7), but SENRAC believes that thesafety and other advantages ofpermitting bolting are clearly moreimportant than the disadvantages of thistechnique.

The American Institute of SteelConstruction (AISC) pointed out that, toput the holes in the supporting beams,the fabricator of the beams must knowthe exact location the joist will occupybefore the member can be designed andfabricated. This information isfrequently not available at the time thesupporting beams are being fabricated,however, because of the relationshipbetween the joist spacing and theavailability of the building’s mechanicalequipment design. If the designinformation is not available to thefabricator, this could delay thefabrication of the steel and, possibly, theproject.

On the other hand, the Committeebelieves that requiring holes for boltingto be in place will promote better pre-erection planning and communicationbetween all parties to the design anderection process, and may even lead tostandardization of HVAC specifications,thus promoting better and saferconstruction sequencing. As thechairman of the SENRAC steel joistworkgroup stated:

Prior to sizing a structural member forsupporting mechanical equipment, the

structural engineer of record or designengineer must know the exact operatingweight and physical footprint of the unit thatwill be imposed onto the structure. This typeof information is critical in the sizing of thefoundations, primary and secondarystructural members (Ex. 9–142).

SENRAC was convinced that, underthe present system of fast-trackconstruction, the owner, theconstruction manager and the generalcontractors are not giving sufficientattention to the selection of mechanicalequipment to be installed, despite thefact that this information is availableprior to construction (the lead timerequired for mechanical equipment isten times greater than the time requiredto design and fabricate the steel for thestructure) (Ex. 9–142). Therefore, theweight and size of the mechanicalequipment is known long beforefabrication or erection. In addition,standardizing the requirement forbolting the structure will help theindustry adopt a standard ‘‘curb’’ sizedto fit the structure, as well as promotebetter information exchange andforward planning. Currently the lack ofimportance assigned to the transmissionof this critical information down theline is causing portions of the structureto be constructed out of sequence,increasing the fall hazard and risk ofcollapse.

Another issue was raised byworkgroup members concerning thesituation where joists and supportingstructural members arrive at the jobsitewith the holes that allow field bolting inplace, but the steel erector elects to weldinstead of bolt them. These workgroupmembers were concerned that thissituation would mean that the projectstructural engineer of record (SER) mustmake a determination to fill such holeswith bolts. Conversely, when the joistshave been bolted, the workgroupwondered whether the SER would stillrequire the joists to be welded to thesupport structure. An additionalconcern raised is the structural impactthe holes may have on the supportingsteel member, i.e., the solid web beamor the steel joist girder. In the case ofbeams, the issue is whether, because ofthe holes, the size of the steel memberwould have to be increased. In the caseof steel joist girders, the issue is whetherre-engineering would be required,perhaps even to the point of welding anadditional steel plate on the top chordto accommodate the bolting of the joists.OSHA raises all of these issues andsolicits comment on them. Asmentioned above, the Committeedetermined that the benefits ofproviding the option of bolting

remained compelling and recommendedthat OSHA propose paragraph (a)(8).

Paragraph (a)(9) addresses the hazardposed by bridging joists before anadequate terminus point has beenestablished. Bridging is not trulybridging until a terminus point iscreated. ‘‘Bridging,’’ an operationintegral to steel joist construction, refersto the steel elements that are attachedbetween the joists (from joist to joist) toprovide stability. ‘‘Erection bridging’’ isdefined as ‘‘* * * the bolted diagonalbridging that is required to be installedprior to releasing the hoisting cablesfrom the steel joists.’’ ‘‘Horizontalbridging,’’ usually angle iron, isattached to the top and bottom chordsof the steel joists by welding. There areseveral provisions in this section thatwould require bridging to be anchored.This means, by definition, that the steeljoist bridging must be connected to abridging terminus point. The term,‘‘bridging terminus point,’’ is alsodefined in the proposed rule:

Bridging terminus point means a wall,beam, tandem joists (with all bridginginstalled and a horizontal truss in the planeof the top chord) or other element at an endor intermediate point(s) of a line of bridgingthat provides an anchor point for the steeljoist bridging.

Paragraph (a)(9) would simply requirethat a terminus point be establishedprior to installing the bridging in orderto allow the bridging to be anchored.OSHA is aware that steel erection is aprogressive process that requires onepiece to be erected before thesubsequent piece can be attached to it.This provision would require pre-planning to determine the particularlocation of the terminus point for theattachment of bridging. To assist indeveloping terminus points, SJI hasdeveloped several illustrative drawingsthat are found in non-mandatoryAppendix C. In addition, paragraph(c)(3) of this section, discussed furtherbelow, deals with the problem of anerection sequence where the permanentbridging terminus points are not yet inexistence at the time the joists andbridging are erected.

Paragraph (a)(10) would prohibit theuse of steel joists and steel joist girdersas anchorage points for a fall arrestsystem unless written directionallowing such use is obtained from aqualified person. Allowing those joistsand girders that have specifically beenapproved for use as fall arrest systemanchorage points by a qualified personrecognizes both that performancecriteria and manufacturer’sspecifications are not currently availableregarding the adequacy of steel joists tomeet the requirements of proposed


§ 1926.760(a)(2) but that some steeljoists and steel joist girders are adequateto meet these load requirements. Thisparagraph would allow steel joists andsteel joist girders to be used asanchorage points for personal fall arrestsystems in those situations where aqualified person has stated, in writing,that such use is appropriate.

Paragraph (a)(11) addresses thepotential for failure that can occur whena steel joist is modified from its originalmanufactured state. The Committee andSJI agreed that field modifications havehad disastrous consequences in the past.To ensure against recurrences of thistype, OSHA proposes to prohibit suchmodification without the prior approvalof the project structural engineer ofrecord.

Paragraph (b) Attachments of steeljoists and steel joist girders. SJI greatlyassisted the Committee in thedevelopment of this proposal bycreating Tables A and B, which relatethe attachment and bridgingrequirements of paragraphs (b) and (d)to the actual performance of particularjoists. SJI arranged for Dr. TheodoreGalambos, Professor of CivilEngineering at the University ofMinnesota, to:

* * * Mathematically develop a table oftheoretical safe and stable lengths for all KSeries Joists. The stable joist length wasdefined as the maximum span at which alaterally unsupported steel joist will safelysupport a 300 pound load placed on the topchord at the mid span of the joist (Ex. 9–19,p. 6).

Dr. Galambos developed joist stabilityspans using the following criteria: (1)the joists, which had top angles placedback to back with no space between thedown standing legs of the chord angles,were free to rotate, i.e., were notattached; (2) the width of the bearingshoes of the joist was not made part ofthe equation; (3) there was no externallateral support; and (4) a 300-poundload was placed on the top chord of thejoist at mid-span. A 300-pound load waschosen as representative of the weight ofan average ironworker and hisequipment, including a safety factor.Following a review of these results, SJI,through its members, field tested arepresentative sampling of the joists toverify the study. The joists were fieldtested by placing each joist on supportsspaced to obtain the correct joist spanplus 21⁄2 inches of bearing length on thesupport member. The test load wasapplied in 25 pound increments byplacing individual 25 pound steel plateson top of the top chord at mid-span ofthe joist. The load was applied until atotal static load of 300 pounds wasobtained. The results closely paralleled

those predicted by Dr. Galambos’mathematical model. In addition, thefield testing added another criterion:that one end of the joist would beattached, which increased the stabilityand helped SJI with its attachmentrecommendations (Ex. 9–19).

Based on the results of this stabilitystudy, SJI developed two tables thatwere adopted in part by the Committee.Table A, Erection Bridging for ShortSpan Joists, includes the lighter, K-Series joists, which run up to 60 feet inlength. The K-Series open web steeljoists, having joist depths from 8 inchesthrough 30 inches, are primarily used toprovide structural support for floors androofs of buildings. Although light inweight, they possess a high strength toweight ratio (Ex. 9–141). Although TableA contains all the joists in the K-Series,Table B contains only those joists in theLH-Series that are 60 feet or less, eventhough the series spans through 96 feet.These joists are used for the directsupport of floor or roof slabs or decksbetween walls, beams, and mainstructural members, and their depthsrange from 18 inches to 48 inches.Although the tables do not address the‘‘Deep Longspan,’’ or DLH-Series, otherparagraphs in this section providespecific requirements for attaching thesejoists. The DLH-Series joists can run upto 144 feet and have depths from 52inches through 72 inches (Ex. 9–19). SJIlimited the tables to 60 feet for tworeasons: 1) the K-Series only goes to 60feet, and 2) over 60 feet, the LH-Seriesare manufactured for the use ofdiagonal, bolted bridging only.Horizontal bridging, according to SJIspecifications, can be used only withjoists of 60 feet or less.

The attachment of all three series ofjoists is addressed in paragraph (b) ofthis section. The hazard addressed inthat paragraph is the inadequateattachment of joists that could affect thestability of the joist and thus the safetyof the employee erecting the joist.Paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) wouldspecify the minimum attachmentspecifications for the lighter and theheavier joists, respectively. At aminimum, the K-Series would have tobe attached with either two 1⁄8′′ (3 mm)fillet welds 1 inch (25 mm) long, or withtwo 1⁄2′′ (13 mm) bolts. In addition, theCommittee built in alternativeperformance language by adding thephrase ‘‘or the equivalent’’ to allow forattachment by any other means thatprovides at least equivalent connectionstrength. Similarly, at a minimum, theLH-Series and DLH-Series would haveto be attached with either two 1⁄4′′ (6mm) fillet welds 2 inches (51 mm) long,or with two 3⁄4′′ (19 mm) bolts. Again,

OSHA is proposing alternativeperformance language, ‘‘or theequivalent,’’ for the reasons discussedabove (Ex. 9–56).

Paragraph (b)(3) addresses the hazardsassociated with the following impropererection sequence: landing joists on thesupport structure; spreading them outunattached to their final position; andthen attaching them. This procedurecreates the potential for worker injurybecause joists handled in this mannermay fall or the structure may collapse.To eliminate these hazards, thisparagraph would require, with oneexception discussed in paragraph (b)(4)below, that each steel joist be attached,at least at one end, immediately uponplacement in its final erection position,before any additional joists are placed.

Paragraph (b)(4) is an exception toboth the proposed (b)(3) ‘‘attachmentupon final placement’’ requirement, andthe proposed paragraph (a)(8) ‘‘all joistsover 40 feet must be boltable’’requirement. Paragraph (b)(4) addressesthe situation where steel joists havebeen pre-assembled into panels prior toplacement on the support structure. Pre-assembly usually involves theinstallation of diagonal and horizontalbridging to form a platform at groundlevel, which eliminates fall hazardsassociated with attaching bridging atelevated work stations. Placing joists onthe support structure in this mannereliminates the single joist instabilityconcerns and other hazards that led theCommittee to recommend, and OSHA topropose, paragraph (a)(8) (seediscussion above). Furthermore, becauseof the inherent stability of these pre-assembled panels, this paragraph wouldrequire only that the four corners of thepanel be attached to the supportstructure before releasing the hoistingcables. The attachment can be eitherbolted or welded.

Additionally, the pre-assembled panelexception to paragraph (a)(8) allows foralternative joist erection methods suchas a hybrid form of steel erectioninvolving steel/wood-panelized roofstructures, where wooden decking(dimensional wood and plywood) isattached to a single steel joist and theresulting panels are set on the supportstructure (Exs. 9–94, 9–95). Again, byplacing joists on the support structure inthis manner, the instability concernsand other hazards associated withattaching single joists, which led OSHAto propose paragraph (a)(8), are avoided(see discussion above).

Paragraph (c) Erection of steel joists.Paragraph (c)(1) would require that atleast one end of each steel joist beattached to the support structure before


the weight of an employee is placed onthe steel joist.

Paragraph (c)(2) addresses steel joiststhat span 40 feet (12.2 m) or less andthat do not require erection bridging asrequired by Tables A and B. OSHA’sexisting steel erection requirements,§ 1926.751(c)(2) and (c)(3), regardingsteel joists and bridging, only addressmembers 40 feet or longer:

(c)(2) Where longspan joists or trusses 40feet or longer, are used, a center row of boltedbridging shall be installed to provide lateralstability during construction prior to slackingof hoisting line.

(c)(3) No load shall be placed on open websteel joists until these security requirementsare met.

In the last 25 years, many new anddifferent open web steel joists have beenmanufactured. In developing Tables Aand B, SJI demonstrated that there aredozens of joists that span less than 40feet that require erection bridging tomaintain stability during erection. As tojoists that do not require erectionbridging in accordance with thesetables, OSHA is proposing in paragraph(c)(2) that only one employee beallowed on the joist until all permanent(horizontal) bridging is installed andanchored.

Based on the Committee’s recognitionof the inherent danger of employeesworking on unstable joists, OSHA isproposing in paragraph (c)(3) that noemployee be allowed on steel joistsother than those addressed in paragraph(c)(2) unless the requirements ofparagraph (d) of this section are met.

Proposed paragraph (c)(4) addressesthe situation where the erectionsequence calls for joists to be erectedbefore the permanent bridging terminuspoints have been established. Thissituation commonly occurs in a singlestory structure that has masonry orarchitectural precast walls installedafter the steel is partially or fullyerected. Complying with proposedparagraph (c)(4) would involve pre-planning and the addition of temporarybridging terminus points to providestability and prevent structure collapsein this situation.

Paragraph (d) Erection bridging.Paragraph (d) sets forth proposederection bridging requirements for thesafe erection of steel joists. Paragraphs(d)(1), (d)(2) and (d)(3) address steeljoists that span 60 feet or less, over 60feet through 100 feet and over 100 feetthrough 144 feet, respectively.Although, at first glance, theseprovisions appear similar, they reflectsubstantive differences that are based onengineering principles as well as thecollective experience of SENRACmembers. Since all of the other

provisions of paragraph (d) apply acrossthe board to all open web steel joists,breaking out these differentrequirements will promote ease ofcompliance.

Paragraph (d)(1) refers to the joiststhat span less than 40 feet when thetables indicate the need for erectionbridging of such joists, and to all joistsin bays of 40 feet through 60 feet.Although the SJI has determined thatthere are certain joists with spans from40 through 60 feet that do not requireerection bridging, the Committeedetermined that a center row of bridgingshould nevertheless be required toensure stability. OSHA is accordinglyproposing paragraph (d)(1). The Agencybelieves, because this practice is alreadyrequired by OSHA’s current steelerection standard, that it is alreadystandard industry practice. Second, theloads imposed in the SJI tests werestatic loads, but the load imposed by anemployee would be a dynamic load.Although SJI asserted that an erector‘‘cooning’’ the joist would have astabilizing effect on the joist, theCommittee nonetheless concluded that,in bays of 40 feet through 60 feet, therow of erection bridging nearest themidspan of the steel joist should bebolted diagonal bridging (paragraph(d)(1)(i)); further, the Committeebelieves that the hoisting cables shouldnot be released until after theinstallation of this bridging (paragraph(d)(1)(ii)). Additionally, only oneemployee would be allowed on thesespans until all other bridging is installedand anchored (paragraph (d)(1)(iii)).Anchored bridging means that the steeljoist bridging is connected to a bridgingterminus point. Horizontal bridgingwould have to be welded or attached toeach joist to be considered anchored. Itis unnecessary to address anchoring forbolted diagonal bridging because, by thevery nature of its connection in theerection sequence, the anchorage willhave already been accomplished.However, as mentioned above in thediscussion of paragraph (a)(9) of thissection, a terminus point is required tobe established before any bridging isinstalled.

Paragraph (d)(2) addresses heavierjoists that span over 60 through 100 feet.Here, two rows of erection bridgingwould be required to be placed nearestthe one-third points of the steel joists(paragraph (d)(2)(i)). Again, the hoistingcables would not be released until allthe bolted diagonal erection bridging isinstalled (paragraph (d)(2)(ii)). Sincethese are heavier members and sincetwo rows of bridging must be installedin the erection sequence, only twoemployees would be allowed on these

joists until all other bridging is installedand anchored (paragraph (d)(2)(iii)).

Paragraph (d)(3) addresses evenheavier joists that span over 100 through144 feet. Here, all bridging is considerederection bridging and must be bolteddiagonal bridging (paragraph (d)(3)(i)).Although all of the bridging addressedin paragraph (d)(2) above is bolteddiagonal bridging, only the two rowsnearest the third points are considerederection bridging. In the case of thelargest open web steel joists, withdepths up to 72 inches, all the bridgingwould have to be installed before thehoisting cables can be released(paragraph (d)(3)(ii)). Again, the reasonfor requiring bolting is that, in setting anindividual steel joist, bolting is thesafest and quickest way of securing thejoist with the least equipment.According to proposed paragraph(d)(3)(iii), only two employees would beallowed on the spans until all thebridging is installed. In this case, sinceall the bridging is bolted diagonalbridging, using the term ‘‘anchored’’would be superfluous because, as statedabove, by the very nature of itsconnection in the erection sequence,anchoring will already have beenaccomplished. Additionally, a bolteddiagonal bridging requirement wouldnot apply to the attachment of thediagonal bridging to other than steeljoists.

Proposed paragraph (d)(4) reflects theCommittee’s agreement that open websteel members that span over 144 feetare not considered joists but ratherstructural trusses. The erection methodsfor such members are moreappropriately treated in the section onsolid web structural members found inproposed § 1926.756, Beams andColumns, since they are larger, heaviermembers. Paragraph (d)(4) would limitwhat would be considered steel joistssince steel trusses are heavy dutymembers, custom made and designed bya structural engineer, and usually madeof structural shapes. The definition for‘‘steel truss’’ is as follows:

Steel truss means an open web memberdesigned of structural steel components bythe project structural engineer of record. Forthe purposes of this subpart it is consideredequivalent to a solid web structural member.

Although the term is not used in thebody of this subpart, it is referred to inthe definition of steel joists. TheCommittee believes that explainingwhat does not constitute a steel joist isimportant for clarity and in order todetermine which erection provisionsapply.

Paragraph (d)(5) addresses thesituation where a joist is bottom chordbearing (i.e., attached to the primary


structure by the bottom chord of thejoist) and would require erectionbridging; or is forty feet or less andwould not require erection bridging perTables A and B. When a joist is topchord bearing, which is the usualapplication, the center of gravity of thejoist is below the bearing surface of thesupport structure—a factor that helps tokeep the joist stable. In a bottom bearingsituation, however, the center of gravityis above the bearing surface of thesupport structure—a factor thatincreases the tendency of the joist to rollover. Under these circumstances, thisparagraph would require an additionalrow of bolted diagonal bridging neareach support where the bottom chordreceives support. Typically this wouldrequire two rows of bridging. It is notuncommon, however, for a one storybuilding, such as a convenience storethat has a high glass front and a lowerceiling in the rear, to have steel joistswhich are bottom bearing in the frontand top bearing in the back. Under thisscenario, only one set of bolted diagonalbridging would be required. Consistentwith the other requirements for erectionbridging in this paragraph, this erectionbridging would have to be installedprior to the release of the hoistingcables.

Paragraph (d)(6) proposesspecifications and work practices for theplacement and attachment of bolteddiagonal erection bridging required bythis proposed section. Paragraph(d)(6)(i) would require that this bridgingbe indicated on the erection drawing.The Committee discussed alternativeindicators for the proper placement ofthe bridging and concluded that theerection drawing should be theexclusive placement indicator (Ex. 6–7,p. 11). Paragraph (d)(6)(ii) would requirethat the erection drawing be theexclusive indicator of the properplacement of this bridging.

Paragraph (d)(6)(iii) is intended tomake the attachment of erectionbridging less difficult and safer toaccomplish. This work is performed atan elevated work station and frequentlyinvolves awkward bending andreaching. This provision would requirethat shop-installed bridging clips ortheir functional equivalents be providedwith the steel joists. In addition, theproposal defines a ‘‘bridging clip’’ as adevice that is attached to the steel joistto allow the bolting of the bridging tothe steel joist. Attachments that are thefunctional equivalent of bridging clipswould be allowed by this paragraph toprovide flexibility and to allow fortechnological innovation should adifferent type of attachment bedeveloped.

Paragraph (d)(6)(iv) addresses ahazard that is similar to thatencountered with a double connection,discussed earlier. It would provide thatwhere two pieces of bridging areattached to the steel joist by a commonbolt, the nut that secures the first pieceof bridging shall not be removed fromthe bolt for the attachment of thesecond. This is a work practice that issimilar to a ‘‘clipped connection’’ (seedefinition section).

Paragraph (d)(6)(v) addresses a‘‘cooning’’ problem rather than atripping hazard since cooning involvesstraddling the top chord while walkingon the bottom chord. Nonetheless, thisprovision works in conjunction withproposed § 1926.754(c)(1) and wouldrequire that bridging attachments notprotrude above the top chord of the steeljoist. This, of course, would apply bothto bridging clips and their functionalequivalents.

Paragraph (e) Landing and placingloads. Paragraph (e) addresses thehazards encountered in steel erectionwhen landing and placing loads.Although work practice provisionsfound in § 1926.754(e) regarding thehoisting, landing and placing of deckbundles in general have already beendiscussed, this paragraph addressesthese hazards specifically with regard tolanding and placing loads on steel joists.SJI stressed that accidents occur ‘‘whenloads are placed on unsecured/unbridged joists’’ (Ex. 6–8, p. 8). Inaddition, in the decking subgroup’sanalysis of the data workgroup’s fatalityand catastrophe reports, approximately16 percent of the floor and roof deckfatalities were associated with collapsesdue to improper loading on steel joists(Ex. 9–49, p. 4).

Proposed paragraph (e)(1) of thissection would apply to any employerwho places a load on steel joists duringsteel erection. This paragraph wouldrequire that the load is adequatelydistributed so that the carrying capacityof any steel joist is not exceeded. Theremainder of proposed paragraph (e)sets forth specific conditions that theemployer must meet in addition to thegeneral performance criteria inparagraph (e)(1).

Paragraph (e)(2) proposes generalrequirements that would have to be metbefore landing a construction load onsteel joists, although an exception isallowed in paragraph (e)(4) for bundlesof decking. Paragraph (e)(2) wouldprohibit placement of any constructionloads on steel joists until all bridging isinstalled and anchored and all joistbearing ends are attached in accordancewith 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 ofthe employee(s), the joists and thebridging bundle. Bundles of deckingconstitute a construction load under thisdefinition. Under certain conditions,however, decking can be placed safelyon the steel joists before all the bridgingis installed and anchored. Theseconditions form the basis for theexceptions in paragraph (e)(4), which isdiscussed below.

Although a bridging bundle is notconsidered a construction load, itnevertheless must be landed and placedon the steel joists in a safe manner thatmaintains stability. Proposed paragraph(e)(3) provides for the safe and stableplacement of bridging on steel joists.Usually, this bridging will be 20 foothorizontal bridging because bolteddiagonal bridging is too short to extendover 3 joists. In developing thisproposed requirement, the Committee,following consultation with SJI inworkgroup meetings, decided to limitthe weight of the bundle to 1,000pounds because the bridging would beplaced on the joists before they havebeen fully stabilized. One thousand(1,000) pounds would allow the joisterector to safely place the necessarybridging on the joists. To facilitatecompliance with this requirement, theSJI has agreed to establish a newindustry practice of bundling bridginginto 1,000 pound units. Placement ofthe bundle is also important. Thisparagraph would therefore require thatthe bundle of joist bridging be placedover a minimum of 3 steel joists securedon at least one end. Under thesecircumstances, the stability of the loadwould be further enhanced if the loadis placed near the support member.Therefore, this provision would requirethat the edge of the bridging bundle bepositioned within 1 foot of the securedend. A clearance of at least one foot isnecessary for material handlingpurposes and to provide access to thesteel joist’s attachment point. This lastproposed requirement is practicallyidentical to the proposed requirementfor the placement of construction loadsfound in paragraph (e)(5) of this section.

Paragraph (e)(4) proposes specialconditions to be met before a bundle ofdecking is placed on steel joists that donot yet have all bridging installed.Decking bundles are the most commonconstruction loads imposed on steeljoists. Although it is safe to placeconstruction loads on steel joists whenall the bearing ends have been attachedand all the bridging is in place, there arecertain commonly encounteredsituations where all the bridging in the


bay and all the bearing ends of the steeljoists in the bay do not have to be fullyinstalled and attached to land a bundleof decking safely. There are sixconditions that would have to be metbefore an exception from paragraph(e)(2) is warranted.

Paragraph (e)(4)(i) would require theemployer to determine, based oninformation from a qualified person,that the structure or portion of thestructure is capable of safely supportingthe load of decking. This determinationwould have to be documented in a site-specific erection plan available at theconstruction site (see proposed§ 1926.753(d)).

Under paragraph (e)(4)(ii), the bundleof decking would have to be placed overa minimum of 3 joists to distribute theload. Since most decking comes in 20foot lengths and the standard distancebetween joists is 5 feet, typically theload will be supported by 4 joists.

Paragraph (e)(4)(iii) would requirethat those steel joists actuallysupporting the bundle of decking haveboth ends attached to the supportstructure (the attachments would haveto be in accordance with therequirements contained in paragraph (b)of this section).

At least one row of bridging wouldhave to be attached and anchored,according to proposed paragraph(e)(4)(iv). The qualified person woulddetermine the type of bridging, erectionbridging or horizontal bridging, tosatisfy this proposed requirement. Toassist the qualified person in makingthis decision, paragraph (e)(4)(v) wouldprovide a load limit of 4000 pounds(1816 kg) for the total weight of thebundle of decking. The Steel DeckInstitute (SDI) has indicated that, in thefuture, manufacturers will deliverdecking in bundles that willaccommodate this load limit.

Finally, paragraph (e)(4)(vi) wouldrequire that the edge of the bundle beplaced within a foot (0.30 m) of thebearing surface of the joist. This is thesame requirement that applies to allloads in proposed paragraph (e)(5) ofthis section. Collapses could occur ifany one of the six conditions inparagraph (e)(4) is not met. Therefore, toqualify for an exception, this paragraphwould require that a site-specificerection plan be developed thatindicates that these bundles of 4000pounds or less will be placed over 3 ormore joists that have been attached atboth ends and have at least onecompletely installed and anchored rowof bridging. Additionally, the edge ofthe bundle of decking must be placedwithin 1 foot of the bearing surface ofthe joist end for the exception to apply.

Paragraph (e)(5) addresses the properplacement of all construction loads (notjust decking) on steel joists. Asindicated above in the discussion ofparagraph (e)(3), stability of the load isenhanced by placing the load near thesupport member. Therefore, thisproposed provision would require thatthe edge of the construction load bepositioned within 1 foot of the securedend. At least a one foot clearance isnecessary for material handlingpurposes and for access to the steeljoist’s attachment point to the supportstructure.

Section 1926.758 Pre-EngineeredMetal Buildings

During SENRAC’s deliberations onthe prerequisites for anchor bolts,beams, columns and open web steeljoists, the Committee discussed manyanomalies that appeared to beassociated with pre-engineered metalbuildings. The Committee was advisedby the Metal Building ManufacturersAssociation (MBMA) that over 50percent of the industrial buildings insteel erection are pre-engineered. Thistype of building frequently has lighter,cold formed members such as girts, eavestruts and purlins (see definitions).Larger members in this type ofconstruction are called rigid frames, aterm not used in conventional steelerection. There are a large number ofsmall specialized steel erectors whoexclusively perform pre-engineeredmetal building erection. In light of theseconsiderations and in an effort tofacilitate compliance with this subpart,SENRAC developed a separate sectionfor pre-engineered metal buildings.

This section sets forth proposedrequirements to erect pre-engineeredmetal buildings safely. Pre-engineeredmetal buildings are defined in thedefinition section of this proposal. Pre-engineered metal buildings includestructures ranging from small sheds tolarger structures such as warehouses,gymnasiums, churches, airplane hangarsand arenas.

Pre-engineered metal buildings usedifferent types of steel members and adifferent erection process than typicalsteel erection. Many contractors erectpre-engineered metal buildingsexclusively. An overwhelming majorityof these erectors are small employers.The erection of pre-engineered metalstructures presents certain uniquehazards that are not addressedspecifically by OSHA’s existing steelerection standard. With the help andsupport of the MBMA and two othermajor manufacturers, the Committeedeveloped and recommended to OSHAa section devoted to this industry.

Although some of the hazards aresimilar to general steel erection, otherhazards, such as those associated withanchor bolts, construction loads anddouble connections, are different.

Most of the proposed requirements inthis section are similar to those in othersections of this document. Where aconflict arises between a provision inthe pre-engineered metal buildingsection and that of another section ofsubpart R, to the extent that the workbeing performed is pre-engineered metalbuilding work, the more specific pre-engineered metal building sectionwould apply. This section, however,should not be interpreted to mean thatthe other provisions of subpart R do notapply to pre-engineered metal buildingswhere appropriate. OSHA requestscomment and information on whetherthere are other hazards involved in theerection of pre-engineered metalbuildings that are addressed elsewherein this subpart but not in proposed§ 1926.758. If so, should provisions beadded to § 1926.758 to address thosehazards? Additionally, should a cross-reference be made to § 1926.760 (fallprotection) and § 1926.761 (training)since these sections apply to all steelerection?

Paragraph (a) states that the erectionof pre-engineered metal buildings maynot begin until the site layout has beencompleted in accordance with proposed§ 1926.752(b), site layout, site-specificerection plan and constructionsequence. The requirements in thatsection would apply to pre-engineeredmetal buildings as they do to other typesof steel erection.

Like proposed § 1926.755(a)(1),paragraph (b) would require that allcolumns be anchored by a minimum of4 anchor bolts. This requirement isnecessary to ensure stability.

The proposed requirement inparagraph (c) is unique to the erectionof pre-engineered metal buildingsbecause rigid frames are found only inthis type of structure. This paragraphwould require that rigid frames have 50percent of their bolts or the number ofbolts specified by the manufacturer(whichever is greater) installed andtightened on both sides of the webadjacent to each flange before thehoisting equipment is released. Likeproposed § 1926.756(a), this provisionwould require an adequate number ofbolts to ensure stability before the hoistline is released. Rigid frames are fullycontinuous frames that provide themain structural support for a pre-engineered metal building. Theyprovide the support that is typicallyprovided by columns and beams inconventional steel erection. Due to


design and load requirements,connections in rigid frames occupy agreater area and require more than twobolts upon initial connection. Theremaining bolts are used to attach othermembers to the structure and providestability against wind loading. Torequire these connections to be boltedonly with two bolts would not beadequate in many cases to prevent acollapse hazard.

Paragraph (d) also pertains to stabilityand would prohibit construction loadsfrom being placed on any structuralsteel framework unless such frameworkhas been safely bolted, welded orotherwise adequately secured. Withoutproper bolting or welding to providestability, a construction load couldcause a collapse of the structure.

Paragraph (e) pertains to doubleconnections in pre-engineered metalbuildings. When girts or eave strutsshare common connection holes, adouble connection hazard exists. Aswith proposed § 1926.756(c), a seat orsimilar connection would prevent onemember from becoming displacedduring the double connection activity.In girt and eave strut to frameconnections where girts or eave strutsshare common connection holes, twoprovisions apply. Paragraph (e)(1)would require that at least one bolt withits wrench-tight nut remain in place forthe connection of the second memberunless a field-attached seat or similarconnection device is present to securethe first member so that the girt or eavestrut is always secured againstdisplacement. Paragraph (e)(2)maintains that the seat or similarconnection device must be provided bythe manufacturer of the girt or eave strutso that it is designed properly for theintended use. Because this form ofdouble connection is unique to pre-engineered metal building constructionand might not be considered a doubleconnection under a literal reading ofproposed § 1926.756(c), this provisionspecifically addresses girt and eave strutto frame connections.

Proposed paragraph (f) would requirethat both ends of all steel joists or cold-formed joists be fully bolted and/orwelded to the support structure beforereleasing the hoisting cables, allowingthe weight of an employee on the joists,or allowing any construction loads onthe joists. These proposed requirementsare similar to those proposed in§ 1926.757 for joists. However, due tothe uniqueness of pre-engineered metalbuilding erection and the design factorsof the members, the key elements ofjoist erection that apply to thesestructures are proposed to apply morestringently in paragraph (f).

Paragraph (g) would prohibit the useof purlins and girts as anchorage pointsfor a fall arrest system unless writtendirection to do so is obtained from aqualified person. Generally, purlins andgirts are lightweight members designedto support the final structure. They maynot have been designed to resist theforce of a fall arrest system. If, however,a qualified person determines that thepurlin or girt is of sufficient strength tosupport a fall arrest system, it may beused for that purpose. The qualifiedperson would be required to providewritten documentation of thisdetermination. This proposedrequirement is identical to the one forsteel joists in proposed§ 1926.757(a)(10).

Proposed paragraph (h) wouldprohibit purlins from being used as awalking/working surface except wheninstalling safety systems. All permanentbridging must be in place, and fallprotection must be provided to theemployee installing the safety systemand walking or working on the surface.Purlins are ‘‘Z’’ or ‘‘C’’ shapedlightweight members, generally lessthan 1⁄8′′ thick, 2′′–4′′ wide on the topand up to 40 feet long. They are notdesigned to be walked on and, becauseof their shape, are likely to roll overwhen used as a walking/working surfaceif not properly braced.

Paragraph (i) addresses the placementof construction loads on pre-engineeredmetal buildings to prevent collapse dueto improper loading of the structure.This proposed paragraph would requirethat construction loads be placed withina zone that is not more than 8 feet (2.5m) from the centerline of the primarysupport member. Unlike conventionaldecking, pre-engineered metal buildingdecking bundles are lighter, and thesheets in the bundle are staggered. Thisstaggering means that the bundles mustbe set so that the end of one bundleoverlaps another bundle since thelengths of the sheets vary. The zoneneeds to be big enough to allow for thelapping while still having the support ofthe structure. An 8 foot (2.5 m) zoneallows enough room to meet theseobjectives.

Section 1926.759 Falling ObjectProtection

This proposed section sets forth therequirements for providing employeeswith protection from falling objects. Areal and everyday hazard is posed tosteel erection employees by loose itemsthat have been placed aloft and that canfall and strike employees workingbelow.

Paragraph (a) would require that allmaterials, equipment, and tools that are

not in use while aloft be secured againstaccidental displacement. This proposedrequirement would expand on theexisting requirement in § 1926.752(a)which addresses bolts, drift pins andrivets. The Committee felt that therequirement should apply to any itemthat could become displaced, fall to alower level and possibly injure aworker.

The intent of paragraph (b) is that,when it is necessary to have other workperformed below on-going steel erectionactivities, proper overhead protection beprovided to those workers to preventinjuries from falling objects. If thisprotection is not provided, work byother trades would not be permittedbelow steel erection work. Thecontrolling contractor’s responsibilitywould be to ensure that job conditionsdo not increase the exposure ofemployees to overhead hazards becauseof accelerated project schedules or otherjobsite conditions. Additionally, thisparagraph is referenced in proposed§ 1926.752(c), which requires pre-planning to ensure that proper overheadprotection is afforded to all employeesduring hoisting operations.

Section 1926.760 Fall ProtectionSection 1926.760 addresses fall

protection and would establish 15 feetas the fall distance triggering theproposed requirement for fallprotection, with two exceptions:connectors working at heights between15 and 30 feet and workers engaged indecking in a controlled decking zone ata height between 15 and 30 feet.

Subpart M, OSHA’s fall protectionstandard for construction in general,was promulgated by OSHA on August 9,1994 (59 FR 40672), and specificallyexcludes steel erection from its scope(see paragraph § 1926.500(a)(2)(iii)).Subpart M sets the general trigger heightfor fall protection in construction at 6feet. The questions that SENRACneeded to address in determining theappropriate trigger height for fallprotection in steel erection included:Should the trigger height for fallprotection in steel erection be differentfrom that in other constructionoperations? If so, why? Is it possible toprotect workers engaged in steelerection for the entire time that they areexposed to fall hazards? If not, why not?

In answer to these questions, SENRACpointed out that steel erection differsfrom general construction in severalrespects. Typically, in steel erection, theworking surface is constantly beingcreated as vertical columns are erectedat various heights. Columns areconnected with solid web beams or steeljoists and joist girders to form an open


bay. In a multi-story building, thecolumns are usually two stories high.These structural members are set byconnectors in conjunction with ahoisting unit—typically a crane. Thefirst bay to be erected is part of the firsttier or story; the bay of the second tieror story is formed. Initially the columnsare attached to anchor bolts at thefoundation. Usually, the next procedureis for the connector to install the headerbeams at the first level. Each floor istypically 12.5 to 15 feet in height. Afteran exterior bay is formed (‘‘boxing thebay’’), the filler beams or joists areplaced in the bay. The connector thenascends the column to the next level,where the exterior members areconnected to form a bay, and so on. Inconnecting the filler beams of a bay, theconnector uses two bolts.

In making these initial connections,the connector is exposed to fall hazardsas a result of several factors. One suchfactor involves the structure itself. Poorfoundations and inadequate or ill-repaired anchor bolts (Ex. 6–3, p. 4) canfail, causing the column/structure tocollapse and the connector to fall. Theproposal first addresses this source ofcollapse to prevent failure in § 1926.755,‘‘anchor bolts’’ and § 1926.757(a)(4),‘‘stabilizer plates,’’ discussed earlier.Another factor is that both the connectorand the structure are exposed to beingstruck by incoming steel. The proposalseeks to ‘‘engineer out’’ the risk offalling in this situation by addressingthe proper hoisting and rigging of thesteel members to eliminate or minimizethis hazard (see discussion in§ 1926.753).

The unique nature of the work itselfalso exposes the connector to the risk offalling. In particular, the making ofdouble connections at columns (or atbeam webs over a column) puts theconnector at risk of falling due to astructural collapse. OSHA is proposinga combination of engineering controlsand work practices to deal with thishazard. § 1926.756(c) would require aseat or similar device that must besecured prior to releasing the earlierconnections. This prevents the columnfrom falling away and eliminates thecollapse hazard. Based on the dataexamined by the Committee’s statisticalworkgroup (Ex. 9–42), SENRACconcluded that in steel erection work,relatively few worker falls occur atheights between 6 feet and 15 feet.Connections at these heights can beperformed from ladders, scaffolds orpersonnel work platforms. TheCommittee, nevertheless, fullyconsidered the use of personal fall arrestsystems for heights between 6 and 15feet.

Several fall protection manufacturersparticipated in discussions of this issue.Of major concern was the relationshipbetween the total fall distance ofavailable personal fall arrest systems(and how they are used) and the triggerheight for fall protection that needed tobe established for the steel erectionproposal. As was presented to theCommittee by one fall protectionequipment manufacturer, there aremany variables that collectively needconsideration in understanding fallprotection. Personal fall arrest systemsmust first limit the force on the bodyand second limit the total fall distance.The best description of total falldistance offered to the Committee is thattotal fall distance is the sum of free falldistance, deceleration distance, harnesseffects and vertical elongation of parts ofthe personal fall arrest system. Throughfurther definition of these terms andhow they interact, the total fall distanceor amount of clearance needed can bedetermined.

Excluding anchorage connectors,there are 4 types of personal fall arrestsystems commonly used by workers infull body harnesses including: (1) shockabsorbing lanyards; (2) self-retractinglifelines; (3) rope grabs with verticallifelines; and (4) shock absorbinglanyards with rope grabs and verticallifelines. Lanyards having differentlengths and which are allowed by theuser to have more or less slack canresult in a wide variation of free falldistance. The three common types ofanchorage connectors were described tothe Committee and include: (1)horizontally mobile and vertically rigid(e.g., a trolley connected to a flange ofa structural beam); (2) horizontally fixedand vertically rigid (e.g., an eyebolt,choker or clamp connected to astructural beam, column or truss); and(3) horizontally mobile and verticallyflexible (e.g., a horizontal lifelinesuspended between two structuralcolumns or between stanchions,attached to a structural beam, designedto support the lifeline). Each typecontains various combinations ofrigidity versus flexibility, both verticallyand horizontally. Depending on howone configures the personal fall arrestsystem, the total fall distance can rangefrom 3–23 feet and from 4–10.5 feetdepending on the combination ofequipment utilized (Exs. 6–10 and 9–77).

The same fall protection equipmentmanufacturer indicated that the lowestpoint of the body of a workerperforming steel erection should be atleast 12.5 feet above the nearest obstaclein the potential fall path when theworker is properly using a rigidly

anchored personal fall arrest system ofthe shock absorbing lanyard type or self-retracting lifeline type. Anotherparticipant indicated that, in a worstcase scenario and with no overheadanchorage point (which is a commonsituation in steel erection), 15.5 feet wasthe lowest height that a steel erectionworker could be protected. SENRACacknowledged, however, that workers insome cases could be protected at lowerheights but only at the expense ofserious constraints to mobility(especially with respect to connectorsworking with incoming steel), which, inturn, could increase the hazards (Ex. 6–11, p. 5).

In light of these considerations, thefollowing requirements are proposed.

Paragraph (a) GeneralRequirements. Paragraph (a) proposesthe primary fall protection trigger heightfor steel erection activities (with certainexceptions), describes what constitutesfall protection in these circumstances,and provides specifications foralternative protection. Proposedparagraph (a)(1) would set the primaryfall protection trigger height for mostemployees engaged in steel erection.Each employee covered by this subpartwho is on a walking/working surfacewith an unprotected side or edge morethan 15 feet above a lower level wouldhave to be protected from fall hazards.

OSHA’s existing fall protectionrequirements for steel erection are foundin three different provisions. Section1926.750(b)(1)(ii) of the existing steelerection standard reads as follows:

(ii) On buildings or structures notadaptable to temporary floors, and wherescaffolds are not used, safety nets shall beinstalled and maintained whenever thepotential fall distance exceeds two stories or25 feet. The nets shall be hung with sufficientclearance to prevent contacts with the surfaceof the structures below.

In addition, § 1926.750(b)(2)(i) of theexisting steel erection standardaddresses falls to the interior and readsas follows:

(2)(i) Where skeleton steel erection is beingdone, a tightly planked and substantial floorshall be maintained within two stories or 30feet, whichever is less, below and directlyunder that portion of each tier of beams onwhich any work is being performed, exceptwhen gathering and stacking temporary floorplanks on a lower floor, in preparation fortransferring such planks for use on an upperfloor. Where such a floor is not practicable,paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section applies.

With regard to non-building steelerection (e.g., bridges, conveyorsystems, etc.), exterior fall hazards ontiered buildings, and both interior andexterior fall hazards on non-tieredbuildings (e.g., warehouses,


gymnasiums, etc.), § 1926.105(a) ofsubpart E, Personal Protective and LifeSaving Equipment, applies and reads asfollows:

(a) Safety nets shall be provided whenworkplaces are more than 25 feet above theground or water surface, or other surfaceswhere the use of ladders, scaffolds, catchplatforms, temporary floors, safety lines, orsafety belts is impractical.

In an attempt to clarify theserequirements, OSHA issued amemorandum on February 22, 1994 (Ex.9–13F). That memo established thefollowing enforcement policy for section1926.750:

Citations shall not be issued to employersengaged in steel erection activities (such as,but not limited to, initial connecting,decking, welding, and bolting) during theconstruction of skeleton steel buildings ifthose employers are in compliance with therequirements of 29 CFR 1926.750(b)(2) forfalls to the inside of the structure and with29 CFR 1926.105(a) for falls to the outside ofthe structure. By the same token, citationsshall be issued to every employer not incompliance with those standards. (For thepurposes of this document, ‘‘buildings’’means tiered buildings and non-tieredbuildings).

With respect to fall hazards in other steelerection activities, such as in bridge andtower erection, 29 CFR 1926.105(a) shall beused where the fall hazard is 25 feet or more.

In 1995, OSHA further clarified itspolicy with respect to tiered, as opposedto non-tiered, buildings. In non-tieredbuildings, the fall protectionrequirements in § 1926.105(a) apply tosteel erection activities over 25 feet.

Proposed paragraph (a)(1) wouldrequire fall protection for mostemployees covered by this subpart atheights 10 to 15 feet lower than isrequired by OSHA’s existingrequirements. The exception for thoseemployees covered by paragraph (a)(3),as discussed below, also providesprotection at lower heights than doesthe existing standard.

Proposed paragraph (a)(2) wouldspecify the fall protection systemsrequired by this section. Such fallprotection systems shall consist ofperimeter safety cable systems, guardrailsystems, safety net systems, or personalfall arrest or fall restraint (positioningdevice) systems. In addition, guardrailsystems, safety net systems, andpersonal fall arrest or fall restraintsystems must conform to the criteria setforth in § 1926.502 of this part (fallrestraint systems would also be requiredto conform to the criteria for positioningdevice systems in § 1926.502). Section1926.502 contains OSHA’s generalconstruction requirements for fallprotection systems. Unlike generalconstruction, however, steel erection

fall protection also includes perimetersafety cable systems; use of thesesystems has long been an industrypractice and is required by§ 1926.750(b)(1)(iii) of OSHA’s existingsteel erection standard. It is OSHA’sintent that the existing requirement forthe installation of a perimeter safetycable system be maintained in thisproposal. As mentioned in thediscussion above on proposed§ 1926.756, Appendix F of this proposalprovides non-mandatory guidanceregarding the installation of theseperimeter safety cable systems.

The exception to the proposed generalrequirement that fall protection beprovided at heights above 15 feet(paragraph (a)(1)) is addressed inparagraph (a)(3). According to thisproposed requirement, connectors andemployees working in controlleddecking zones would have to beprotected from fall hazards inaccordance with paragraphs (b) and (c)of this section, as discussed below.

Paragraph (b) Connectors. Proposedparagraph (b) addresses the need toprotect connectors from falls, to trainthem in the hazards associated withconnecting, and to provide them withfall protection equipment. Proposedparagraph (b)(1) would require that eachconnector be protected from fall hazardsof more than two stories or 30 feet (9.1m) above a lower level, whichever isless. Protection at this height iscurrently required by OSHA’s existingsteel erection standard for all employeesengaged in steel erection.

In addition, proposed paragraph (b)(2)requires that each connector, as defined,complete connector training inaccordance with § 1926.761. Suchtraining must be specific to connectingand cover the recognition of hazards,and the establishment, access, safeconnecting techniques and workpractices required by proposed§ 1926.756(c) and § 1926.760(b).

Proposed paragraph (b)(3) wouldrequire that connectors be providedwith a personal fall arrest or fallrestraint (positioning device) system,i.e., be wearing the equipment and beprovided with the means to tie-off atheights over 15 and up to 30 feet abovea lower level. In the alternative, theconnector could be provided with otherequally effective means of protectionfrom fall hazards in accordance withparagraph (a)(2) of this section, whichwould usually mean protection by theuse of nets. The definition of thesesystems, discussed earlier, makes itclear that a personal fall arrest or fallrestraint (positioning device) systemwould include an anchorage.

The ability to tie-off and the provisionof fall protection represent a centralcomponent of the SENRAC consensus.Paragraph (b)(3) should not, however, beinterpreted to mean that the connectormust be tied-off at heights in the rangebetween 15 feet and 30 feet. TheCommittee’s consensus agreement wasonly that the connectors be given themeans to tie-off at any time theconnector chooses to do so. In addition,an anchorage of some sort must alwaysbe available: this could be stanchionswith a catenary lifeline, or simply alifeline attached to the primary beam orjoist girder; a ‘‘beamer’’ (a portableanchorage that rolls along the upper orlower flange of the beam) or a nylonweb strap anchor; or any other form ofanchor that meets the requirements of§ 1926.502 of this part. The Committeebelieves that under certain conditions,the connector is at greater risk if he/sheis tied-off. For example, in the event ofstructural collapse, a tied-off connectorcould be forced to ride the structure tothe ground. The Committee believes thatthe connector is in the best position todetermine when to tie-off, and so theconnector must have the ability tochoose to tie-off.

A concern was raised as to whethersuch a provision would affect aconnector’s rights under workers’compensation laws. For example, insome jurisdictions, failure to tie-off maybe construed as ‘‘employeemisconduct’’. The proposal would allowthe connector the choice of when not to‘‘tie-off’’ in order to avoid a potentiallygreater hazard. However, statesdetermine eligibility requirements forstate workers’ compensation benefits.

This exception applies only toconnectors actively engaged in theplacement of structural members and/orcomponents working with hoistingequipment. Regardless of job title, whenan employee has finished the‘‘connecting’’ phase and is performingother steel erection activities (such asdetailing, bolting-up and decking), theemployee would no longer beconsidered a ‘‘connector’’ for thepurposes of the exception to paragraph(a)(1) of this section and would have tobe protected from fall hazards inaccordance with paragraph (a)(1) orparagraph (c) of this section.

Paragraph (c) Controlled deckingzone (CDZ). Paragraph (c) addresses theother exception to providing fallprotection above 15 feet permitted bythis proposal. This provision wouldallow a controlled decking zone to beestablished in that area of the structureover 15 and up to 30 feet above a lowerlevel where metal deck is initially beinginstalled and forms the leading edge of


a work area. The Committee developeda combination of specification and workpractice requirements to protectemployees engaged in decking activitiesif an employer elects to establish acontrolled decking zone rather thanprovide fall protection as otherwiserequired by this section.

Proposed paragraph (c)(1) wouldrequire that each employee working atthe leading edge in a CDZ be protectedfrom fall hazards of more than twostories or 30 feet, whichever is less.Many decking operations do not lendthemselves to the establishment ofCDZs. For example, single story, highbay warehouse structures and pre-engineered metal buildings requiredecking operations that commonly takeplace more than 30 feet above lowerlevels. The exception would not applyin these situations.

An important aspect of a CDZ iscontrolled access. Based on the reviewsof OSHA fatality data (Exs. 9–14, 9–49),some fatalities attributed to deckingoperations were experienced byemployees not engaged in leading edgework. Proposed paragraph (c)(2) wouldlimit access to the CDZ exclusively tothose employees who are actuallyengaged in and trained in the hazardsinvolved in leading edge work.

Paragraph (c)(3) addresses thephysical limits of a CDZ. The employerwould be required to designate theboundaries of a CDZ and clearly markthem. Control lines would commonly beused for marking the boundaries, but theperformance language of the proposedrequirement also allows for theequivalent, e.g., a perimeter wall.Control lines are not defined in thisproposal. OSHA requests comment onwhether a definition of ‘‘control lines’’is necessary or whether Appendix Dprovides adequate description, since itsets the criteria for control lines or, inthe alternative, should Appendix D beincorporated into the provisions of§ 1926.760(c)?

The intent of the proposedrequirement is to limit access to thezone and to limit the overall size of theCDZ. Assuming a typical bay to be 40feet in its greatest dimension, theCommittee recommended and OSHAproposes that the CDZ not be greaterthan two bays plus ten feet back fromthe leading edge into a fully installeddeck area to allow for staging. Becausesome bays could be larger, a specifieddistance criteria based on the typicalbay of 40 feet or 90 feet in eachdirection is proposed. Additionalguidelines for assistance in usingcontrol lines to demarcate CDZs arefound in non-mandatory Appendix D.

Proposed paragraph (c)(4) wouldrequire that each employee working ina CDZ have completed CDZ training inaccordance with the training section ofthis subpart. Such training would coverrecognition of the hazards associatedwith work in a controlled decking zoneand the establishment, access, safeinstallation techniques and workpractices required by proposed§ 1926.754(e) and § 1926.760(c).

Paragraph (c)(5) addresses the specifichazard that results when full support isnot achieved in the placement of metaldeck. For example, in steel joistconstruction, metal deck sheets aretypically 20 feet or longer and may spanmore than 4 joists that are typicallyspaced 5 feet apart. A hazard is createdif the deck is placed so that only threejoists are supporting the sheet and thedeck ends are unsupported. A workernot using fall protection and steppingon the unsupported end of a deck sheetso placed is exposed to a potentiallyfatal fall hazard. This paragraph,therefore, would require that duringinitial placement, deck sheets be placedso as to ensure that the structuralmembers provide the support asdesigned.

Paragraph (c)(6) addresses the hazardpresented to deckers when too muchdecking is left unsecured. Theinstallation of metal deck requires it tobe placed on the structural members,unsecured, at control marks to allow forproper alignment. As a result of thephysical dynamics of the bundle duringshipping, metal deck may have differentwidths. For example, in a typical bundleof decking, the bottom sheet can bewider than the top sheet by an inch ormore. Due to these variations, fieldadjustment of the decking is necessaryto fit the bay at the control marks. Theproposal would limit the area ofunsecured deck to 3000 square feet(914.4 m2) to restrict the exposure ofemployees engaged in the placement ofthese deck sheets. Given the dimensionsof a typical bay (a typical bay isapproximately 900 S.F.), 3000 squarefeet was determined to be anappropriate limit that would allow forthe decking to be placed and alignmentto be performed prior to tack welding.This limit would thus greatly reduce thehazards associated with large areas ofdecking being left unattached andunattended.

Proposed paragraph (c)(7) addressesthe hazard in leading edge work thatarises when an employee turns his/herback to the leading edge while attachingdeck sheets. After the decking has beenadjusted to fit the bay, a safety deckattachment (see definition section) mustbe performed with at least two

attachments per panel. When suchattachments are performed on the laps(although to do so is not required), therewould be four attachments per panel.Safety deck attachments are usuallydone by tack welding the panel but canalso be achieved with a mechanicalattachment, such as self-drilling screwsor pneumatic fasteners. The proposedprovision would require that suchattachments be made from the leadingedge back to the control line to protectthe employee from inadvertentlystepping off the leading edge.

Paragraph (c)(8) would prohibit finaldeck attachments and installation ofshear connectors in the CDZ. Theseactivities are not leading edge work andwould not be permitted in a CDZ.Employees performing this work can bereadily protected from falls by the useof conventional fall protection, e.g.,guardrails.

Paragraph (d) Covering roof andfloor openings. Paragraph (d) addressesproper covering of roof and flooropenings, which is required byproposed § 1926.754(e)(2), during steelerection to prevent employees fromfalling through them. Paragraph (d)(1)would require that coverings of roof andfloor openings be capable of supporting,without failure, the greater of either 30pounds per square foot for roofs and 50pounds per square foot for floors ortwice the weight of employees,equipment and materials that may beimposed on the cover at any one time.The pounds per square footspecifications are based on the strengthrequirements for steel roof and floordecks in the SDI Manual of Constructionwith Steel Deck (Ex. 9–34A). Theperformance language is based onsubpart M criteria for covers(§ 1926.502(i)). This would allow foradequate protection for employees whomay walk on, or for any equipment thatmay be placed on, a floor or roofcovering.

Paragraph (d)(2) would require that allcovers be secured when installed so asto prevent accidental displacement bythe wind, equipment or employees.Requiring that all covers be securedagainst displacement eliminates the fallhazard. Additionally, paragraph (d)(3)would require that all covers be paintedwith high visibility paint or be markedwith the word ‘‘HOLE’’ or ‘‘COVER’’ toprovide warning of the hazard so as toprevent an employee from inadvertentlyremoving the cover.

Paragraph (d)(4) would provide thatsmoke domes or skylight fixtures whichhave been installed are not consideredcovers for the purposes of this sectionunless the strength requirements ofparagraph (d)(1) above are met. A


common cause of falls is employeesleaning or sitting on skylights or smokedomes which will not support theirweight. These structures may not becapable of supporting the load and maygive way, causing a fall. Consequently,unless they have adequate strength,these structures cannot be relied uponto protect employees from falls. OSHAinvites comment on whether theseskylights and smoke domes would bemore appropriately treated in§ 1926.754(e)(2), which addresses roofand floor openings, and in particularpermanently filling openings, ratherthan in this section, § 1926.760(d),which addresses covers for roof andfloor openings.

Paragraph (e) Custody of fallprotection. Proposed paragraph (e)addresses fall protection, usuallyperimeter safety cables, initiallyinstalled and maintained by the steelerector but remaining on the site aftersteel erection has been completed. If noprovision for the proper maintenance ofsuch fall protection is made, theequipment could fall into disrepair andno longer function properly. Employeesof contractors arriving later might relyon this potentially dangerous fallprotection, creating a false sense ofsecurity in these workers. Paragraph (e)would require that fall protectionprovided by the steel erector not be leftin an area to be used by other tradesafter the steel erection activity has beencompleted unless the controllingcontractor or its authorizedrepresentative has directed the steelerector to leave the fall protection inplace and has inspected and acceptedcontrol and responsibility of the fallprotection prior to authorizing personsother than steel erectors to work in thearea. This proposed requirement isconsistent with the AISC Code ofStandard Practice (Ex. 9–36, p. 15)which states:

When safety protection provided by theerector is left remaining in an area to be usedby other trades after the steel erection activityis completed, the owner shall be responsiblefor accepting and maintaining thisprotection, assuring that it is adequate for theprotection of all other affected trades,assuring that it complies with all applicablesafety regulations when being used by othertrades, indemnifying the erector from anydamages incurred as a result of the safetyprotection’s use by other trades, removing thesafety equipment when no longer requiredand returning it to the erector in the samecondition as it was received.

Section 1926.761 Training.The OSHA steel erection proposal has

many new requirements involving morewidespread use of personal fallprotection equipment and special

procedures for making multiple lifts, fordecking activities in controlled deckingzones and for connecting. Early in thedevelopment of these new requirements,the Committee recognized the need fora separate training section. Therequirements proposed in § 1926.761would supplement OSHA’s generaltraining and education requirements forconstruction contained in § 1926.21.

Proposed § 1926.761(a) would requirethat instruction on fall hazards andother specified hazards associated withsteel erection activities and appropriatecorrective actions be provided toemployees by a qualified person.

A ‘‘qualified person,’’ as defined inexisting § 1926.32 and restated in thedefinition section of this proposal,means one who, by possession of arecognized degree, certificate, orprofessional standing, or who byextensive knowledge, training, andexperience, has successfullydemonstrated the ability to solve orresolve problems relating to the subjectmatter, the work, or the project.

Proposed paragraphs (b) and (c)specify particular training that wouldhave to be provided by the employer toemployees who are exposed to thespecified steel erection hazards.Paragraph (b) would require that theemployer provide a training program forall employees exposed to fall hazards.The program would have to includetraining and instruction in therecognition and identification of fallhazards in the work area; the use andoperation of perimeter safety cablesystems, guardrail systems, personal fallarrest systems, fall restraint (positioningdevice) systems, safety net systems,controlled decking zones and otherprotection to be used; the correctprocedures for erecting, maintaining,disassembling, and inspecting the fallprotection systems to be used; theprocedures to be followed to preventfalls to lower levels and through or intoholes and openings in walking/workingsurfaces and walls; and the fallprotection requirements of § 1926.760.

In addition to fall hazards, theCommittee identified certain activitiesthat would require specialized trainingdue to the hazardous nature of theactivities. Accordingly, paragraph (c)requires such training for employeesengaged in multiple lift riggingprocedures (MLRP), connectingactivities and work in controlleddecking zones.

Paragraph (c)(1) proposes additionaltraining for employees performingMLRPs. This training would includeinstruction in the hazards associatedwith multiple lifts and the properprocedures and equipment to perform

multiple lifts safely, as proposed in§ 1926.753(c).

Paragraph (c)(2) would require theemployer to ensure that each connectorhas been provided training in thehazards associated with connecting, andin the establishment, access, properconnecting techniques and workpractices proposed in § 1926.760(b) (fallprotection) and § 1926.756(c) (doubleconnections).

Paragraph (c)(3) would requireadditional training for controlleddecking zone employees. The trainingmust cover the hazards associated withwork within a controlled decking zone,and the establishment, access, properinstallation techniques and workpractices required by § 1926.760(c) (fallprotection) and § 1926.754(e) (deckingoperations).

This proposed section has beendrafted to allow the employer areasonable degree of flexibility indeveloping a training program andconducting training. OSHA recognizesthat there are differences in thetechniques that will be successful withdifferent employees. Therefore, theproposed section does not limit theemployer by specifying the manner inwhich the training must be conducted.Similarly, the specific content of thetraining course has only been generallyaddressed because different topics mustbe taught to address the variationsassociated with different steel erectionactivities and to cover hazards specificto each workplace.

The employer may choose the trainingprovider. This could include contractingwith an outside professional trainingcompany to train employees ordeveloping and conducting the trainingprogram itself. In either case, theemployer can choose the provider,method and frequency of training thatare appropriate for the employees beingtrained. In addition, each employeemust have been provided training priorto hazard exposure.

Appendices to Proposed Subpart RThe following appendices neither

create additional obligations noreliminate obligations otherwisecontained in the standard. They areintended to provide useful, explanatorymaterial and information to employersand employees who wish to use it as anaid to understanding and complyingwith the standard.

Appendix A to Subpart R—Guidelinesfor Establishing the Components of aSite-Specific Erection Plan (Non-Mandatory)

As explained in the discussion for theproposed section governing site-specific


erection plans, this appendix wasdeveloped by SENRAC as a non-mandatory set of guidelines provided toassist employers in complying with therequirements of proposed paragraph§ 1926.752(d). If an employer followsthese guidelines to prepare a site-specific erection plan, it will be deemedas complying with the requirements ofparagraph § 1926.752(d). OSHAwelcomes comment on the adequacy ofthese guidelines.

Appendix B to Subpart R—AcceptableTest Methods for Testing Slip-Resistance of Walking/Working Surfaces(Non-Mandatory)

Appendix B is provided to serve as anon-mandatory guide to assistemployers in complying with therequirements of proposed paragraph§ 1926.754(c)(3). The two nationallyrecognized test methods referred to inappendix B, ASTM F1678–96 (StandardTest Method for Using a PortableArticulated Strut Slip Tester) and ASTMF1679–96 (Standard Test Method forUsing a Variable Incidence Tribometer),would provide the protocol for testingskeletal structural steel surfaces toobtain the documentation orcertification required by proposed§ 1926.754(c)(3). OSHA welcomescomment on the testing procedurescontained in this appendix.

Appendix C to Subpart R—Illustrationsof Bridging Terminus Points (Non-Mandatory)

Appendix C is provided to serve as anon-mandatory guide to assistemployers in complying with therequirements of proposed paragraph§ 1926.757(c)(3). Although the appendixdoes not show all possible bridgingterminus points, the illustrationsprovide examples of common bridgingterminus points. OSHA solicitsinformation and comment on thisproposed appendix.

Appendix D to Subpart R—Illustrationon the Use of Control Lines toDemarcate Controlled Decking Zones(CDZs) (Non-Mandatory)

Appendix D is provided to serve as anon-mandatory guide to assistemployers in complying with therequirements of proposed paragraph§ 1926.760(c)(3). If the employer followsthese guidelines to establish a controlline to demarcate a CDZ, OSHA willaccept the control line as meeting therequirements of paragraph§ 1926.760(c)(3). This appendix neithercreates additional obligations noreliminates obligations otherwisecontained in the standard. It is intendedto provide useful explanatory material

and information to employers andemployees who wish to use it as an aidto understanding and complying withthe standard. OSHA solicits informationand comment on this proposedappendix.

Appendix E to Subpart R—Training(Non-Mandatory)

Appendix E is provided to serve as anon-mandatory guide to assistemployers in complying with therequirements of proposed paragraph§ 1926.761. Even before the existence ofOSHA, the Ironworkers InternationalUnion provided apprenticeship trainingin steel erection to its members. Thistraining has been approved by the U. S.Department of Labor’s Bureau ofApprenticeship Training for over fortyyears. As soon as this program isupdated to reflect the requirements ofthis new subpart R, training under thisprogram will be deemed as complyingwith the training requirements of§ 1926.761. As stated in Article XI of thecurrent approved NationalApprenticeship and Training Standardsfor Ironworkers:

The [Ironworkers Joint Apprenticeship]Committee shall seek the cooperation of allemployers to instruct the apprentices in safeand healthful work practices and shall ensurethat the apprentices are trained in facilitiesand other environments that are incompliance with either the occupationalsafety and health standards promulgated bythe Secretary of Labor under [the OSH Act]or state [plan] standards * * * (Ex. 9–139, p.8).

OSHA does not intend that trainingapproved by the U.S. Department ofLabor Bureau of Apprenticeship be theonly training deemed to meet therequirements of § 1926.761. Employersmay choose to provide their owntraining, provided that it fulfills therequirements of § 1926.761. The Agencyinvites comment on this proposedappendix.

Appendix F to Subpart R—Installationof Perimeter Safety Cables (Non-Mandatory)

Appendix F is provided to serve as anon-mandatory guide to assistemployers in complying with therequirements of proposed paragraph§ 1926.756(f), when perimeter safetycables are used to protect theunprotected side or edge of a walking/working surface. If an employer elects tofollow the guidelines of this appendix,the perimeter safety cable system shallbe deemed to be in compliance with theprovisions of § 1926.756(f). OSHAsolicits information and comment onthis proposed appendix.

VI. Other IssuesAs indicated above, the Committee

has reached consensus on the regulatorytext. Although no negotiation sessionshave been held since December 1995,Committee members have continued toprovide technical assistance to OSHAstaff in developing the ‘‘Summary andExplanation’’ section of the proposedrule. During this period, a number ofadditional concerns have been raised byCommittee members, SENRACworkgroup members and OSHA staff.OSHA has determined that, rather thanreopening the negotiations, these issuescan be adequately addressed in thenormal ‘‘§ 6(b) rulemaking process’’ thatwill follow the publication of thisproposal. Normal rulemaking includes acomment period on the proposed rule,an informal public hearing, and, forthose who have elected to participate inthe hearing by filing a ‘‘Notice of intentto appear’’ (see Public Participationsection), a post-hearing commentperiod. In addition, OSHA has decidedthat, in order to develop a completerecord and to reach as manystakeholders as possible, these and otherissues should be raised in this sectionof the proposal. The public isspecifically requested to comment on allrelevant issues, including the following:

1. Some hazards currently addressedby the existing requirements in§ 1926.105(a) may not be adequatelyaddressed in proposed subpart R (Ex. 9–152). Proposed § 1926.754(b)(3), forexample, would require that, in multi-story structures, a fully planked ordecked floor or nets be maintainedwithin 2 stories or 30 feet, whichever isless, below and directly under anyerection work which is being performed.There was a difference of opinionamong the Committee members as towhether the primary purpose of thisrequirement is to constitute fallprotection or protection from fallingobjects. The Committee considered thisissue and concluded that the fullyplanked, decked or netted floor providesfall protection just as the netting on abridge provides fall protection.Comment is requested on whether afully planked floor provides fallprotection for falls of up to 30 feet.

Existing § 1926.750(b)(1)(ii) and§ 1926.105(a) provide that for buildingsand other structures not adaptable totemporary floors, safety nets must beprovided when workplaces are morethan 25 feet above the ground or watersurface, or other surface where the useof ladders, scaffolds, catch platforms,temporary floors, safety lines, or safetybelts is impractical. These requirementshave been applied to fall hazards on


bridges, as well as fall hazards to theoutside of any steel erection structure,including those adaptable to temporaryfloors. However, bridges would not becovered by the proposed§ 1926.754(b)(3), which only applies tomulti-story buildings. Therefore, publiccomment is requested on whether arequirement should be added to subpartR to continue to require nets for bridgesover water. It is suggested that aprovision could be inserted in§ 1926.754(b)(2) and read as follows:

For bridges, safety nets shall be providedwhen workplaces are more than 30 feet abovea water surface, § 1926.760(a)notwithstanding.

Comment is requested on the need forthis requirement and theappropriateness of the suggestedlanguage as well as any otherrecommended course of action on thisissue.

Additionally, the proposal wouldraise the height at which fall protectionis required for connectors exposed tofall hazards to the outside of a buildingfrom 25 feet (existing § 1926.105) to 30feet (proposed § 1926.760(b)(1)).Comment is also requested on theappropriateness of making this changein the standard.

2. Proposed § 1926.754(c)(3) uses theterm finish-coated to describe paints orsimilar materials applied to steelmembers. It also prohibits workers fromwalking on a steel member that has beenfinish-coated without documentationthat the finished coat has not decreasedthe COF of the steel being coated. OSHAsolicits information and comments onwhat should or should not beconsidered finish-coated. Should allsingle coat primer paints or coatings beexempted from being consideredfinished coats? Are there any primerpaints that should not be exempted,such as epoxy primers? Shouldgalvanized coatings be exempted? Inaddition, OSHA has receivedinformation from the Structural SteelPainting Council (SSPC) that the term‘‘finished coat’’ already has a commonunderstanding in the industry and thatit refers to paint applied to steelmembers after the steel members havebeen erected (Ex. 9–152). SinceSENRAC is concerned with theslipperiness of painted steel before theerection of the members, should thisrequirement be re-worded to avoidpotential confusion? Since slipresistance information is now attainable(see, for example, Appendix B), pleasesubmit data to support your views.OSHA also requests comment onwhether the requirement should avoidusing the term ‘‘finish-coated’’ at all; for

example, should it simply state:‘‘Workers shall not be permitted to walkthe top surface of any structural steelmember installed after [effective date offinal rule] which has a COF less thanthat of the original steel.’’

3. The plumbing-up requirements inthe proposal have been questioned as towhether they are specific enough toensure structural stability as required byproposed § 1926.754(a) (Ex. 9–152).Public comment is requested onwhether additional plumbing-uprequirements are necessary to protectemployees. It has been suggested thatthe following provisions be added to§ 1926.754(a):

(1) Plumbing-up equipment shall beinstalled in conjunction with the steelerection process to ensure the stability of thestructure; and

(2) Plumbing-up equipment shall be inplace and properly installed before thestructure is loaded with constructionmaterial such as loads of joists, bundles ofdecking or bundles of bridging.

Comment is requested on the need forthese requirements and theappropriateness of the suggestedlanguage as well as any otherrecommended course of action on thisissue.

4. The preamble identifies theprovisions in the standard which arenew or which are changed from theprovisions of the existing standard.OSHA believes that many employers arealready following the procedures thatwould be required by many of theseproposed provisions. OSHA willevaluate, on the basis of all the evidencesubmitted to the public record, thelikely effectiveness of the proposedrevised and new provisions. To assistOSHA in this area, the public is askedto provide information on the followingissues:

a. Public comment is requested on thefeasibility and effectiveness of theproposed changes. OSHA solicitsinformation on the degree to whichimplementation of the proposedchanges would reduce the occurrence orseverity of accidents;

b. Public comment is requested on theamount of any costs or savings that havenot been identified by OSHA (seeSection VII of this preamble—Summaryof the Preliminary Economic and InitialRegulatory Flexibility Analysis) whichmight result from the proposed changes.

5. In discussing the scope of proposedsubpart R, the Committee originallydeveloped an extensive list of structuresand activities that could involve steelerection work for inclusion in anappendix that would be referenced byparagraphs (a) and (b) of § 1926.750.However, the Committee subsequently

decided that the list should be placed inthe standard itself in notes toparagraphs (a) and (b), respectively.OSHA raised some concerns with thisapproach related primarily to how thecourts might interpret a scope sectionwith such a long and detailed list. TheAgency suggested that a listed structureor activity might erroneously be viewedas being within the scope of subpart R,whether or not steel erection was takingplace. Conversely, failure to include anactivity or structure on the list mightindicate that the activity is never to becovered by subpart R, since the listappears to be so inclusive. Moreover,the Agency stated that if theCommittee’s goal was to make the scopeas broad as possible, it couldaccomplish this goal more directly byspecifying instead what is not coveredby the subpart. OSHA contended thatvoluminous lists of examples of coveredworkplaces are not appropriate inregulatory text. Nonetheless, theCommittee reached consensus that thelists of structures and activities beplaced in the standard as notes toparagraphs (a) and (b). OSHA requestscomment on the scope and applicationsection and specifically on whetherthese notes clarify the scope andapplication of the proposed standard;whether they restrict or expand thescope of what is considered steelerection; and whether such restrictionor expansion is appropriate. In addition,OSHA notes that while the lists indicateworkplaces which might be covered bysubpart R, they would be covered onlywhen steel erection work is beingperformed. The Agency seeks commenton whether the lists are necessary inlight of that limitation.

6. Proposed § 1926.755(a) sets forthgeneral requirements for ensuringerection stability. Paragraph (a)(1)would require that all columns beanchored by a minimum of 4 anchorbolts. Additionally, this paragraphwould require that column anchor boltassemblies, including the welding of thecolumn to the base plate, be designed toresist a 300 pound (136.2 kg) eccentricload located 18 inches (.46 m) from thecolumn face in each direction at the topof the column shaft.

OSHA invites comments on thefollowing and any other relevantquestions: Should these requirementsinclude a 4:1 safety factor for the designof the column base to be consistent withother OSHA standards? Should therequirements call for the washer and nutto be placed and hand tightened at allfour anchor bolts before the hoist line ofthe column is released to ensure thatstability of the column is achieved?Should a cross-reference be provided to


§ 1926.752(a)(1) since the anchor boltswould have to be designed for the 300lb. eccentric load when the concrete inthe footings, piers and walls or themortar in the masonry piers and wallshas attained either 75 percent of theintended minimum compressive designstrength or sufficient strength to supportloads imposed during steel erection?Would a designer miss the provision in§ 1926.752(a)(1) without a cross-reference?

7. Proposed § 1926.756 sets forthrequirements for connections of beamsand columns to ensure stability of thesteel structure during the erectionprocess. However, the proposal does nothave any specific requirements forcantilevered beams, which exertdifferent forces on the connection thandoes a typical end-connected beam. Anumber of accidents have occurredbecause of inadequate connections ofcantilevered beams during erection. Is aprovision needed to require that, ‘‘afterproper evaluation of the span and theintended load by a competent person,cantilevered beams shall be securedwith the number of bolts necessary toensure stability.’’

Additionally, with regard to allconnections, in some cases bolts oflesser diameter and strength than thepermanent bolts specified are used on atemporary basis. If temporary bolts areused and prove to be of insufficientstrength, the intent of the proposedparagraph would not be met. Is itnecessary to require that the bolts used‘‘be of the size and strength shown onthe construction documents’’ to avertthis situation? Comments addressingthese concerns are requested.

8. Proposed § 1926.757(a)(8) and§ 1926.757(d)(1) introduce the term‘‘bay.’’ Should this term be defined inthe steel erection standard or is there acommon understanding of the term? Inaddition, since the two provisions referto specific sizes of bays, should thestandard include the particulars ofmeasuring a bay?

9. Section 1926.757 of the proposaladdresses SJI specification joists. Thereare joists being manufactured that arenot constructed to SJI specifications (forexample joists in excess of 144 feet).Should the joist requirements of thesteel erection standard includeprovisions for non-SJI specificationjoists?

10. In the course of SENRAC’sdeliberations, OSHA staff, NIOSH andCommittee Workgroups made aconsiderable effort to study the injuriesand fatalities resulting from steelerection activities (Exs. 9–13E, 9–14A,9–15 and 9–42) so that SENRAC coulddetermine what caused the incidents

which resulted in those injuries andfatalities and could propose appropriateprotective and preventive measures.

Some of the SENRAC participantssuggested that the available data wereunreliable and did not accord with theirexperience. They believe that structuralcollapse is the major cause of injuriesand fatalities in steel erection. TheCommittee therefore decided that thebest way to protect a worker from a fallis to eliminate structural collapses. TheCommittee believes that the usefulnessof fall protection in steel erection isgreatly reduced in a collapse situation.However, others have evaluated thefatality data available to OSHA anddetermined that fall fatalities notinvolving collapses exceed those whichinvolve collapses by a factor of five.Should subpart R focus, to a greaterextent, on the use of fall protection toprevent fatalities? OSHA seekscomments and information regardingthe characterizations of the injury andfatality data and the conclusions to bedrawn from that data. Also, the Agencysolicits additional information and dataon the causes of injuries and fatalitiesexperienced by employees erecting steelstructures.

11. Proposed 1926.760(b) and (c) setalternative fall protection measures foremployees performing the initialconnection of structural steel andemployees performing the installation ofmetal deck. Proposed subpart R does notrequire employers to demonstrate thatthe use of conventional fall protection(guardrails, safety nets or personal fallarrest systems) would be infeasible orwould create a greater hazard in thesecases (as do the alternative provisions tofall protection found in § 1926.501(b)(2),(12) and (13)). Currently, under§ 1926.105(a), OSHA requires thatemployers provide fall protection toworkers who are installing roof deckingon non-tiered steel structures over 25feet. Employers comply with thisrequirement in several ways, includingthe use of personal fall arrest systems.Proposed § 1926.760(b)(3) permitsemployers to use a CDZ in place of fallprotection.

Should the Agency require employersto demonstrate that the use of fallprotection is infeasible or would createa greater hazard before allowingemployees to follow alternativemeasures for connecting or for deckingoperations? Should the standard specifythat the connector determine that thereis a greater hazard to tying-off beforeelecting not to tie-off? OSHA seekscomments, suggestions, information anddata regarding how a steel erectionemployer should determine what fall

protection is appropriate for its affectedemployees.

12. Proposed § 1926.760(b)(3) requiresthat connectors be provided with fallprotection equipment and an availableanchorage but leaves the decision to theemployee as to whether to tie-off. Somesteel erection companies currentlyrequire employees to use fall protectionat all times above six feet. Is itappropriate to permit some work abovethis height to be performed without fallprotection? Should the standard allowemployees the option of not tying-off?Should it be the responsibility of theemployer to determine whether andwhat conditions warrant the use of thefall protection? Should the standardprovide more specific criteria toindicate when the connector is requiredto be tied-off? Are there particularoperations for which there is evidencethat tying-off either is infeasible orposes a greater hazard to connectors?The Agency requests comments andsupporting data on these and relatedissues.

13. Proposed paragraph § 1926.760(a)(1) sets the general trigger height forfall protection in steel erection at 15feet. Do the conditions (discussed in thepreamble) justify the lack of fallprotection at 6 feet, as is required bysubpart M of OSHA’s constructionstandards for most other constructionactivities? Are there activities orstructures in the scope of proposedsubpart R for which fall protectionshould be provided at other heights(either lower or higher)?

14. Proposed paragraphs 1926.760 (b)and (c) provide exceptions to the 15 foottrigger height requirement forconnectors and employees working inan established CDZ. Do the conditionsdiscussed justify the alternative triggerheight requirements for these workers?Are the alternative protectiverequirements in those paragraphsadequate to protect connectors and CDZworkers from falls? Is there evidence ordata demonstrating that this is the case?

15. Proposed 1926.753, Hoisting andRigging, would allow employees towork under overhead loads undercertain situations (proposed paragraph(b)— Working Under Loads andproposed paragraph (c)— Multiple LiftRigging Procedure). In addition,proposed paragraph (a)(4) would allowthe use of cranes and derricks to hoistemployees on a personnel platformwithout a showing that methods areinfeasible or pose a greater hazard (see1926.500). Does the rationale (discussedin the preamble) justify the allowance ofthese procedures? Are data available todetermine that hoisting using a


personnel platform is safe if thespecified conditions are met?

16. Proposed § 1926.761 provides thetraining requirements for steel erection.Included in these requirements areprovisions that are specifically anduniquely found in steel erection. Re-training requirements, a commonelement of the training provisions inOSHA construction standards, however,were rejected by the Committee. Shouldall steel erection employees be requiredto undergo refresher training? If so, whatintervals are appropriate for suchtraining? If such training is not requiredin all cases, are there certain conditionsor situations that do warrant additionalre-training? If, for example, an employeedemonstrates (by using improperprocedures, not following procedures,etc.) that the employee has not retainedthe requisite understanding or skill orthere have been significant changes infall protection equipment or othertechniques or technologies since theemployee was trained, should thestandard require re-training? Underwhat circumstances, if any, should anemployee be re-trained?

An additional training requirementthat is a part of many steel erectors’safety procedures is the so-called ‘‘toolbox’’ meeting. Steel erection involvesprogressive sequences of erection, sothat one day’s shift may involve anentirely different workplace than theday before, possibly with different orunique new hazards. Would it beappropriate for OSHA to require a briefsafety meeting prior to each shift or eachchange of activity to inform employeesof identified hazards to be encounteredduring that shift and to make theemployees aware of any particularprocedures, equipment and workpractices that will be used? What hasbeen your experience with suchmeetings? Have you found themhelpful? Protective? Cost-effective?Please provide any information or datato support your responses.

Proposed 1926.761 does not specifythe details of required training programsto allow the employer flexibility indesigning training programs. Do thetraining requirements provide adequatedirection or should the frequency oftraining and the initial administering oftraining be addressed?

17. Based on the reasons stated in thepreamble, is the lack of a specificrequirement for slippery metal decksurfaces (reserved paragraph (c)(2) ofproposed 1926.754) justified or is thereadequate information to support such arequirement?

18. Proposed 1926.752(d) allowsemployers to elect to develop a site-specific erection plan if compelled by

site-specific considerations. Is thereadequate support for not requiring asite-specific erection plan for all sites?Are there more (or fewer) situationsthan those identified in proposed1926.752(d) for which the developmentof a site-specific erection plan would beappropriate? Does the lack of a requiredsite-specific erection plan for every sitereduce the protectiveness of theproposed standard in situations whereproviding such plans is feasible? OSHAsolicits information on the effectivenessof erection plans and employers’ andemployees’ experiences in developingand implementing them.

19. OSHA invites comments andinformation on proposed § 1926.760 (e).Specifically, to what extent do steelerection employers currently turn overfall protection systems to generalcontractors or follow-up contractoremployers when steel erectionoperations have been completed? Towhat extent do ‘‘controlling contractors’’currently assume responsibility for fallprotection systems installed by steelerectors, as would be required byproposed § 1926.760 (e)(1) and (e)(2)?

20. There are six provisions in theproposal that exempt the employer fromcertain requirements of the standardwhere the design or constructibilitywould not allow or would eliminate theneed to comply with the requirement.These are § 1926.754(b)(1),§ 1926.754(b)(2), § 1926.754(e)(2)(i),§ 1926.754(e)(2)(ii), § 1926.756(e), and§ 1926.756(f). What criteria should beused to determine whether design orconstructibility would allow theexemption? Should the employer berequired to demonstrate these criteriaprior to claiming an exemption to oneof the provisions?

21. Proposed § 1926.760(a)(2)provides criteria for fall arrest systemsand other fall protection equipment andincludes strength requirements foranchorages used in fall arrest systems.Proposed § 1926.757(a)(10) prohibits theuse of joists and joist girders asanchorages and proposed § 1926.758(g)prohibits the use of purlins and girts inpre-engineered metal buildings asanchorages unless ‘‘written direction todo so is obtained from a qualifiedperson.’’ In the discussion above, theexplanation for the prohibition wasexplored but little was presented as towhat the ‘‘written direction’’ should bebased on. Should criteria be included inthese provisions to develop the basis forthe written direction and, if so, whatshould these criteria be?

22. OSHA welcomes small businesscomments in response to the following:

a. While conducting a negotiatedrulemaking process, SENRAC

considered a number of alternatives tothe final proposal. The alternatives arepresented in the preamble and theInitial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.Are any of these alternatives moreeffective while achieving the same levelof safety? Are there other cost-effectivealternatives to specific provisions in therule that would produce an equally safesteel erection workplace? If so, pleaseexplain.

b. Comments are welcome fromaffected small businesses on all aspectsof the proposal. Comments couldinclude anticipated costs (includingcapital outlay), revenue and profitestimates, feasibility and anticipatedlevels of safety resulting from the rule.In particular, OSHA welcomes commentand any available supportinginformation on the cost, feasibility andsafety of the following specificrequirements.

(1) Section 1926.754(e)(1)(i)requirement disallowing hoisting bybundle packaging and strapping, unlessthe packaging and strapping aredesigned for hoisting.

(2) Sections 1926.755(a)(1) and1926.758(b) requirements to anchor allcolumns by a minimum of 4 anchorbolts, based on specific design assemblyspecifications.

(3) Section 1926.756(f)(3) requirementthat holes or other devices be providedby the fabricator/supplier and beattached to perimeter columns at 42–45inches above the finished floor.

(4) Section 1926.757(a)(4) requirementthat a stabilizer plate be provided oneach column for steel joists and steeljoist girders.

(5) Section 1926.757(a)(8) requirementfor steel joists in bays of 40 feet or moreto be fabricated to allow for field boltingduring erection—a requirement whichrequires the use of building specific bolthole construction.

(6) Section 1926.757(d)(6)(iii)requirement for shop-installed bridgingclips, or functional equivalents, on allsteel joists to be provided where thebridging bolts to the steel joists.

(7) Section 1926.758(e)(2) requirementfor the seat or similar connection deviceto be provided by the manufacturer ofthe girt or eave strut.

c. OSHA assumes that the proposedrule will require construction and steelfabricator firms to either pass-throughcosts and increase prices or assumecosts in some proportion and reduceprofits by some amount. Small businessrepresentatives have expressed concernthat, if the total cost of constructionincreases by greater than 5 percent, theirclient base will shift away from steelerection to less costly constructionmethods. Is this an accurate threshold


for determining the effects of the rule onthe competitive position of steelerection firms? Do affected firms expectthe proposed rule to increase costs ofsteel erection or related fabrication bymore than 5 percent? Explain the basesfor this calculation. Will constructionand fabrication firms lose significantnumbers of jobs or specific types of jobsbecause of a price increase? Are specifictypes of firms within the steel erectedbuilding industry particularly sensitiveto cost increases?

d. ‘‘Leading edge’’ construction firmshave already met many of the proposedrule’s provisions. Thus, OSHA assumesthat other firms will be able to meet therule’s requirements with existingequipment and production methods atreasonable economic costs. Is this anaccurate assumption? Firms already inbasic compliance with the proposal’sprovisions are welcome to comment oneach 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 proposedrule do you practice?

(3) How much has compliance withthese practices reduced or increasedyour profit and why?

(4) How much has compliance withthese practices increased or reducedyour costs and why?

(5) How much of increased costs haveyou been able to pass along to thecustomer?

(6) When faced with the need to makea cost-competitive bid, how does yourfirm absorb or reduce costs associatedwith the additional safety practices?

e. The proposed rule places newrequirements on pre-engineered metalbuildings. OSHA invites this industrysector to comment and providesupplemental information on the costsand benefits of these requirements.Specifically, the agency seeks commentson the following information:

(1) The number of firms likely to beaffected by this rule;

(2) The typical size of these firms(e.g., number of employees, annualrevenue, etc.);

(3) The size of revenues of these firmsand their profitability as a percent ofrevenues;

(4) The costs of the proposedrequirements on these firms;

(5) The need for safety improvementsassociated with erection of various sizedpre-engineered metal buildings; and

(6) Regulatory alternatives that may bemore appropriate or cost effective forthis sector.

f. OSHA has assumed that safetybenefits accrue to employees in smallfirms at a rate equal to that in mediumand large firms. OSHA’s InitialRegulatory Flexibility Analysisassumed, however, that 44 percent ofiron workers affected by the rule areemployed by small firms and that thesesmall firms would have to pay only 22.5percent of the costs, leaving the majorityof the cost impacts to fall on mediumand larger firms. OSHA welcomescomment on whether it should assumethat benefits accrue on a different basisthan costs. For example, OSHAwelcomes comment on whether it hasproperly estimated that only 22.5percent of costs would fall on firms withfewer than 10 employees, even though44 percent of all employees in the steelerection trade work for these very smallfirms? Comments are also invited onother cost and benefit assumptions.

VII. Summary of the PreliminaryEconomic and Initial RegulatoryFlexibility Analysis

Introduction

The Administrator of OIRA hasdetermined that this proposal is asignificant regulatory action under E.O.12866 and a major rule under theCongressional Review provisions of theSmall Business Regulatory EnforcementFairness Act. Accordingly, OSHA hasprovided OIRA with an assessment ofthe costs, benefits and alternatives, asrequired by section 6(a)(3)(C) of E.O.12866, which is summarized below.

Executive Order (EO) 12866 requiresregulatory agencies to conduct aneconomic analysis for rules that meetcertain criteria. The most frequentlyused criterion under EO 12866 is thatthe rule will impose annual costs on theeconomy of $100 million or more.OSHA’s proposal to revise the steelerection standard in construction isprojected to result in annual costs ofless than $100 million; nevertheless,OSHA has prepared this preliminaryeconomic analysis, summarized below.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of1980, as amended in 1996, requiresOSHA to determine whether theAgency’s regulatory actions will have asignificant impact on a substantialnumber of small entities. Making sucha determination for this proposalrequired OSHA to perform a screeninganalysis to identify any such impacts.OSHA’s screening analysis indicatedthat the proposed rule might havesignificant impacts on a substantialnumber of small entities. Accordingly,

OSHA has prepared an InitialRegulatory Flexibility Analysis,summarized below, of the proposedsteel erection rule.

OSHA’s preliminary economicanalysis and initial regulatory flexibilityanalysis include a description of theindustries potentially affected by thestandard; a summary of the majorchanges between OSHA’s existing steelerection standard and the proposed rule;an evaluation of the risks addressed; anassessment of the benefits attributable tothe proposed standard; a determinationof the technological feasibility of thenew requirements; an estimate of thecosts employers will incur to complywith the standard; a determination ofthe economic feasibility of compliancewith the standard; and an analysis of theeconomic and other impacts associatedwith this rulemaking, including thoseon small businesses. OSHA’spreliminary economic analysis andinitial regulatory flexibility analysis ofthe proposed standard are based on riskand cost data collected and analyzed byOSHA’s contractor, Jack FaucettAssociates; these data are presented inAppendices B and C of the preliminaryeconomic analysis.

Affected Industries

The proposed steel erection standardaffects industries and establishmentswithin the construction industry. Table1 presents the industry groups inconstruction that will be directlyaffected by the proposed standard.Construction employers who will bedirectly impacted are concentratedwithin SIC 1791, Structural SteelErection, an industry with 4,463establishments and 51,108 employees in1996, as reported by Dun & Bradstreet[D&B, 1996a]. Within this industry,3,724 establishments, or 83 percent ofthe total number of establishments,employed nineteen or fewer employeesin 1996, while 3,099 establishments (69percent) employed nine or feweremployees. SIC 1791, however, alsoincludes employers and workers whoperform construction activities otherthan steel erection, notably pre-castconcrete erection. Thus, anycomprehensive profile of the steelerection industry must, in addition toexamining affected industry groups,focus on the type of work and the tradeof the workers engaged in this form ofconstruction.

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P


TABLE 1.—INDUSTRY GROUPS IN CONSTRUCTION POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED STEEL ERECTION STANDARD

SIC Industry groupIron

workers(a)

Establishments with1–9 employees



Establishments with100+ employees

All establishments

Establish-ments

Employ-ment

Establish-ments

Employ-ment

Establish-ments

Employ-ment

Establish-ments

Employ-ment

Establish-ments

Employ-ment

15 ............... Building Construction—General Contractorsand Operative Builders.

13,760 250,639 736,753 267,669 948,795 278,225 1,310,692 3,306 185,116 281,531 1,495,808

154 ............. General Building Contrac-tors—NonresidentialBuildings.

13,760 35,373 130,773 42,934 225,849 49,297 452,453 1,706 148,947 51,003 601,400

1541 ........... Industrial Buildings andWarehouses.

................ 6,055 22,269 7,422 39,733 8,884 93,823 559 60,411 9,443 154,234

1542 ........... Nonresidential Buildings,other than in SIC 1541.

................ 29,318 108,504 35,512 186,116 40,413 358,630 1,147 88,536 41,560 447,166

16 ............... Heavy Construction otherthan Building Construc-tion.

2,490 30,861 107,284 36,389 177,080 42,484 406,738 3,663 240,183 46,147 646,921

161 ............. Highway and Street Con-struction, except Ele-vated Highways.

220 11,465 40,482 13,476 65,703 15,767 153,454 906 109,699 16,673 263,153

162 ............. Heavy Construction, ex-cept Highway andStreet Construction.

2,270 19,396 66,802 22,913 111,377 26,717 253,284 2,757 130,484 29,474 383,768

1622 ........... Bridge, Tunnel, and Ele-vated Highway Con-struction.

................ 634 2,477 844 5,116 1,199 18,847 281 15,674 1,480 34,521

1623 ........... Water, Sewer, Pipeline,and Communicationsand Power Line Con-struction.

................ 6,673 26,154 8,669 51,686 10,874 133,018 1,989 43,469 12,863 176,487

1629 ........... Heavy Construction NotElsewhere Classified.

................ 12,089 38,171 13,400 54,575 14,644 101,419 487 71,341 15,131 172,760

17 ............... Construction—SpecialTrade Contractors.

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

176 ............. Roofing, Siding, andSheet Metal Work.

1,060 37,688 116,697 41,185 160,798 43,671 244,033 451 13,315 44,122 257,348

179 ............. Miscellaneous SpecialTrade Contractors.

20,210 104,192 312,739 112,313 414,931 117,545 589,432 1,340 58,755 118,885 648,187

1791 ........... Structural Steel Erection ................ 3,099 10,986 3,724 18,914 4,346 40,696 117 10,412 4,463 51,108

Con-struc-tionTotals.

..................................... 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 & Brad-

street Information Services, 1996.

BILLING CODE 4510–26–M

The workers directly benefitting fromthe proposed standard are identified inoccupational surveys as structural metalworkers; in the industry, they areknown as iron workers. According tothe Bureau of Labor Statistics’Occupational Employment StatisticsSurvey [BLS, 1993], there were 38,980structural metal workers in constructionin 1993, the majority of whom are foundin SIC 179, Miscellaneous Special TradeContractors (20,210 structural metalworkers), and SIC 154, Contractors—Nonresidential Buildings (13,760structural metal workers) (Table 1). Forthis preliminary economic analysis,OSHA used this estimate of the numberof iron workers affected by the proposedrule in its benefits and cost analyses. Inaddition to these construction workers,structural metal workers and otherworkers in general industry whoperform steel erection repair orrenovation operations that are defined

by OSHA as construction may fallwithin the scope of the proposedstandard. At this time, however, OSHAlacks data on the number of, and typesof work performed by, workers notclassified in construction SICs thatperform steel erection activities. OSHArequests information on the number ofstructural metal workers and workers inother trades who perform steel erectionoutside of the construction industry.

Proposed Changes to OSHA’s SteelErection Standard

The proposed steel erection standardmodifies and strengthens the Agency’sexisting standard in a number of areas.For example, the proposed standardincludes a scope and application sectionthat identifies the types of constructionprojects and activities subject to therule. Structures excluded from coverageunder the scope of the standard are steelelectrical transmission towers, steelcommunication and broadcast towers,steel water towers, steel light towers,

steel tanks, and reinforced and pre-castconcrete. The proposed rule alsoincludes a new section addressing sitelayout and construction sequence. Otherproposed revisions to the existingstandard include:

• Explicit requirements for hoistingand rigging and the resulting protectionof workers and the public from thehazards of overhead loads;

• Additional and strengthenedrequirements for the structural steelassembly of beams, columns, joists,decking, and pre-engineered metalbuildings, including the protection ofemployees from tripping hazards andslippery surfaces on walking/workingsurfaces;

• Strengthened and clarifiedrequirements for fall protection forconnectors, decking assemblers, andother iron workers during the erectionof structural steel; and

• New requirements for training infall hazards, multiple lift rigging,


connecting, and controlled deckingzones.

For this analysis, OSHA has identifiedthose requirements that would createsubstantial impacts or generatesubstantial benefits. OSHA estimatesthat current industry practice is at 10percent with regard to providing fallarrest systems and personnel nets (i.e.,10 percent of affected firms currentlyuse this equipment); at 75 percent forsafety training; at 80 percent for columnanchor bolts; and at 87 percent forguardrail systems [Ex. 11]. OSHAanticipates that the proposed standard’srequirements pertaining to overheadloads, trips and slips, falls, fallingobjects, collapses, and worker trainingwill both generate substantial benefitsfor affected employers and impose costson them.

Evaluation of Risk and PotentialBenefits

For this preliminary economicanalysis, OSHA developed a profile ofthe risks facing iron workers who are

performing steel erection operations.OSHA’s risk profile for steel erection isbased on data from the Bureau of LaborStatistics’ National Census of FatalOccupational Injuries, data from theBureau’s Survey of OccupationalInjuries and Illnesses, and an analysisby a SENRAC workgroup of OSHAfatality/catastrophe inspection dataobtained from the Agency’s IntegratedManagement Information System.

OSHA anticipates that the proposedstandard will significantly reduce thenumber of accidents and fatalitiescurrently reported in the steel erectionindustry, particularly those accidentscaused by falls from elevated levels andby objects such as dislodged structuralmembers and building materials strikingworkers. OSHA believes that theproposed standard’s more protectiverequirements for fall protection,structural stability, and training willhelp to save lives and prevent injuriesin the iron worker workforce. Foraccidents involving events or exposurespotentially addressed by the proposed

standard, OSHA estimates thatapproximately 28 fatalities and 1,836lost-workday injuries currently occurannually among structural metalworkers (see Table 2, below); this is thecurrent industry risk baseline used inthis analysis. OSHA projects that fullcompliance with the proposed standardwould prevent 26 of these fatalities and1,152 of these lost-workday injuries.Twelve of these fatalities and 328serious injuries could be prevented ifemployers were currently in compliancewith OSHA’s existing steel erectionstandard. The proposed standard willprevent an additional 14 fatalities and824 injuries not prevented by theexisting standard. Further, OSHAbelieves that compliance with the steelerection standard will be enhancedbecause the proposed revision is clearer,allows for more flexibility incompliance, is easier to understand, andis effectively targeted toward steelerection hazards.


TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED NUMBER OF DEATHS AVERTED AND INJURIES AVOIDED BY FULL COMPLIANCE WITHTHE PROPOSED STEEL ERECTION STANDARD

Number of fa-talities and

lost-workdayinjuries cur-rently occur-ring amongiron workers


lost-workdayinjuries pre-ventable bycompliance

with the exist-ing standard

Additionalnumber of fa-

talities andlost-workdayinjuries pre-ventable bycompliancewith the pro-posed stand-

ard

Total numberof fatalities

and lost-work-day injuries

preventable bycompliance

with the exist-ing and pro-posed stand-

ards


lost-workdayinjuries judgednot to be pre-ventable by ei-ther standard

Fatalities ................................................................................ 28 12 14 26 2Lost-Workday Injuries ........................................................... 1,836 328 824 1,152 684

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, 1998.


In addition to saving lives andimproving overall safety in the steelerection industry, OSHA believes thatthe proposed standard, once fullyimplemented by erection contractors,would yield substantial cost savings toparties within and connected with theindustry and ultimately to society as awhole. These monetized benefits takethe form of reductions in employer andinsurer accident-related costs in severalareas: value of lost output associatedwith temporary total disabilities andpermanent partial disabilities, anincome-based measure derived from

estimates of workers’ compensationindemnity payments; reductions inaccident-related medical costs;administrative expenses incurred byworkers’ compensation insurers; andindirect costs related to productivitylosses, work stoppages, and accidentinvestigations and reports. Applyingdata from the construction andinsurance industries on the direct costsof accidents and data from the literatureon the indirect costs of accidents andother tort and administrative-relatedcosts to OSHA’s preliminary estimate ofavoided injuries (see Chapter III in thepreliminary economic analysis [Ex. 11]),

the Agency monetized the value of thecost savings employers and society willaccrue by avoiding these injuries. Insum, OSHA estimates that annual costssavings of $11.6 million would resultfrom full compliance with the currentrule and an additional $28.7 millionwould be saved as a result ofcompliance with the proposed rule(Table 3). Thus annual monetizedbenefits of $40.3 million are expectedafter the proposed steel erectionstandard is implemented as a final rule.


TABLE 3.—SUMMARY OF ANNUAL INCREMENTAL MONETIZED BENEFITS OF PREVENTABLE LOST-WORKDAY INJURIESATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PROPOSED STEEL ERECTION STANDARD

Lost Output Associated with Temporary Disabilities ........................................................................................................................... $4,356,347Lost Output Associated with Permanent Disabilities ........................................................................................................................... 14,450,838Medical Costs ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 3,923,949Insurance Costs (Administrative) ......................................................................................................................................................... 2,384,945


TABLE 3.—SUMMARY OF ANNUAL INCREMENTAL MONETIZED BENEFITS OF PREVENTABLE LOST-WORKDAY INJURIESATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PROPOSED STEEL ERECTION STANDARD—Continued

Indirect Costs ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 3,607,994Costs 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.


In addition to these monetizedbenefits, cost savings attributable to adecline in the number of third-partyliability suits can be expected. Althoughquantification of these tort-related legaldefense costs and dollar awards isdifficult because of the unavailability ofa sufficient volume of data, OSHAbelieves that these employer costs aresubstantial and would be slashedsignificantly through compliance withthe proposed standard.

Technological Feasibility andCompliance Costs

Consistent with the legal frameworkestablished by the OSH Act, ExecutiveOrder 12866 and court decisions, OSHAhas assessed the technologicalfeasibility of the proposed steel erectionstandard. The proposed standardclarifies and strengthens the Agency’sexisting standard, provides morespecific requirements in some areas, andintroduces requirements for some steelerection hazards newly addressed by theAgency. Many of the proposed revisionsare consistent with current constructionmeans and methods used by leadingfirms within the steel erection industry.The success of these firms in thiscompetitive industry demonstrates thatthe requirements of the proposedstandard can be met with existingequipment and production methods.

Moreover, the proposed standard isbased on a consensus draftrecommended to the Agency by anegotiated rulemaking committee

consisting of divergent industryinterests—including small employers—who would be affected by any changesto subpart R. The committee reachedconsensus on the language of the draft,thereby implicitly acknowledging thefeasibility of the proposed revisions tothe standard.

Therefore, based on the fact that manyfirms in the industry are alreadyimplementing the controls and practicesrequired by the proposed standard andthat the negotiated rulemakingcommittee reached consensus on thedraft underlying the proposed revisions,OSHA has preliminarily determinedthat the proposed steel erectionstandard is technologically feasible.

OSHA developed estimates of thecosts of compliance for constructionemployers subject to the proposedstandard; OSHA’s analysis is based ondata gathering and analysis carried outby Faucett Associates under contract toOSHA. OSHA estimated annualizedcompliance costs for two compliancescenarios: (1) costs to achievecompliance with OSHA’s existing steelerection standard, and (2) costs toachieve compliance with the proposedstandard. OSHA’s cost estimates takeinto account the extent of currentindustry compliance, i.e., the extent towhich employers are already incompliance with the requirements ofOSHA’s existing standard and with therequirements of the proposed steelerection standard. Accounting for thesecosts, i.e., subtracting them from the

costs attributed to the proposedstandard, is important because onlythose costs employers would actuallyincur to come into compliance with theproposed standard are properlyattributed to that standard.

Table 4 presents OSHA’s annualizedcompliance cost estimates, by provisionor safety control, for establishments inthe industries subject to the proposedstandard. For establishments to achievefull compliance with OSHA’s existingsteel erection standard, annualizedcompliance costs are estimated to total$28.0 million. OSHA projects that fullcompliance with the proposed standardwould, after deducting costs incurred toachieve compliance with the existingstandard, result in net (or incremental)annualized costs of $49.4 million foraffected establishments. Amongincremental annualized costs,expenditures for fall arrest systemsaccount for $14.4 million, or 29 percentof total costs; expenditures for the safedesign and erection of steel joistsrequired by the proposed standardaccount for $13.9 million, or 28 percentof total costs; and expenditures foranchor bolts necessary for structuralstability account for $13.7 million, or 28percent of total costs. Other controlcosts associated with compliance withthe proposed steel erection standard arethose for railings, cables, and barriers($4.7 million); paperwork associatedwith administrative controls ($3.4million); 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]

SIC Industry group and size Fall arrestsystems

Personnelnets

Proposed controls

Training Paperwork TotalRailings, ca-bles andbarriers

Anchor bolts Joist erection

154 ............................... General Building Con-tractors—Nonresi-dential Buildings

Establishments with 1–9 Employees.

$1,005,697 ($104,757) $324,360 $958,333 $971,949 $50,944 $233,655 $3,440,181


3,664,730 (381,730) 1,181,959 3,492,139 3,541,752 185,637 851,432 12,535,919

Establishments with100+ 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


TABLE 4.—ANNUALIZED COMPLIANCE COST OF THE PROPOSED STANDARD BY INDUSTRY GROUP AND PROPOSED CONTROLS (a)—Continued[1995 dollars]

SIC Industry group and size Fall arrestsystems

Personnelnets

Proposed controls

Training Paperwork TotalRailings, ca-bles andbarriers

Anchor bolts Joist erection

161 ............................... Highway and StreetConstruction, exceptElevated Highways


18,716 (1,949) 6,036 17,834 18,088 948 4,348 64,020


57,156 (5,954) 18,434 54,464 55,238 2,895 13,279 195,514


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 18,919 278,555162 ............................... Heavy Construction,

except Highway andStreet Construction


134,569 (14,017) 43,402 128,232 130,054 6,817 31,265 460,320


524,969 (54,682) 169,314 500,245 507,352 26,592 121,967 1,795,757


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 2,874,178176 ............................... Roofing, Siding and

Sheet Metal WorkEstablishments with 1–

9 Employees.150,303 (15,656) 48,476 143,224 145,259 7,614 34,920 514,141


361,729 (37,679) 116,666 344,693 349,590 18,323 84,041 1,237,363


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 1,342,1271791 ............................. Structural Steel Erec-

tionEstablishments with 1–

9 Employees.1,821,328 (189,715) 587,420 1,735,552 1,760,209 92,259 423,152 6,230,206


5,131,108 (534,472) 1,654,900 4,889,457 4,958,922 259,916 1,192,118 17,551,950


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 25,589,050Establishments 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 AffectedIndustry Groups.


9,739,692 (1,014,517) 3,141,274 9,280,999 9,412,855 493,364 2,262,838 33,316,503


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 47,506,242Other 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 FloorWork. 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 prelimi-nary economic analysis [Ex. 11]) and Dun & Bradstreet, National Profile of Businesses software, Dun & Bradstreet Information Services, 1996.

Economic Impacts

OSHA analyzed the impacts of thesecompliance costs on prices, profits,construction output and other economicindices in the steel erection industry. Inparticular, OSHA examined economicimpacts on SIC 1791, Structural SteelErection, where the majority of the39,000 structural metal workers areemployed. This analysis shows thatstructural steel erectors will not beseverely impacted by the costs

associated with full implementation ofthe proposed standard.

OSHA examined the potentialeconomic impacts of the proposedstandard by making two assumptionsused by economists to bound the rangeof possible impacts: the assumption ofno-cost pass-through, i.e., thatemployers will be unable to pass any ofthe costs of compliance forward to theircustomers, and the assumption of full-cost pass-through, i.e., that employerswill 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 inSIC 1791 were forced to absorb thesecompliance costs entirely from profits (ahighly unlikely scenario), profits wouldbe reduced by an average of 4.6 percent.If, at the other extreme, affected firmswere able to pass all of thesecompliance costs forward to generalcontractors and project owners, OSHAprojects that the price (revenue) increase


required to pay for these costs would beless than 1 percent (0.28 percent).

In addition to examining theeconomic effects of the proposedstandard on firms in SIC 1791, OSHAestimated the impacts of the proposedstandard on two other constructionindustry divisions involving steelerection: (1) the entire constructionsector; and (2) construction activitywhere structural steel constitutes thephysical core of the project, termed‘‘steel-frame construction’’ by OSHA.

For the dollar value of business forthe entire construction sector, OSHAtotaled 1996 sales data for SICs 15, 16,and 17 provided in a Dun & Bradstreetnational business database [D&B,1996a]. OSHA derived pre-tax income(Column 2 in Table 5) for theconstruction sector by, first, calculatingindustry profit using Dun & Bradstreetdata on post-tax return on sales (post-taxprofits) and, second, applying a formulathat 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, andprofit impacts assuming no cost pass-through would be 0.06 percent. Thus inthe context of the construction sector asa whole, the proposed standard wouldhave little impact.


TABLE 5.—POTENTIAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED STEEL ERECTION STANDARD ON SELECTED SECTORSWITHIN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

[Worst-Case Conditions]

Dollar value ofbusiness (a)($ millions)

Pre-tax in-come (b) ($

million)

Compliancecosts as a

percent of rev-enue (c)

Compliancecosts as apercent ofprofit (c)

Construction Sector as a Whole ...................................................................... $768,155.9 $77,830.1 0.01 0.06Steel-Frame Construction (d) ........................................................................... 119,979.2 12,156.4 0.04 0.41SIC 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 $49.4million and were applied as follows: construction sector as a whole—$49.4 million; steel-frame construction—$49.4 million; and SIC 1791, Struc-tural 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 thestructure. Dollar value of business and pre-tax income for Steel-Frame Construction were computed by applying the percentage of the value ofthe 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 in-come for the entire construction sector. Data on the steel market share for 1995 are based on memoranda to OSHA from Construction Re-sources 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.


OSHA calculated the value of steel-frame construction using data providedby the Construction Resources Analysisoffice of the University of Tennessee,College of Business Administration onthe value of the steel market share of theentire construction industry. In thiscalculation, OSHA applied thepercentage of the value of the steelmarket share (15.6 percent), excludingthat for tanks and towers, of allconstruction starts to the dollar value ofbusiness and pre-tax income for theentire construction sector, therebyeliminating all non-steel construction(as defined in the proposed standard)from the earnings total. Price increasesfor steel frame construction as a wholeare of particular interest because theyrepresent the price increases to theultimate customers of steel erectionservices, the purchasers of buildings,bridges, etc. Under the worst-case priceincrease scenarios, the price of suchprojects would increase by 0.04 percent.It is exceedingly unlikely that acustomer would fail to go ahead with aproject as a result of a price increase ofthis magnitude; as a result cost pass-

through at the project level is probablyfeasible.

OSHA believes that, prior to thegeneration of the cost savings projectedto accrue from implementation of thestandard, most steel erectors will handlethe increase in direct costs by increasingtheir prices somewhat and absorbing theremainder from profits. Within steelerection markets, the particular blend ofimpacts experienced by a given firmwill depend on the degree ofcompetition with concrete erection andother alternative types of constructionin the firm’s local market area. Althoughthese minimal economic impacts wouldbe felt by most affected employers afterimplementation of the standard, OSHAanticipates—based on testimony bymembers of SENRAC and other industryrepresentatives whose current fallprotection programs and other safetymeasures mirror those required by theproposed standard [Exs. 6–3, 6–8, and6–10]—that offsetting cost savings willsoon reverse any negative economicimpacts.

Regulatory Flexibility ScreeningAnalysis

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980(RFA), as amended in 1996 (5 U.S.C.601 et seq.), requires regulatory agenciesto determine whether regulatory actionswill adversely affect small entities. Thesignificance of any economic impact ismeasured by the effect on profits,market share, and an entity’s financialviability. Pursuant to the RFA, OSHAhas assessed the small-business impactsof the proposed steel erection standard.On the basis of this regulatory flexibilityscreening assessment and theunderlying data, summarized below,OSHA has preliminarily determinedthat the proposed standard will have asignificant impact on a substantialnumber of small entities. Thus, OSHAhas conducted a full Initial RegulatoryFlexibility Analysis, as required.OSHA’s Initial Regulatory FlexibilityAnalysis follows the screening analysispresented in this section.

The Small Business Administration(SBA) defines small entities, or‘‘concerns,’’ in terms of number ofemployees or annual receipts. Foremployers in SIC 17, small concerns are


defined by SBA as those with $7.0million or less in annual receipts. OSHAhas determined that in SIC 1791,Structural Steel Erection, based on 1996data from Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) andusing D&B’s estimate of the dollar valueof business to represent annual receipts,the class of establishments with 99 orfewer employees comes closest to theclass of firms qualifying as smallconcerns under the SBA definition. Notall firms in this class would have annualreceipts of less than $7.0 million;however, OSHA would ratheroverestimate the number of small firmsthan try to extrapolate the number ofsmall firms from the limited dataavailable. Establishments with fewerthan 99 employees represent 97.4percent of the 4,463 establishments andemploy 79.6 percent of the 51,108workers in SIC 1791, according to Dun& Bradstreet’s national market profile[D&B, 1996a].

OSHA projects that the magnitude ofcompliance costs for most safetymeasures mandated by the proposedstandard will depend on the size of anemployer’s workforce. For requirementspertaining to fall protection, joisterection, and structural assembly, toname a few provisions, labor andequipment costs will vary by projectsize and duration. For the requirementsfor training, costs will vary byemployment size. Thus, in some cases,smaller firms erecting smaller structureswill incur relatively lower compliancecosts. In sum, the proposed standard isdesigned to minimize requirements that

would impose significant fixed capitalcosts and give larger firms a competitiveadvantage through economies of scale.

In this regulatory flexibility screeningassessment, OSHA assessed the impactsof compliance costs within the industrygroup with the largest concentration ofaffected employers and employees, SIC1791, Structural Steel Erection.According to data from the Bureau ofLabor Statistics, of the approximately39,000 iron workers in construction,20,210 are employed in SIC 179,Miscellaneous Special TradeContractors. OSHA believes that thegreat majority of these workers arefound in SIC 1791, Structural SteelErection, because the other industries inSIC 179 (glass and glazing, excavationwork, wrecking and demolition,installation and erection of buildingequipment (such as installing elevators,revolving doors and industrialmachinery) and specialty tradecontractors not elsewhere classified), areunlikely to employ significant numbersof iron workers. This contention issupported by the fact that available dataon iron worker deaths (see Table III–2in the preliminary economic analysis[Ex. 11]) show that SIC 1791 accountedfor more than 90 percent of iron workerdeaths in SIC 179 in 1992–93. Totalemployment for all trades in SIC 1791is 51,108 workers, according to Dun &Bradstreet. BLS and D&B data indicatethat iron workers constitute roughly 40percent of the labor force in SIC 1791,the largest concentration of iron workersin any four-digit group where iron

workers are employed. In addition, onlyfirms in SIC 1791 earn the majority oftheir revenues from steel erection.(According to the definitions used in theSIC system, firms classified in all othersectors must earn a minority of theirtotal revenues from their steel erectionbusiness.)

Compared with all other industrygroups in the construction industry,firms in SIC 1791 have the greatestnumber of iron workers per firm and thehighest percentage of iron workersrelative to total employment. Since thecosts of compliance are approximatelyproportional to the number of ironworkers in a given firm, establishmentsin SIC 1791 will experience the greatesteconomic impact.

To assess the financial impacts of theproposed standard on small firms in SIC1791, OSHA distributed compliancecosts within size classes according to anestimate of the percent of revenue (grosssales) earned by establishments withinthose size classes. Applying Dun &Bradstreet revenue figures, OSHA hasdetermined that costs represent lessthan one percent (0.28 percent) ofrevenues for firms with 99 or feweremployees, so that under the extremecase of full-cost pass-through toconsumers, prices would rise by nomore than one percent (see Table 6,below). Similarly, for the very smallestfirms, those with fewer than tenemployees, price impacts are projectedto 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 THESTEEL ERECTION INDUSTRY UNDER WORST-CASE CONDITIONS

Annualcompliancecosts (a) ($

millions)

Compliancecost per es-tablishment

(a)

Dollar valueof business(b) ($ mil-

lions)

Revenue per es-tablishment (b)

Pre-tax in-come (c) ($

millions)

Pre-tax in-come perestablish-ment (c)

Compliancecosts as apercent ofrevenue

Compliancecosts as apercent of

profit

SIC 1791, StructuralSteel 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 Em-ployees ................. 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 Em-ployees ................. 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, Na-tional Profile of Businesses, 1996. Compliance costs for size groups were derived by applying the percentage of revenue in the size groups tototal 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.


Under the alternate scenario of full-cost profit absorption (an extremelyunlikely scenario) among steel erectioncontractors with 99 or fewer employees,profit impacts would be 4.4 percent; for

firms with one to nine employees, profitimpacts would be 6.5 percent. Thus,costs as a percentage of profits andrevenues for SIC 1791 are lower whena small entity is defined to include allfirms within the SBA size standards

(less than $7 million in revenue) thanfor small entities employing fewer than10 workers. The difference in theseprojected profit impacts for the twosmaller size categories of firms reflectsa difference in the 1995–96 profit rates


for the two groups [D&B, 1996b] appliedby OSHA in this impacts analysis: (1) anaverage 3.6 percent rate of net-profit-after-tax-to-net-sales for establishmentswith fewer than ten employees (roughlydefined as those with assets of less than$250,000) and (2) an average 4.9 percentpost-tax profit/sales ratio forestablishments with one to ninety-nineemployees (roughly defined as thosewith assets of $250,000 to $1 million)(see Chapter VI in the preliminaryeconomic analysis for furtherexplanation).

OSHA believes that most smallerectors will, along with the rest of theindustry, receive economic benefitsfrom compliance with the proposed rulethat will more than offset these directcost impacts. As noted above, employerrepresentatives on the committeecommented on numerous occasions thatthe measures required by the proposedstandard will, in fact, improveprofitability and competitiveness [Exs.6–3, 6–8, and 6–10]. Therefore, OSHAanticipates that most small entities willexperience minimal economic impactsas a result of implementation of theproposed standard if some or allcompliance costs can be passed forwardto final consumers and/or cost savingsare realized. However, OSHA believesthat, when compliance costs exceed 5percent of profits in an industry earningreasonable profits, the standard’s impactmay be significant in the context of theRegulatory Flexibility Act. Thus, OSHAhas conducted a full Initial RegulatoryFlexibility Analysis, as required by thatact.

Regulatory Flexibility AnalysisThe Regulatory Flexibility Act, as

amended in 1996, requires that anInitial Regulatory Flexibility Analysiscontain the following elements:

(1) A description of the reasons whyaction by the agency is beingconsidered;

(2) A succinct statement of theobjectives of, and legal basis for, theproposed rule;

(3) A description of and, wherefeasible, an estimate of the number ofsmall entities to which the proposedrule will apply;

(4) A description of the projectedreporting, recordkeeping and othercompliance requirements of theproposed rule, including an estimate ofthe classes of small entities that will besubject to the requirement and the typeof professional skills necessary forpreparation of the report or record;

(5) An identification, to the extentpracticable, of all relevant Federal rulesthat may duplicate, overlap or conflictwith the proposed rule; and

(6) A description of any significantalternatives to the proposed rule thataccomplish the stated objectives ofapplicable statutes and minimize anysignificant economic impact of theproposed rule on small entities.

In addition, a Regulatory FlexibilityAnalysis must contain a description ofany significant alternatives to theproposed rule that, first, accomplish thestated objectives of applicable statutes(in this case the OSH Act and theRegulatory Flexibility Act) and that,second, minimize any significanteconomic impact of the proposed ruleon small entities.

Reasons for the Proposed RuleAccording to OSHA’s analysis of

accident data for an eleven-year period(1984–1994), 319 iron worker fatalitiesinvolved hazardous conditions that areaddressed by OSHA’s current andproposed steel erection standards. Basedon a review of BLS injury census datafor the period 1992–1993, OSHAestimates that an average of 28 fatalitiesand 1,836 lost-workday injuriesannually involve circumstances thatwould be addressed by provisions in theproposed OSHA steel erection standard.For an industry with an estimatedworkforce of only 38,980 workers, thesefatality and injury levels clearlydemonstrate that the risk confrontingthese workers is significant. Therefore,OSHA has developed proposedregulatory text that is designed toaddress this risk.

Objectives of the Proposed RuleThe objective of this proposal is to

reduce the risk of occupational exposureto a variety of hazards on steel erectionconstruction worksites, such as thoseinvolving falls, slips, trips, being struckby or crushed by objects or loads, andstructural collapses. These occupationalhazards will be reduced by this proposalthrough the use of engineering controls,work practice controls, inspections ofworksite conditions, training,communication, and recordkeeping.Implementation of these measures hasbeen shown to minimize or eliminateoccupational exposure to these hazardsduring the erection of steel structuresand thus to reduce the risk of injury ordeath among iron workers.

Description of the Number of SmallEntities

For this rulemaking, OSHA hasidentified the population at risk ofinjury in the construction workforce andthe industry groups where steel erectionis conducted, but cannot give a preciseestimate of the number of small entitiesto which the proposed rule will apply.

In SIC 1791, Structural Steel Erection,where the majority of iron workers areemployed, there are roughly 4,346establishments defined as small by theSBA, i.e., these entities earn less than $7million in annual revenue. If allestablishments in SIC 1791 wereaffected by the proposed standard, thensmall entities would comprise 97percent of all affected entities using theSBA size standard. There are 3,724 verysmall establishments, i.e., thoseemploying fewer than 20 employees, inSIC 1791; these very smallestablishments comprise 83 percent ofall establishments in the industry.

OSHA also examined the impact ofthe proposed standard on the FabricatedStructural Metal Industry (SIC 3441),which produces iron and steel forstructural purposes such as theconstruction of bridges and buildings.This sector would need to bore holes incertain joists—those that are connectedto steel structures in bays spanning 40feet or more—to enable them to bebolted rather than welded (proposedsection 1926.757). OSHA’s impactanalysis assumes that this sector wouldbear all of the $13.9 million in annualcosts associated with the provision ofthe proposed standard concerning openweb joists. In fact, because ofcontractual arrangements amongfabricators, steel erectors and buildingowners, most of the costs of thisprovision would be transmitted throughsteel erectors to building owners andwould appear in the bid price of theproject or would be incurred as onsitecosts.

For purposes of this analysis, OSHAhas defined small firms in this industryusing the SBA definition of small firms:firms with fewer than 500 employees.Department of Commerce data showthat there were 2,356 small firms in thissector in 1993. (Small firms represented97.5 percent of all firms.) Department ofCommerce data also show that thesesmall firms had total revenues of over$6.6 billion, almost 73 percent of allindustry revenues. Dun and Bradstreetdata show that in fiscal year 1995, themedian profits for firms in this sectorwere a healthy 3.5 percent of sales.Small firms were assumed to bear costsin proportion to their revenues. Even ifall of the costs of this provision of thestandard are borne by the fabricatedstructural metal industry, these costsrepresent only 0.15 percent of revenuesand 4.3 percent of profits for small firmsin this sector. Thus the costs of thestandard would not cause a significantimpact on small firms in this sector.

The Steel Joist Institute has arguedthat some small firms may lack theequipment to prepare joists as required


by the standard, and that as a resultsuch firms could be severely impacted.However, buildings requiring joists inbays spanning 40 feet or more representonly a portion of the total market. To theextent that there are small firms lackingsuitable equipment, such firms couldstill produce fabricated steel for avariety of steel erection projects and forportions of other projects. As a result,OSHA does not anticipate a significantimpact, if any, on those firms that lackthe proper equipment to prepare certainjoists for bolting. However, OSHAsolicits comment on two issues: (1)whether there are small firms lackingsuitable equipment to prepare joists inthe manner prescribed by the regulation;and (2) the percentage of the steelframing market that requires the use ofjoists in bays spanning 40 feet or more.

Description of the Proposed Reporting,Recordkeeping and Other ComplianceRequirements

The proposed rule would require, inthe following sections of the proposal,that employers establish and maintainrecords for the use of engineeringcontrols, work practices, inspections,and training:

• Site layout, site-specific erectionplan, and construction sequence;

• Hoisting and rigging;• Structural steel assembly;• Open web steel joists;• Pre-engineered metal buildings; and• TrainingMost steel erection employers would

be affected by the reporting andrecordkeeping requirements in thesesections, with the exception of therequirements pertaining only to pre-engineered buildings. Of an estimated17,587 steel erection projectsconstructed annually, 7,391 pre-engineered metal buildings are erectedeach year.

In estimating the cost of establishingand maintaining the records for each ofthese control areas, OSHA used thewage rate of the applicable professionalpersonnel. To give two examples: (1) forthe cost of certifying crane visualinspections, OSHA applied the wagerate for a crane operator; and (2) for thecosts of documentation of alternativemethods for joist erection, OSHAapplied the wage rates of a projectmanager and a structural engineer. Allrecordkeeping requirements included inthe proposed rule could be performedby the existing staff in any of thecovered industries. A detaileddescription of the proposedrequirements appears in Chapter II,INDUSTRY PROFILE and Chapter III,COSTS OF COMPLIANCE, in thepreliminary economic analysis.

Relevant Federal Rules

OSHA is proposing to revise thecurrent safety standard for steel erectionthat has been in place with little changefor over 25 years. OSHA believes thatthis thorough and comprehensiverevision to existing subpart R willprovide greater protection and eliminateambiguity and confusion, therebyimproving safety in this importantsegment of the construction industry.

At present there are no other federalworkplace rules or guidelines thatoverlap with the OSHA steel erectionstandard.

Significant Alternatives Considered

OSHA is confident that the proposedsteel erection standard has been writtenin such a way as to minimize impactson small employers while still ensuringsignificant protection for affectedemployees. Through the efforts of keystakeholders participating in thenegotiated rulemaking, the proposedstandard features, wherever possible,performance language that permitsmaximum flexibility for achieving safetyoutcomes. For example, the proposalprovides an opportunity to thoseemployers, who select alternative meansand methods for complying with certainsections of the standard, to incorporatethese alternatives into a site-specificerection plan. The committeeconsidered small contractors when itelected not to recommend that OSHApropose a universal requirement for asite-specific erection plan for all steelerection sites. Instead, the proposalprovides guidelines for establishing asite-specific erection plan in a non-mandatory appendix to assist employerswho choose to develop such a plan, asrecommended by the committee.

Other areas of the proposed standardthat are particularly responsive to theconcerns of small contractors includerules for the safe use of cranes and otherlifting equipment and the properassembly of metal buildings other thanthose constructed of heavy structuralsteel. In light of the number of smallsteel erectors potentially affected by thehoisting and rigging section of theproposed standard, OSHA hasattempted to minimize the burden of thepre-shift visual crane inspections byhaving the inspection checklist applyonly to the most essential safetyelements, as recommended by SENRAC.Additionally, since there are a largenumber of small builders who erect pre-engineered metal structures exclusively,OSHA determined that a separatesection in the proposal dedicated to thistype of steel erection would easecompliance for small erectors.

The Regulatory Flexibility Actemphasizes the importance ofperformance-based standards for smallbusinesses. OSHA considers theproposed standard to be highlyperformance oriented and believes thatsmaller contractors will benefitespecially from that orientation. Forexample, in proposed § 1926.760, FallProtection, employers are required toprotect certain employees exposed tofall distances of 15 feet or greater.Paragraph (a)(2) of § 1926.760 lists thetypes of general safety systems—e.g.,guardrail systems, safety net systems, orpersonal fall arrest systems—that mustbe used by employers to provide fallprotection to their employees. However,the proposed standard does not mandateparticular engineering solutions bystructure type, site location, crew size,or other criteria. Employers are free toselect any one system or combination ofsystems that is most compatible withcompany practice and employeeprotection so long as the performancemeasure—fall protection at 15 feet—isachieved. OSHA welcomes comment onother ways that the standard can bemade more performance oriented.

As another example of OSHA’ssensitivity to the potential impacts onsmall businesses, the proposalminimizes paperwork burden wheretraining, notifications, and other formsof communication are required, asrecommended by SENRAC. Regardingtraining provisions, general instructionin fall hazards is mandated for allemployees exposed to that risk, but thescope of additional special training islimited to three particularly hazardousactivities: multiple lift rigging,connecting, and decking. Employers areto ensure that the training is providedbut do not have to document or certifythe program. Other requirements wherecommunication will be necessary,including those involving field curing ofconcrete footings and modification ofanchor bolts, were written in such a wayas to limit the notifications to cover onlythe most essential information.Supplementary explanatory materials,presented in appendices to the proposedstandard, are intended to assistemployers in complying with the ruleand otherwise providing a saferworkplace.

Another approach recommended bythe Regulatory Flexibility Act iscompliance date phase-ins for smallbusinesses. Throughout theirdeliberations, SENRAC recognized theimportance of effective outreach to thesteel erection community prior to andfollowing promulgation of the proposedstandard. In fact, as stated recently by acommittee member, many employers in


the industry are aware of, and havealready begun to align their safetyprograms with, the proposed revisionsto subpart R (Ex. 9–156). At present, theproposed standard contains no dates forimplementation. Barring evidence in therecord that would compel the Agency todelay the compliance dates, OSHAanticipates that the final standard willbecome effective for all employerswithin a few months after it ispublished. At this time, OSHA believesthat any compliance extensions foraffected employers, including smallemployers, would only marginally easethe economic burden, given the progressin occupational safety already underwaythroughout industry and the non-capital-intensive nature of the rule, andwould delay unnecessarily theprotection of workers who wouldotherwise benefit from compliance withthe proposed rule. OSHA welcomescomment on the appropriateness ofcompliance phase-in dates for theproposed standard.

In sum, throughout the pre-proposalprocess of negotiated rulemaking forOSHA’s steel erection standard, theneeds and concerns of small employershave been considered and addressed ona regular basis. After considering anumber of alternatives as candidates forthe requirements in the proposed ruleand adopting those that were consistentwith the mandate imposed by the OSHAct, OSHA has developed a proposedrule that will minimize the burden onsmall employers, while maintaining thenecessary level of worker protection.

Non-Regulatory AlternativesThe primary objective of this

proposed standard is to minimize thenumber of construction worker injuriesand fatalities. To develop this proposedsteel erection standard, OSHAemployed negotiated rulemaking usingan advisory committee composed ofrepresentatives from the constructionindustry (both labor and managementand both small and larger firms), theinsurance industry, the engineeringfield, and Federal and State governmentregulatory and research agencies. OSHAexamined a number of non-regulatoryapproaches to enhancing workplacesafety, including the operation of theclassical free market, the tort liabilityinsurance system and the workers’compensation insurance system.

OSHA believes that these social andeconomic alternatives to a Federalworkplace regulation fail to adequatelyprotect workers from the hazardsassociated with structural steel erectionin the construction industry. Theprivate market offers economic signalsthat could have the potential to direct

workers toward desirable combinationsof risk and reward, but marketimperfections and institutional rigiditiesprevent workplaces from achieving themost optimal safety outcomes, creatinginefficient, inadequately compensatedrisks for workers. Tort liability laws andworkers’ compensation provide someprotection, but fall far short of fullycompensating injured employees for theloss of wages, the medical costs, and thelegal and other costs resulting fromworkplace accidents. Furthermore, theseapproaches are inherently reactive,rather than proactive, and largely fail tointroduce progressive safety programs atall levels of industry. Therefore, OSHAbelieves that this proposed revision tothe steel erection standard provides thenecessary remedy.

VIII. Environmental AssessmentThe proposed standard has been

reviewed in accordance with therequirements of the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA) of1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), theregulations of the Council onEnvironmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFRPart 1500), and DOL NEPA Procedures(29 CFR Part 11). The provisions of thestandard focus on the reduction andavoidance of accidents occurring duringstructural steel erection. Consequently,no major negative impact is foreseen onair, water or soil quality, plant or animallife, the use of land or other aspects ofthe environment.

IX. FederalismThis proposed Rule has been

reviewed in accordance with ExecutiveOrder 12612 (52 FR 41685, October 30,1987) regarding Federalism. The Orderrequires that agencies, to the extentpossible, refrain from limiting statepolicy options, consult with States priorto taking any actions that would restrictState policy options, and take suchactions only when there is clearconstitutional authority and thepresence of a problem of national scope.The Order provides for preemption ofState law only if there is a clearCongressional intent for the agency todo so. Any such preemption is to belimited to the extent possible.

Section 18 of the Act, expressesCongress’ clear intent to preempt statelaws relating to issues on which FederalOSHA has promulgated occupationalsafety and health standards. Under theOSH Act, a State can avoid preemptiononly if it submits, and obtains Federalapproval of, a plan for the developmentof such standards and theirenforcement. Occupational safety andhealth standards developed by suchState Plan States must, among other

things, be at least as effective inproviding safe and healthfulemployment and places of employmentas the Federal standards. Where suchstandards are applicable to productsdistributed or used in interstatecommerce, they may not unduly burdencommerce or must be justified bycompelling local conditions (see Sect.18(c)(2)).

The Federal standard on steel erectionaddresses hazards which are not uniqueto any one state or region of the country.Nonetheless, states with occupationalsafety and health plans approved underSection 18 of the OSH Act can developtheir own State standards to deal withany special problems which might beencountered in a particular state.Moreover, because this standard iswritten in general, performance-orientedterms, there is considerable flexibilityfor State plans to require, and foremployers to use, methods ofcompliance which are appropriate to theworking conditions covered by thestandard.

In brief, this proposed rule addressesa clear national problem related tooccupational safety and health hazardsof steel erection in the constructionindustry. Those States which haveelected to participate under Section 18of the OSH Act will not be preemptedby this standard and will be able toaddress any special conditions withinthe framework of the Federal Act whileensuring that the State standards are atleast as effective as that standard. Statecomments are invited on this proposaland will be fully considered prior topromulgation of a final rule.

X. Unfunded MandatesFor the purposes of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995, as wellas Executive Order 12875, this rule doesnot include any Federal mandate thatmay result in increased expenditures byState, local, and tribal governments, orincreased expenditures by the privatesector of more than $100 million in anyyear.

XI. OMB Review Under the PaperworkReduction Act

This proposed rule containscollections of information as defined inOMB’s regulations at 60 FR 44978(August 29, 1995) in § 1926.752(a)(1),§ 1926.752(a)(2), § 1926.753(a)(1)(iv),§ 1926.753(a)(5), § 1926.753(c)(2),§ 1926.754(c)(3), § 1926.757(a)(3),§ 1926.757(a)(11), § 1926.757(e)(4)(i),§ 1926.758(g), and § 1926.761.

The paperwork estimates contained inthis section are based on OSHA’spreliminary economic analysis (PEA). Amore detailed discussion of project and


time estimates can be found in ChapterV, Costs of Compliance, of OSHA’s PEA(Ex. 11).

Under the Paperwork Reduction Actof 1995, agencies are required to seekOMB approval for all collections ofinformation. As a part of the approvalprocess, agencies are required to solicitcomment from affected parties withregard to the collection of information,including the financial and timeburdens estimated by the agencies forthe collection of information. OSHAbelieves it is necessary for employers toprepare certifications and or obtainrequired information for the above-mentioned requirements.

Proposed § 1926.752(a)(1) requiresthat the controlling contractor providethe steel erector with writtennotification that the concrete in thefootings, piers and walls or the mortarin the masonry piers and walls hasattained, on the basis of an appropriateASTM standard test method of fieldcured samples, either 75 percent of theintended minimum compressive designstrength or sufficient strength to supportloads imposed during steel erection.OSHA believes it is necessary foremployers to provide the writtenverification that the concrete in footings,piers and walls or the mortar inmasonry piers has cured properly priorto beginning steel erection activities. Tocomply with this requirement, thecontrolling contractor must provide thesteel erector with documentation to thiseffect. Since the concrete supports thesteel structure, the steel erector must beassured that the concrete is adequate tosupport the structure to prevent thepossibility of collapse from erectingsteel on improperly cured concrete.OSHA estimates that 12,311 projectswill require these tests to be performed.The number of tests will vary dependingon the size of the project. The averageis estimated to be three tests per project,and the time for the notification to betransferred is estimated at five minutes.The tests are already required to beperformed in accordance with theAmerican Concrete Institute (ACI)building code and OSHA’s Concretestandard (subpart Q), and it is usual andcustomary that the testing facilityprovide a written certification to thecontrolling contractor. Therefore, theonly burden taken is the transfer of theinformation from the controllingcontractor to the steel erector. The totalestimated annual respondent burden forsteel erection worksites is $92,716 and3,078 burden hours.

Proposed § 1926.752(a)(2) requiresthat the controlling contractor providethe steel erector with writtennotification that any repairs,

replacements and modifications toanchor bolts have been conducted inaccordance with § 1926.755(b). Asexplained in the discussion for thisproposed paragraph, withoutnotification from the controllingcontractor, the steel erector may notknow that an anchor bolt has beendamaged and subsequently repaired.Improper repair has in the past causedcolumns to collapse. This notification isintended to prevent those collapses.OSHA estimates that 5,862 projects haveanchor bolts that need repair.Approximately half of those projects arenot currently getting the approval of thestructural engineer of record. For theprojects that are already getting theengineer’s approval, it is estimated thatit will take the engineer five minutes totransfer a piece of paper to thecontrolling contractor. For the projectsthat are not currently obtaining engineerapproval, it is estimated that theapproval time for repairs to anchor boltswill take an average of three hours forthe whole process. The total estimatedannual respondent burden for steelerection worksites is $459,891 and 9,458burden hours.

Proposed § 1926.753(a)(1)(iv) requiresthat the employer obtain and/or preparea certification record of the pre-shiftinspection required by paragraph§ 1926.753(a)(1)(i), which includes thedate the crane items were inspected; thesignature of the person who inspectedthe crane items; and a serial number, orother identifier, for the crane inspected.OSHA believes it is necessary for theemployer to obtain and/or prepare thecertification record required to verifythat each crane operator has inspectedthe crane and determined that it is inthe proper working condition to performhis/her duties safely. This requirementcan be complied with by the simple useof a crane operator’s log book. OSHAestimates that 17,586 projects willrequire the use of a crane (the numberof projects differs from the total numberof steel erection projects due torounding calculations; see Ex. 11). Eachinspection is estimated to take tenminutes. The length of each projectvaries and one shift is estimated perday. The total estimated annualrespondent burden for steel erectionworksites is $2,336,390 and 56,848burden hours.

Proposed § 1926.753(a)(5) prohibitssafety latches on hooks from beingdeactivated or made inoperable exceptas determined by a qualified riggerduring hoisting and placing of purlinsand single joists or as included in a site-specific erection plan. In the situationwhere an employer elects to deactivatea safety latch and create a potential

safety hazard, the employer mustreceive approval from a qualified riggeror include a means for safely performingthe activity in a site-specific erectionplan. OSHA estimates that 7,391projects will contain joist erectionoperations. Assuming that all of theemployers will seek such an exemptionand will elect to use a site-specificerection plan, it is estimated to take fiveminutes to document a means ofperforming the alternative method oferection and it will occur an average often times per project. The totalestimated annual respondent burden forsteel erection worksites is $299,489 and6,159 burden hours.

Proposed § 1926.753(c)(2) requiresthat components of a multiple liftrigging assembly be specificallydesigned and assembled with a certifiedcapacity for total assembly and for eachindividual attachment point and thatthe certification must be based on themanufacturer’s specifications with a 5 to1 safety factor for all components.OSHA believes it is necessary foremployers to prepare this certificationsince multiple lifts are highlyspecialized operations and improperlydesigned assemblies could result inmultiple steel members free falling.Special precautions must be taken whenperforming multiple lifts. Preparing thiscertification is essential to a safemultiple lift. OSHA estimates thatemployers will elect to perform multiplelifts on approximately 1,870 projects.The number of pieces of liftingequipment varies based on the projectsize. Assuming an average of two piecesof lifting equipment per project, onecertificate per lifting assembly, and fiveminutes to prepare the certificate basedon information already available fromthe manufacturer’s specifications, thetotal estimated annual respondentburden for steel erection worksites is$17,422 and 312 burden hours.

Proposed § 1926.754(c)(3) prohibitsworkers from walking the top surface ofany structural steel member which hasbeen finish-coated with paint or similarmaterial unless documentation orcertification is provided that the finishpaint or coating has not decreased thecoefficient of friction (COF). Thedocumentation or certification must beavailable at the site and to the steelerector. As explained in the summaryand explanation section, coated steelcan be an extremely dangerous hazardto steel erectors. OSHA believes it isnecessary for the documentation to beprepared to assure the steel erector thatthe surface the employees are walkingon is not any more slippery thanuncoated steel. Without thisdocumentation, slips and falls will


continue to occur due to slippery coatedsurfaces. OSHA estimates that 17,587projects will have coated or paintedsteel and that only one certificationneed be prepared for all of the surfacescoated with the particular coating beingused on each project. Assuming that itwill take the manufacturer five minutesto prepare the documentation and theemployer five minutes to transfer theinformation to the steel erector, the totalestimated annual respondent burden forsteel erection worksites is $132,086 and2,932 burden hours.

Proposed § 1926.757(a)(3) requiresthat, when steel joists at columns spanmore than 60 feet (18.3 m), the joistsshall be set in tandem with all bridginginstalled unless an alternative methodof erection, which provides stability tothe steel joist, is designed by a qualifiedperson and is included in a site-specificerection plan. OSHA believes that a site-specific erection plan is necessarybecause the employer is choosing analternative erection method to the onerequired in the standard. It is necessaryto document the alternative method toensure that it provides equivalent safetyto the method specified in the standard.OSHA estimates that 7,391 projects willcontain joist erection. Approximately 5percent of the joists used span morethan 60 feet. It is estimated that it willtake the employer five minutes toinclude a description of the alternativeerection method in the site-specificerection plan for all occurrences on theproject. The total estimated annualrespondent burden for steel erectionworksites is $1,497 and 31 burdenhours.

Proposed § 1926.757(a)(11) prohibitsmodifications from being made to steeljoists that affect the strength of the joistwithout approval of the projectstructural engineer of record. OSHAbelieves it is necessary for this approvalto be obtained from the engineer sinceany deviation from the initial design ofthe joist could alter the performance ofthe joist and ultimately affect thestrength of the joist. Committeemembers stated that the approval couldsimply be a phone call to the engineerto evaluate the effect of themodification. OSHA estimates that7,391 projects will include joisterection. A modification to a joist isonly expected to occur about 5 percentof the time. It is usual and customarythat any modifications be approved bythe project structural engineer of record,therefore, the only burden taken is forthe transfer of information. When amodification occurs, the engineer wouldreview the modification once, and itwould take five minutes for the transferof information. The total estimated

annual respondent burden for steelerection worksites is $928 and 31burden hours.

Proposed § 1926.757(e)(4)(i) prohibitsplacing a bundle of decking on fewerthan three steel joists unless theemployer has determined from aqualified person and documented in asite-specific erection plan that thestructure or portion of the structure iscapable of supporting the load. OSHAbelieves it is necessary for employers toprovide this documentation in a site-specific erection plan since it is theemployer who has elected to deviatefrom the standard requirement. Landingdecking bundles on joists has beendetermined by the Committee to be adangerous activity. If an employer electsto perform this activity in a mannerother than that described in thestandard, it is essential that there bedocumentation that the alternativemeans is as safe as the requirement inthe standard. This documentationwould simply be an entry in the site-specific erection plan to describe theprocedure to be used as approved by aqualified person. OSHA estimates that7,391 projects will include joisterection. It is anticipated that only 2percent of employers will elect todeviate from the standard. Only in veryrare instances would an employer electnot to place deck bundles over at leastthree joists. For those who chooseanother means, it is expected that it willtake an employer five minutes todescribe the procedure in the site-specific erection plan covering alloccurrences on the project. The totalestimated annual respondent burden forsteel erection worksites is $599 and 12burden hours.

Proposed § 1926.758(g) prohibitspurlins and girts from being used as ananchorage point for a fall arrest systemunless written direction is obtainedfrom a qualified person. OSHA believesthat it is necessary to require writtennotification to verify that theselightweight members are capable ofsupporting the forces of a fall arrestsystem. Tying-off to purlins or girts canbe extremely dangerous if the employerand employees do not know that thesemembers have adequate strength for thatuse. OSHA estimates that 7,391 steelerection jobs will contain purlin and girterection and approximately 10 percentof employers will elect to use themembers as anchorage points for a fallarrest system. One written record can beobtained for the entire job and it isestimated that it will take an employer30 minutes to prepare the writtenapproval. The total estimated annualrespondent burden for steel erection

worksites is $11,133 and 370 burdenhours.

Proposed § 1926.761 requires theemployer to provide training foremployees exposed to fall hazards, tothose who will be engaged in multiplelift activities, to those who will work incontrolled decking zones and to workersperforming ‘‘connecting’’ activities.Information currently available toOSHA indicates that many workers arealready receiving training in the abovementioned activities either to complywith other requirements in theconstruction standards or as a normalbusiness practice. It should be notedthat employers would have to instructemployees on the safe way to rigmaterials for multiple lifts and to‘‘connect’’ as a normal business activityto accomplish the work of erecting thestructure. Nearly all workers covered bythe proposed rule are now using somefall protection measure, either whileconnecting, while working in deckingoperations or performing other tasks.OSHA estimates that it will take 30minutes for an instructor to prepare foreach training session and 60 minutes tocommunicate (or deliver) information toworkers as required by the proposedstandard. OSHA estimates the 38,980employees will be trained in groups of7 resulting in 5569 initial trainingsessions. To account for turnover,OSHA estimates 13% of the workforce(5067 employees) will receive turnovertraining annually thereafter and 2% ofthe workforce (780 employees) willneed remedial training annually. Theseemployees will also be instructed ingroups of 7 and the preparatory timeand delivery time remain the same.There are no records or other recordkeeping activities associated with thiscollection of information. The totalestimated first year respondent burdenfor training is $536,975 and 9606burden hours. For the second andsubsequent years, only turnover andremedial training will be taken as aburden. Therefore, the total estimatedrespondent burden for the second andsubsequent years is reduced to $70,043and 1253 hours.

The total estimated annualrespondent burden for all of theinformation collection requirements inthis proposal for steel erection worksitesis $3,889,127 and 88,834 burden hours.

OSHA believes that compliance withall of these requirements will help toreduce the number of fatalities andinjuries in steel erection work.

OSHA requests comment from thepublic on all aspects of this collectionof information. Specifically, OSHArequests comment on whether eachproposed collection of information:


• Ensures that the collection ofinformation is necessary for the properperformance of the function of theagency, including whether theinformation will have practical utility;

• Estimates accurately the projectedburden including the validity of themethodology and assumptions usedaccurately;

• Enhances the quality, utility, andclarity of the information to becollected; and

• Minimizes the burden of thecollection of information on those whoare to respond, including through theuse of appropriate automated,electronic, mechanical, or othertechnological collection techniques orother forms of information technology,e.g., permitting electronic submissionsof responses.

Comments on the collections ofinformation for the proposed provisionsshould be sent to the OMB Desk Officerfor OSHA at Room 10235, 726 JacksonPlace, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503.Commenters are encouraged to send acopy of their comments on thecollection of information to OSHA alongwith their other comments. Thesupporting statements for the collectionof information requirements areavailable in both OSHA and OMBDocket Offices.

The proposed collections ofinformation have been submitted toOMB for review under 44 U.S.C.§ 3507(d) of the Paperwork ReductionAct of 1995. OMB is currently reviewingthese OSHA proposed collections ofinformation to determine theirconsistency with the Act. At this timeOMB has not approved these collectionsof information.

XII. State Plan Standards

The 25 States and territories withtheir own OSHA approved occupationalsafety and health plans must adopt acomparable standard within six monthsof the publication date of a finalstandard. These 25 states and territoriesare: Alaska, Arizona, California,Connecticut (for state and localgovernment employees only), Hawaii,Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland,Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, NewMexico, New York (for state and localgovernment employees only), NorthCarolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, SouthCarolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont,Virginia, Virgin Islands, Washington,and Wyoming. Until such time as a statestandard is promulgated, Federal OSHAwill provide interim enforcementassistance, as appropriate, in thesestates.

XIII. Public Participation

CommentsInterested persons are invited to

submit written data, views, andarguments with respect to this proposal.These comments must be postmarked ore-mailed by November 12, 1998.Comments are to be submitted inquadruplicate or 1 original (hardcopy)and 1 disk (51⁄4 or 31⁄2) in WP 5.0, 5.1,6.0, 6.1, 8.0 or ASCII to: the DocketOfficer, Docket S–775, U.S. Departmentof Labor, Occupational Safety andHealth Administration, Room N2625,200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.,Washington, D.C. 20210, (202) 219–7894. Written comments of 10 pages orless 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 Officethereafter. Comments may be submittedelectronically by e-mail [email protected]. If the e-mail contains attached electronic files,the files must be in WordPerfect 5.0, 5.1,6.0, 6.1, 8.0 or ASCII. When submittinga comment by e-mail, please includeyour name and address.

Any information not contained ondisk or in the e-mail (e.g., studies,articles) must be submitted inquadruplicate. Written submissionsmust clearly identify the issues orspecific provisions of the proposalwhich are addressed and the positiontaken with respect to each issue orprovision. The data, views andarguments that are submitted will beavailable for public inspection andcopying at the above address. All timelysubmissions received will be made apart of the record of this proceeding.The preliminary economic analysis andthe exhibits cited in this document willbe available for public inspection andcopying at the above address. OSHAinvites comments concerning theconclusions reached in the preliminaryeconomic analysis.

Public HearingOSHA will hold an informal public

hearing to begin at 10:00 a.m. onDecember 1, 1998. The hearing will beheld in the Auditorium of the FrancesPerkins Building, U.S. Department ofLabor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.,Washington, D.C., 20210.

Notice of Intention To Appear at theInformal Hearing

Pursuant to section 6(b)(3) of theOccupational Safety and Health Act,OSHA will provide interested personswith an opportunity to submit oraltestimony concerning the issues raisedby the proposed standard, including

economic and environmental impact, atthe informal public hearing. The hearingis scheduled for December 1, 1998. IfOSHA receives sufficient requests toparticipate in the hearing, the length ofthe hearing period may be extended.Conversely, the hearing may beshortened if there are few requests.

All persons desiring to participate atthe hearing, including exercising theirright to question witnesses, must file, inquadruplicate, a notice of intention toappear. The notice of intention toappear must be postmarked on or beforeNovember 12, 1998. The notice ofintention to appear, which will beavailable for inspection and copying atthe OSHA Technical Data Center DocketOffice (Room N2625), telephone (202)219–7894, must contain the followinginformation:

1. The name, address, and telephonenumber of each person to appear;

2. The capacity in which the personwill appear;

3. The approximate amount of timerequired for the presentation;

4. The specific issues that will beaddressed;

5. A brief statement of the positionthat will be taken with respect to eachissue addressed; and

6. Whether the party intends tosubmit documentary evidence and, if so,a brief summary of it.

The notice of intention to appear shallbe mailed to: the Docket Officer, DocketS–775, U.S. Department of Labor,Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, Room N2625, 200Constitution Avenue, N.W.,Washington, D.C. 20210, (202) 219–7894.

A notice of intention to appear alsomay be transmitted by facsimile to (202)219–5046 (Attention: Docket Officer), bythe same date, provided the original andthree copies are sent to the same addressand postmarked no more than threedays later.

Individuals with disabilities wishingto attend the hearings should contactthe Docket Officer to obtain appropriateaccommodations at the hearing.

Filing of Testimony and Evidence Beforethe Hearing

Any party requesting more than tenminutes for a presentation at the hearingor who will present documentaryevidence, must provide inquadruplicate, the complete text of itstestimony, including all documentaryevidence to be presented at the hearing.One copy must be unstapled andunbound and suitable for copying.These materials must be postmarked nolater than November 17, 1998 and sent


to the Docket Officer at the addressgiven above.

Each submission will be reviewed inlight of the amount of time requested inthe notice of intention to appear. Ininstances where the informationcontained in the submission does notjustify the amount of time requested, amore appropriate amount of time will beallocated and the participant will benotified of that fact. Any party who hasnot substantially complied with theabove requirements, may be limited toa ten minute presentation and may berequested to return for questioning at alater time. Any party who has not fileda notice of intention to appear may beallowed to testify, as time permits, at thediscretion of the Administrative LawJudge who presides at the hearing.

Notices of intention to appear,testimony and evidence will beavailable for inspection and copying atthe Docket Office at the address above.

Conduct and Nature of the HearingThe hearing is scheduled to

commence at 10:00 a.m. on December 1,1998. At that time, any proceduralmatters relating to the proceeding willbe resolved. OSHA rulemaking hearingsare informal, as established in thelegislative history of section 6 of the Actand codified in 29 CFR part 1911,OSHA’s hearing regulations (cf. 29 CFR1911.15(a)). Although the presidingofficer is an Administrative Law Judgeand questioning by interested persons isallowed on crucial issues, theproceeding will be essentially legislativein nature. The intent, in essence, is toprovide an opportunity for effective oralpresentation by interested personswhich can be carried out expeditiouslyand in the absence of rigid procedureswhich might unduly impede or protractthe rulemaking process.

Additionally, since the hearing isprimarily for information gathering andclarification, it is an informaladministrative proceeding rather thanan adjudicative one.

The technical rules of evidence, forexample, do not apply. The regulationsthat govern hearings and the pre-hearingguidelines to be issued for this hearingwill ensure fairness and due processand also facilitate the development of aclear, accurate and complete record.Those rules and guidelines will beinterpreted in a manner that furthersthat development. Thus, questions ofrelevance, procedure and participationgenerally will be decided so as to favordevelopment of the record.

The hearing will be conducted inaccordance with 29 CFR part 1911. Itshould be noted that § 1911.4 specifiesthat the Assistant Secretary may, upon

reasonable notice, issue alternativeprocedures to expedite proceedings orfor other good cause.

The hearing will be presided over byan Administrative Law Judge whomakes no decision or recommendationon the merits of OSHA’s Proposal. Theresponsibility of the Administrative LawJudge is to ensure that the hearingproceeds at a reasonable pace and in anorderly manner. The AdministrativeLaw Judge, therefore, will have thepowers necessary and appropriate toconduct a full and fair informal hearingas provided in 29 CFR 1911, includingthe powers:

1. To regulate the course of theproceedings;

2. To dispose of procedural requests,objections and comparable matters;

3. To confine the presentation to thematters pertinent to the issues raised;

4. To regulate the conduct of thosepresent at the hearing by appropriatemeans;

5. In the Judge’s discretion, toquestion and permit the questioning ofany witness, and to limit the time forquestioning; and

6. In the Judge’s discretion, to keepthe record open for a reasonable statedtime to receive written information andadditional data, views, and argumentsfrom any person who has participated inthe oral proceedings.

Following the close of the hearing, thepresiding Administrative Law Judgewill certify the record of the hearing tothe Assistant Secretary of Labor forOccupational Safety and Health.

XIV. AuthorityThis document was prepared under

the direction of Charles N. Jeffress,Assistant Secretary of Labor forOccupational Safety and Health, U.S.Department of Labor, 200 ConstitutionAvenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1926Structural steel erection, Construction

industry, Construction safety,Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, Occupational safetyand health.

Signed at Washington, D.C., this 3d day ofAugust, 1998.Charles N. Jeffress,Assistant Secretary of Labor.

Accordingly, pursuant to sections 4,6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety andHealth Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,and 657); section 107 of the ContractWork Hours and Safety Standards Act(40 U.S.C. 333), Secretary of Labor’sOrder No. 6–96 (62 FR 111), and 29 CFRpart 1911, it is proposed to amend part1926 of Title 29 of the Code of FederalRegulations as set forth below.

PART 1926—[AMENDED]

Subpart M—[Amended]

1. The authority citation for subpart Mof Part 1926 would be revised to read asfollows:

Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hoursand Safety Standards Act (ConstructionSafety 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’sOrders No. 1–90 (55 FR 9033) and No. 6–96(62 FR 111); and 29 CFR Part 1911.

2. Paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of § 1926.500would be revised to read as follows:

§ 1926.500 Scope, application, anddefinitions applicable to this subpart.

(a) * * *(2) * * *(iii) Fall protection requirements for

employees performing steel erectionwork (except for towers and tanks) areprovided in subpart R of this part.* * * * *

§ 1926.500 [Amended]3. Paragraphs (a)(2)(iv), (a)(2)(v), and

(a)(2)(vi) of § 1926.500 would beredesignated as (a)(2)(v), (a)(2)(vi) and(a)(2)(vii) respectively.

4. Paragraph (a)(2)(iv) § 1926.500would be added to be revised to read asfollows:


(a) * * *(2) * * *(iv) Requirements relating to fall

protection for employees engaged in theerection of tanks and towers areprovided in § 1926.105.* * * * *

5. Paragraph (a)(3)(iv) of § 1926.500would be revised to read as follows:


(a) * * *(3) * * *(iv) Section 1926.502 does not apply

to the erection of tanks and towers.(Note: Section 1926.104 sets the criteriafor body belts, lanyards and lifelinesused for fall protection during tank andtower erection. Paragraphs (b), (c) and(f) of § 1926.107 provide definitions forthe pertinent terms.)* * * * *

Subpart R—[Amended]

6. The authority citation for subpart Rof Part 1926 would be revised to read asfollows:

Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hoursand Safety Standards Act (ConstructionSafety Act) (40 U.S.C. 333); Sec. 4, 6, and 8,


Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970(29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor’sOrder No. 6–96 (62 FR 111), and 29 CFR part1911.

7. Subpart R of Part 1926 would berevised 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 forEstablishing the Components of a Site-Specific Erection Plan: Non-MandatoryGuidelines for Complying With § 1926.752(d)

Appendix B to Subpart R—Acceptable TestMethods for Testing Slip-Resistance ofWalking/Working Surfaces: Non-MandatoryGuidelines for Complying With§ 1926.754(c)(3)

Appendix C to Subpart R—Illustrations ofBridging Terminus Points: Non-MandatoryGuidelines for Complying With§ 1926.757(c)(3)

Appendix D to Subpart R—Illustration of theUse of Control Lines to DemarcateControlled Decking Zones (CDZs): Non-Mandatory Guidelines for Complying With§ 1926.760(c)(3)

Appendix E to Subpart R—Training: Non-Mandatory Guidelines for Complying With§ 1926.761

Appendix F to Subpart R—Installation ofPerimeter Safety Cables: Non-MandatoryGuidelines for Complying With § 1926.756(f)to Protect the Unprotected Side or Edge ofa Walking/Working Surface

Subpart R—Steel Erection

§ 1926.750 Scope and Application.(a) Scope. This subpart sets forth

requirements to protect employees fromthe hazards associated with steelerection activities involved in theconstruction, alteration, and/or repair ofsingle and multi-story buildings,bridges, and other structures where steelerection occurs. The requirements ofthis subpart apply to employers engagedin steel erection unless otherwisespecified. This subpart does not coverelectrical transmission towers,communication and broadcast towers,or tanks.

Note: Examples of structures where steelerection may occur include but are notlimited to the following: single and multi-story buildings; pre-engineered metalbuildings; lift slab/tilt-up structures; energy

exploration structures; energy production,transfer and storage structures and facilities;auditoriums; malls; amphitheaters; stadiums;power plants; mills; chemical processstructures; bridges; trestles; overpasses;underpasses; viaducts; aqueducts; aerospacefacilities and structures; radar andcommunication structures; light towers;signage; billboards; scoreboards; conveyorsystems, conveyor supports and relatedframing; stairways; stair towers; fire escapes;draft curtains; fire containment structures;monorails; aerialways; catwalks; curtainwalls; window walls; store fronts; elevatorfronts; entrances; skylights; metal roofs;industrial structures; hi-bay structures; rail,marine and other transportation structures;sound barriers; water process and watercontainment structures; air and cablesupported structures; space frames; geodesicdomes; canopies; racks and rack supportstructures and frames; platforms; walkways;balconies; atriums; penthouses; car dumpers;stackers/reclaimers; cranes and craneways;bins; hoppers; ovens; furnaces; stacks;amusement park structures and rides; andartistic and monumental structures.

(b) Application. Steel erectionactivities include hoisting, connecting,welding, bolting, and rigging structuralsteel, steel joists and metal buildings;installing metal deck, siding systems,miscellaneous metals, ornamental ironand similar materials; and movingpoint-to-point while performing theseactivities.

Note: Activities which could be consideredcovered by this subpart when they occurduring the process of steel erection includebut 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 andassemblies such as structural steel; ferrousmetals and alloys; non-ferrous metals andalloys; glass; plastics and syntheticcomposite materials; structural metal framingand related bracing and assemblies;anchoring devices; structural cabling; cablestays; permanent and temporary bents andtowers; falsework for temporary supports ofpermanent steel members; architecturalprecast concrete, stone and otherarchitectural materials mounted on steelframes; safety systems for steel erection; steeland metal joists; metal decking and racewaysystems and accessories; metal roofing andaccessories; 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 andmetal work; ladders; railings; handrails;fences and gates; gratings; trench covers;floor plates; castings; sheet metalfabrications; metal panels and panel wallsystems; louvers; column covers; enclosuresand pockets; stairs; perforated metals;ornamental iron work; expansion controlincluding bridge expansion joint assemblies;slide bearings; hydraulic structures; fascias;soffit panels; penthouse enclosures;

skylights; joint fillers; gaskets; sealants andseals; doors; windows; hardware, detention/security equipment and doors, windows andhardware; curtain walls/sloped glazingsystems/structural glass curtain walls;translucent wall systems; conveying systems;building specialties; building equipment;machinery and plant equipment, furnishingsand special construction.

§ 1926.751 Definitions.Anchored bridging means that the

steel joist bridging is connected to abridging terminus point.

Bolted diagonal bridging meansdiagonal bridging which is bolted to asteel joist or joists.

Bridging clip means a device that isattached to the steel joist to allow thebolting of the bridging to the steel joist.

Bridging terminus point means a wall,beam, tandem joists (with all bridginginstalled and a horizontal truss in theplane of the top chord) or other elementat an end or intermediate point(s) of aline of bridging that provides an anchorpoint for the steel joist bridging.

Choker means a wire rope or syntheticfiber rigging assembly that is used toattach a load to a hoisting device.

Clipped connection means theconnection material on the end of astructural member intended for use in adouble connection which has a notch atthe bottom and/or top to allow thebolt(s) of the first member placed on theopposite side of the central member toremain in place. The notch(es) fitsaround the nut or bolt head of theopposing member to allow the secondmember to be bolted up withoutremoving the bolt(s) holding the firstmember.

Cold formed joist means an open webjoist fabricated with cold formed steelcomponents.

Cold forming means the process ofusing press brakes, rolls, or othermethods to shape steel into desiredcross sections at room temperature.

Competent person (also defined in§ 1926.32) means one who is capable ofidentifying existing and predictablehazards in the surroundings or workingconditions which are unsanitary,hazardous, or dangerous to employees,and who has authorization to takeprompt corrective measures to eliminatethem.

Composite joists means steel joistsdesigned to act in composite action withconcrete floor and/or concrete roofslabs. Typically, a portion of the topchord of the joist (or a lug or similardevice attached to the top chord of thejoist) is embedded in the concrete slab.

Connector means an employee who,working with hoisting equipment, isplacing and connecting structuralmembers and/or components.


Construction load for joist erectionmeans any load other than the weight ofthe employee(s), the joists and thebridging bundle.

Controlled Decking Zone (CDZ) meansan area in which certain work (e.g.,initial installation and placement ofmetal deck) may take place without theuse of guardrail systems, personal fallarrest systems or safety net systems andwhere access to the zone is controlled.

Controlled load lowering meanslowering a load by means of amechanical hoist drum device thatallows a hoisted load to be lowered withmaximum control using the gear train orhydraulic components of the hoistmechanism. Controlled load loweringrequires the use of the hoist drive motor,rather than the load hoist brake, tolower the load.

Controlling contractor means a primecontractor, general contractor,construction manager or any other legalentity at the site who has, by contractwith other parties, the overallresponsibility for the project, itsplanning, quality and completion.

Critical lift means a lift that exceeds75 percent of the rated capacity of thecrane or derrick, or requires the use ofmore than one crane or derrick.

Decking hole means a gap or voidmore than 2 inches (5.1 cm) in its leastdimension and less than 12 inches (30.5cm) in its greatest dimension in a floor,roof or other walking/working surface.Pre-engineered holes in cellular deckingare not included in this definition.

Derrick floor means an elevated floorof a building or structure that has beendesignated to receive hoisted pieces ofsteel prior to final placement.

Double connection means anattachment method where theconnection point is intended for twopieces of steel which share commonbolts on either side of a central piece.

Erection bridging means the bolteddiagonal bridging that is required to beinstalled prior to releasing the hoistingcables from the steel joists.

Fall restraint (Positioning device)system means a body belt or bodyharness used to prevent an employeefrom free falling more than 24 inches(61 cm) and where self rescue can beassured. It consists of an anchorage,connectors, a body belt or harness andmay include a lanyard, decelerationdevice, lifeline, or suitable combinationof these.

Girt (in pre-engineered metalbuildings) means a ‘‘Z’’ or ‘‘C’’ shapedmember formed from sheet steelspanning between primary framing andsupporting wall material.

Headache ball means a weighted hookthat is used to attach loads to the hoistload line of the crane.

Hoisting equipment meanscommercially manufactured liftingequipment designed to lift and positiona load of known weight to an erectionlocation at some known elevation andhorizontal distance from theequipment’s center of rotation.‘‘Hoisting equipment’’ includes but isnot limited to cranes, derricks, towercranes, barge-mounted derricks orcranes, gin poles and gantry hoistsystems. A ‘‘come-a-long’’ (a mechanicaldevice, usually consisting of a chain orcable attached at each end, that is usedto facilitate movement of materialsthrough leverage) is not considered‘‘hoisting equipment.’’

Leading edge means the unprotectedside and edge of a floor, roof, orformwork for a floor or other walking/working surface (such as deck) whichchanges location as additional floor,roof, decking or formwork sections areplaced, formed or constructed.

Metal deck means a commerciallymanufactured, structural grade, coldrolled metal panel formed into a seriesof parallel ribs; for this subpart, thisincludes metal floor and roof decks,standing seam metal roofs, other metalroof systems and other products such asbar gratings, checker plate, expandedmetal panels, and similar products.After installation and proper fastening,these decking materials serve acombination of functions including, butnot limited to: a structural elementdesigned in combination with thestructure to resist, distribute andtransfer loads, stiffen the structure andprovide a diaphragm action; a walking/working surface; a form for concreteslabs; a support for roofing systems; anda finished floor or roof.

Multiple lift rigging means a riggingassembly manufactured by wire roperigging suppliers that facilitates theattachment of up to five independentloads to the hoist rigging of a crane.

Opening means a gap or void 12inches (30.5 cm) or more in its leastdimension in a floor, roof or otherwalking/working surface. For thepurposes of this subpart, skylights andsmoke domes that do not meet thestrength requirements of§ 1926.760(d)(1) shall be regarded asopenings.

Permanent floor means a structurallycompleted floor at any level or elevation(including slab on grade).

Personal fall arrest system means asystem used to arrest an employee in afall from a working level. A personal fallarrest system consists of an anchorage,connectors, a body belt or body harness

and may include a lanyard, decelerationdevice, lifeline, or suitable combinationof these. (As of January 1, 1998, the useof a body belt for fall arrest is prohibitedby subpart M of this part.)

Pre-engineered metal building meansa field-assembled building systemconsisting of framing, roof and wallcoverings, and generally made of steel.Typically, in a pre-engineered metalbuilding, many of these components arecold-formed shapes. These individualparts are fabricated in one or moremanufacturing facilities and shipped tothe job site for assembly into the finalstructure. Engineering design of thesystem is normally the responsibility ofthe pre-engineered metal buildingmanufacturer.

Project structural engineer of recordmeans the registered, licensedprofessional responsible for the designof structural steel framing and whoseseal appears on the structural contractdocuments.

Purlin (in pre-engineered metalbuildings) means a ‘‘Z’’ or ‘‘C’’ shapedmember formed from sheet steelspanning between primary framing andsupporting roof material.

Qualified person (also defined in§ 1926.32) means one who, bypossession of a recognized degree,certificate, or professional standing, orwho by extensive knowledge, training,and experience, has successfullydemonstrated the ability to solve orresolve problems relating to the subjectmatter, the work, or the project.

Safety deck attachment means aninitial attachment that is used to securean initially placed sheet of decking tokeep proper alignment and bearing withstructural support members.

Seat means a structural attachmentmounted to a structural member beneatha connection point, designed to supportan incoming member that is to beconnected to the first member.

Shear connector means headed steelstuds, steel bars, steel lugs, and similardevices which are attached to astructural member for the purpose ofachieving composite action withconcrete.

Steel erection means the erection ofsteel buildings, bridges and otherstructures, including the installation ofsteel flooring and roofing members andall planking and decking used duringthe process of erection.

Steel joist means an open web,secondary load-carrying member of 144feet (43.9 m) or less suitable for thesupport of floors and roofs. This doesnot include structural steel trusses orcold-formed joists.

Steel joist girder means an open web,primary load-carrying member,


designed by the manufacturer, suitablefor the support of floors and roofs. Thisdoes not include structural steel trusses.

Steel truss means an open webmember designed of structural steelcomponents by the project structuralengineer of record. For the purposes ofthis subpart, a steel truss is consideredequivalent to a solid web structuralmember.

Unprotected sides and edges meansany side or edge (except at entrances topoints of access) of a walking/workingsurface, e.g., floor, roof, ramp orrunway, where there is no wall orguardrail system at least 39 inches (1.0m) high.

§ 1926.752 Site layout, site-specificerection plan and construction sequence.

(a) Approval to begin steel erection.Before authorizing the commencementof steel erection, the controllingcontractor must provide the steel erectorwith the following written notifications:

(1) The concrete in the footings, piersand walls or the mortar in the masonrypiers and walls has attained, on thebasis of an appropriate ASTM standardtest method of field-cured samples,either 75 percent of the intendedminimum compressive design strengthor sufficient strength to support loadsimposed during steel erection.

(2) Any repairs, replacements andmodifications to the anchor bolts wereconducted in accordance with§ 1926.755(b).

(b) Site layout. The controllingcontractor shall provide and maintainthe site layout as follows:

(1) Adequate access roads into andthrough the site for the safe delivery andmovement of derricks, cranes, trucks,other necessary equipment, and thematerial to be erected and means andmethods for pedestrian and vehicularcontrol; and

(2) A firm, properly graded, drainedarea, readily accessible to the work withadequate space for the safe storage ofmaterials and the safe operation of theerector’s equipment.

(c) Overhead protection. All hoistingoperations in steel erection shall be pre-planned in accordance with§§ 1926.753(b) and 1926.759 to ensurethat no employee is required to beexposed to overhead hazards.

(d) Site-specific erection plan. Whereemployers elect, due to conditionsspecific to the site, to develop alternatemeans and methods that provideemployee protection in accordance with§ 1926.753(a)(5), § 1926.757(a)(3) or§ 1926.757(e)(4)(i), a site-specificerection plan shall be developed by aqualified person and be available at thework site. Guidelines for establishing a

site-specific erection plan are containedin appendix A to this subpart.

§ 1926.753 Hoisting and rigging.The following provisions supplement

the requirements of § 1926.550regarding the hazards associated withhoisting and rigging.

(a) General. (1) Pre-shift visualinspection of cranes.

(i) Cranes being used in steel erectionactivities shall be visually inspectedprior to each shift by a competentperson; the inspection shall includeobservation for deficiencies duringoperation. At a minimum, thisinspection shall include the following:

(A) All control mechanisms formaladjustments;

(B) Control and drive mechanisms forexcessive wear of components andcontamination by lubricants, water orother foreign matter;

(C) Safety devices, including but notlimited to, boom angle indicators, boomstops, boom kick-out devices, anti-twoblock devices, and load momentindicators where required;

(D) Air, hydraulic, and otherpressurized lines for deterioration orleakage, particularly those which flex innormal operation;

(E) Hooks and latches for deformation,chemical damage, cracks, or wear;

(F) Wire rope reeving for compliancewith hoisting equipment manufacturer’sspecifications;

(G) Electrical apparatus formalfunctioning, signs of excessivedeterioration, dirt, or moistureaccumulation;

(H) Hydraulic system for proper fluidlevel;

(I) Tires for proper inflation andcondition;

(J) Ground conditions around thehoisting equipment for proper support,including ground settling under andaround outriggers, ground wateraccumulation, or other similarconditions;

(K) The hoisting equipment for levelposition; and

(L) The hoisting equipment for levelposition after each move and setup.

(ii) If any deficiencies are identified,an immediate determination shall bemade by the competent person as towhether the deficiency constitutes ahazard.

(iii) If the deficiency is determined toconstitute a hazard, the hoistingequipment shall be removed fromservice until the deficiency has beencorrected.

(iv) The employer shall obtain and/orprepare a certification record of the pre-shift inspection required by paragraph(a)(1)(i) of this section which includes

the date the hoisting equipment itemswere inspected; the signature of theperson who inspected the hoistingequipment items; and a serial number,or other identifier, for the hoistingequipment inspected.

(v) The operator shall be responsiblefor those operations under the operator’sdirect control. Whenever there is anydoubt as to safety, the operator shallhave the authority to stop and refuse tohandle loads until safety has beenassured.

(2) A qualified rigger (i.e., a riggerwho is also a qualified person) shallinspect the rigging prior to each shift inaccordance with § 1926.251.

(3) The headache ball, hook or loadshall not be used to transport personnelexcept as provided in paragraph(a)(1)(v)(4) of this section.

(4) Paragraph (g)(2) of § 1926.550notwithstanding, cranes or derricks maybe used to hoist employees on apersonnel platform when work underthis subpart is being conducted,provided that all other provisions of§ 1926.550(g) are met.

(5) Safety latches on hooks shall notbe deactivated or made inoperableexcept:

(i) When a qualified rigger hasdetermined that the hoisting andplacing of purlins and single joists canbe performed more safely by doing so;or

(ii) When equivalent protection isprovided in a site-specific erection plan.

(b) Working under loads. (1) Routesfor suspended loads shall be pre-planned to ensure that no employee isrequired to work directly below asuspended load, except for:

(i) Employees engaged in the initialconnection of steel; or

(ii) Employees necessary for thehooking or unhooking of the load.

(2) When working under suspendedloads, the following criteria shall bemet:

(i) Materials being hoisted shall berigged to prevent unintentionaldisplacement;

(ii) Hooks with self-closing safetylatches or their equivalent shall be usedto prevent components from slippingout of the hook; and

(iii) All loads shall be rigged by aqualified rigger.

(c) Multiple lift rigging procedure. (1)A multiple lift shall only be performedif the following criteria are met:

(i) A multiple lift rigging assembly isused;

(ii) A maximum of five (5) membersis hoisted per lift;

(iii) Only structural members arelifted; and

(iv) All employees engaged in themultiple lift have been trained in these


procedures in accordance with§ 1926.761(c)(1).

(2) Components of the multiple liftrigging assembly shall be specificallydesigned and assembled with amaximum capacity for total assemblyand for each individual attachmentpoint. This capacity, certified by themanufacturer or a qualified rigger, shallbe based on the manufacturer’sspecifications with a 5 to 1 safety factorfor all components.

(3) The total load shall not exceed:(i) The rated capacity of the hoisting

equipment specified in the hoistingequipment load charts; or

(ii) The rigging capacity specified inthe rigging rating chart.

(4) The multiple lift rigging assemblyshall be rigged with the members:

(i) Attached at their center of gravityand 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 thebottom up.

(6) Controlled load lowering shall beused whenever the load is over theconnectors.

§ 1926.754 Structural steel assembly.(a) Structural stability shall be

maintained at all times during theerection process.

(b) The following additionalrequirements shall apply for multi-storystructures:

(1) The permanent floors shall beinstalled as the erection of structuralmembers progresses, and there shall benot more than eight stories between theerection floor and the upper-mostpermanent floor, except where thestructural integrity is maintained as aresult of the design.

(2) At no time shall there be morethan four floors or 48 feet (14.6 m),whichever is less, of unfinished boltingor welding above the foundation oruppermost permanently secured floor,except where the structural integrity ismaintained as a result of the design.

(3) A fully planked or decked floor ornets shall be maintained within 2 storiesor 30 feet (9.1 m), whichever is less,directly under any erection work beingperformed.

(c) Walking/working surfaces—(1)Shear connectors and other similardevices—(i) Tripping hazards. Shearconnectors (such as headed steel studs,steel bars or steel lugs), reinforcing bars,deformed anchors or threaded studsshall not be attached to the top flangesof beams, joists or beam attachments sothat they project vertically from orhorizontally across the top flange of the

member until after the decking, or otherwalking/working surface, has beeninstalled.

(ii) Installation of shear connectors oncomposite floors, roofs and bridgedecks. When shear connectors areutilized in construction of compositefloors, roofs and bridge decks,employees shall lay out and install theshear connectors after the decking hasbeen installed, using the deck as aworking platform. Shear connectorsshall not be installed from within acontrolled decking zone (CDZ), asspecified in § 1926.760(c)(8).

(2) Metal decking. [Reserved](3) Skeletal structural steel. Workers

shall not be permitted to walk the topsurface of any structural steel memberinstalled after [effective date of finalrule] which has been finish-coated withpaint or similar material unlessdocumentation or certification, based onan appropriate ASTM standard testmethod, is provided that the finishedcoat has not decreased the coefficient offriction (COF) from that of the originalsteel before it was finish-coated. Suchdocumentation or certification shall beavailable at the site and to the steelerector (see appendix B of this subpart).

(d) Plumbing-up. (1) Connections ofthe equipment used in plumbing-upshall be properly secured.

(2) Plumbing-up equipment shall beremoved only with the approval of acompetent person.

(e) Decking—(1) Hoisting, landing andplacing of deck bundles. (i) Bundlepackaging and strapping shall not beused for hoisting unless specificallydesigned for that purpose.

(ii) If loose items such as dunnage,flashing, or other materials are placedon the top of deck bundles to be hoisted,such items shall be secured to thebundles.

(iii) Bundles of decking on joists shallbe landed in accordance with§ 1926.757(e)(4).

(iv) Bundles shall be landed onframing members so that enoughsupport is provided to allow thebundles to be unbanded withoutdislodging the bundles from thesupports.

(v) At the end of the shift or whenenvironmental or jobsite conditionsrequire, decking shall be secured againstdisplacement.

(2) Roof and floor openings. Metaldeck at roof and floor openings shall beinstalled as follows:

(i) Where structural design andconstructability allow, framed deckopenings shall have structural membersturned down to allow continuous deckinstallation.

(ii) Roof and floor openings shall becovered during the decking process.Where structural design does not allowopenings to be covered, they shall beprotected in accordance with§ 1926.760(a)(2).

(iii) Decking holes and openings shallnot be cut until essential to theconstruction process, and openingsshall be protected immediately inaccordance with § 1926.760(d) or beotherwise permanently filled.

(3) Space around columns. Wiremesh, exterior plywood, or equivalent,shall be used around columns whereplanks or decking do not fit tightly.

(4) Floor decking. Floor decking shallbe laid tightly and secured to preventaccidental movement or displacement.

(5) Derrick floors. (i) A derrick floorshall be fully decked and/or plankedand the steel member connectionscompleted to support the intended floorloading.

(ii) Temporary loads placed on aderrick floor shall be distributed overthe underlying support members so asto prevent local overloading of the deckmaterial.

§ 1926.755 Anchor bolts.

(a) General requirements for erectionstability. (1) All columns shall beanchored by a minimum of 4 anchorbolts. Each column anchor boltassembly, including the welding of thecolumn to the base plate, shall bedesigned to resist a 300 pound (136.2kg) eccentric load located 18 inches (.46m) from the column face in eachdirection at the top of the column shaft.

(2) Columns shall be set on levelfinished floors, pre-grouted levelingplates, leveling nuts, or shim packswhich are adequate to transfer theconstruction loads.

(3) Unstable columns shall beevaluated by a competent person and beguyed or braced where deemednecessary.

(b) Repair, replacement or fieldmodification.

(1) Anchor bolts shall not be repaired,replaced or field-modified without theapproval of the project structuralengineer of record.

(2) Such approval under paragraph(b)(1) of this section shall state whetherthe repair, replacement or modificationhas made guying or bracing of thecolumn necessary.

(3) Prior to the erection of a column,the controlling contractor shall providewritten notification to the steel erectorif there has been any repair,replacement or modification of theanchor bolts of that column.


§ 1926.756 Beams and columns.

(a) General. During the final placing ofsolid web structural members, the loadshall not be released from the hoistingline until the members are secured withat least two bolts per connection drawnup wrench-tight or the equivalent asspecified by the project structuralengineer of record, except as specifiedin paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) Diagonal bracing. Solid webstructural members used as diagonalbracing shall be secured by at least onebolt per connection drawn up wrench-tight or the equivalent as specified bythe project structural engineer of record.

(c) Double connections at columnsand/or at beam webs over a column.When two structural members onopposite sides of a column web, or abeam web over a column, sharecommon connection holes, at least onebolt with its wrench-tight nut shallremain connected to the first memberunless a shop-attached or field-boltedseat or similar connection device ispresent to secure the second memberand prevent the column from beingdisplaced. When seats are provided, theconnection between the seat and thestructural member that it supports shallbe bolted together before the nuts areremoved for the double connection.

(d) Column splices. Each columnsplice shall be designed to resist a 300pound (136.2 kg) eccentric load located18 inches (.46 m) from the column facein each direction at the top of thecolumn shaft.

(e) Perimeter columns. Perimetercolumns shall extend a minimum of 48inches (1.2 m) above the finished floorto permit installation of perimeter safetycables prior to erection of the next tierexcept where structural design andconstructibility do not allow. (Seeappendix F to this subpart.)

(f) Perimeter safety cables. (1)Perimeter safety cables shall be installedat the perimeter during the structuralsteel assembly of multi-story structures.

(2) Perimeter safety cables shallconsist of 1⁄2-inch wire rope orequivalent installed at 42–45 inchesabove the finished floor and at themidpoint between the finished floor andthe top cable.

(3) Holes or other devices shall beprovided by the fabricator/supplier andshall be in or attached to perimetercolumns at 42–45 inches above thefinished floor and the midpoint betweenthe finished floor and the top cable topermit installation of perimeter safetycables except where structural designand constructibility allow. (Seeappendix F to this subpart.)

§ 1926.757 Open web steel joists.(a) General. (1) In steel framing, where

steel joists or steel joist girders areutilized and columns are not framed inat least two directions with solid webstructural steel members, the steel joistor steel joist girder shall be field-boltedat or near columns to provide lateralstability to the column during erection.

(2) Where steel joists at or nearcolumns span 60 feet (18.3 m) or less,the joist shall be designed withsufficient strength to allow oneemployee to release the hoisting cablewithout the need for erection bridging.

(3) Where steel joists at columns spanmore than 60 feet (18.3 m), the joistsshall be set in tandem with all bridginginstalled unless an alternative methodof erection, which provides equivalentstability to the steel joist, is designed bya qualified person and is included in thesite-specific erection plan.

(4) A stabilizer plate shall be providedon each column for steel joists and steeljoist girders and shall extend at least 3inches (76 mm) below the bottom chordof the joist with a 13/16 inch (21 mm)hole to provide an attachment point forguying or plumbing cables.

(5) Bottom chords of steel joist girdersand steel joists required by paragraph(a)(1) of this section shall be stabilizedto prevent rotation during erection.

(6) A steel joist shall not be placed onany support structure unless suchstructure is stabilized.

(7) When steel joist(s) are landed ona structure, they shall be secured toprevent unintentional displacementprior to installation.

(8) Except for steel joists that havebeen pre-assembled into panels,connections of individual steel joists tosteel structures in bays of 40 feet (12.2m) or more shall be fabricated to allowfor field bolting during erection.

(9) A bridging terminus point shall beestablished before bridging is installed.(See appendix C to this subpart.)

(10) Steel joists and steel joist girdersshall not be used as anchorage points fora fall arrest system unless writtendirection to do so is obtained from aqualified person.

(11) No modification that affects thestrength of a steel joist shall be madewithout the approval of the projectstructural engineer of record.

(b) Attachment of steel joists and steeljoist girders. (1) Each end of ‘‘K’’ seriessteel joists shall be attached to thesupport structure with a minimum oftwo 1⁄8-inch (3 mm) fillet welds 1 inch(25 mm) long or with two 1⁄2-inch (13mm) bolts, or the equivalent.

(2) Each end of ‘‘LH’’ and ‘‘DLH’’series steel joists and steel joist girdersshall be attached to the support

structure with a minimum of two 1⁄4-inch (6 mm) fillet welds 2 inches (51mm) 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 joistshall be attached to the supportstructure, at least at one end,immediately upon placement in thefinal erection position and beforeadditional joists are placed.

(4) Steel joists that have been pre-assembled into panels through theinstallation of bridging shall be attachedto the structure at each corner before thehoisting cables are released.

(c) Erection of steel joists. (1) One endof each steel joist shall be attached tothe support structure before anemployee is allowed on the steel joist.

(2) On steel joists that span 40 feet(12.2 m) or less and that do not requireerection bridging per Tables A and B,only one employee shall be allowed onthe joist until all bridging is installedand anchored.

(3) Employees shall not be allowed onsteel joists that span more than 40 feetexcept in accordance with§ 1926.757(d).

(4) When permanent bridgingterminus points cannot be used duringerection, additional temporary bridgingterminus points are required to providestability. (See appendix C of thissubpart.)

(d) Erection bridging. (1) Where thespan of the steel joist is equal to orgreater than the span shown in TablesA and B, or in bays of 40 feet (12.2 m)through 60 feet (18.3 m), the followingshall apply:

(i) The row of erection bridgingnearest the midspan of the steel joistshall be bolted diagonal bridging;

(ii) Hoisting cables shall not bereleased until this bolted diagonalerection bridging is installed; and

(iii) No more than one employee shallbe allowed on these spans until all otherbridging is installed and anchored.

(2) Where the span of the steel joist isover 60 feet (18.3 m) through 100 feet(30.5 m), the following shall apply:

(i) The two rows of erection bridgingnearest the third points of the steel joistshall be bolted diagonal bridging;

(ii) Hoisting cables shall not bereleased until this bolted diagonalerection bridging is installed; and

(iii) No more than two employeesshall be allowed on these spans until allother bridging is installed and anchored.

(3) Where the span of the steel joist isover 100 feet (30.5 m) through 144 feet(43.9 m), the following shall apply:

(i) All rows of bridging shall be bolteddiagonal bridging;


(ii) Hoisting cables shall not bereleased until all bridging is installed;and

(iii) No more than two employeesshall be allowed on these spans until allbridging is installed.

(4) For steel members spanning over144 feet (43.9 m), the erection methodsused shall be in accordance with§ 1926.756.

(5) Where any steel joist specified inparagraphs (c)(2) and (d)(1), (d)(2), and(d)(3) of this section is a bottom chordbearing joist, a row of bolted diagonalbridging shall be provided near thesupport(s). This bridging shall beinstalled before the hoisting cable(s) isreleased.

(6) When bolted diagonal erectionbridging is required by this section, thefollowing shall apply:

(i) The bridging shall be indicated onthe erection drawing;

(ii) The erection drawing shall be theexclusive indicator of the properplacement of this bridging;

(iii) Shop-installed bridging clips, orfunctional equivalents, shall beprovided where the bridging bolts to thesteel joists;

(iv) When two pieces of bridging areattached to the steel joist by a commonbolt, the nut that secures the first pieceof bridging shall not be removed fromthe bolt for the attachment of thesecond; and

(v) Bridging attachments shall notprotrude above the top chord of the steeljoist.BILLING CODE 4510–26–P

TABLE A.—ERECTION BRIDGING FORSHORT SPAN JOISTS

Joist Span

8K1 ............................................... NM10K1 ............................................. NM12K1 ............................................. 23–012K3 ............................................. NM12K5 ............................................. NM

TABLE A.—ERECTION BRIDGING FORSHORT SPAN JOISTS—Continued

Joist Span

14K1 ............................................. 27–014K3 ............................................. NM14K4 ............................................. NM14K6 ............................................. NM16K2 ............................................. 29–016K3 ............................................. 30–016K4 ............................................. 32–016K5 ............................................. 32–016K6 ............................................. NM16K7 ............................................. NM16K9 ............................................. NM18K3 ............................................. 31–018K4 ............................................. 32–018K5 ............................................. 33–018K6 ............................................. 35–018K7 ............................................. NM18K9 ............................................. NM18K10 ........................................... NM20K3 ............................................. 32–020K4 ............................................. 34–020K5 ............................................. 34–020K6 ............................................. 36–020K7 ............................................. 39–020K9 ............................................. 39–020K10 ........................................... NM22K4 ............................................. 34–022K5 ............................................. 35–022K6 ............................................. 36–022K7 ............................................. 40–022K9 ............................................. 40–022K10 ........................................... 40–022K11 ........................................... 40–024K4 ............................................. 36–024K5 ............................................. 38–024K6 ............................................. 39–024K7 ............................................. 40–024K8 ............................................. 40–024K9 ............................................. 40–024K10 ........................................... 40–024K12 ........................................... 40–026K5 ............................................. 38–026K6 ............................................. 39–026K7 ............................................. 40–026K8 ............................................. 40–026K9 ............................................. 40–026K10 ........................................... 40–026K12 ........................................... 40–028K6 ............................................. 40–028K7 ............................................. 40–028K8 ............................................. 40–028K9 ............................................. 40–0

TABLE A.—ERECTION BRIDGING FORSHORT SPAN JOISTS—Continued

Joist Span

28K10 ........................................... 40–028K12 ........................................... 40–030K7 ............................................. 40–030K8 ............................................. 40–030K9 ............................................. 40–030K10 ........................................... 40–030K11 ........................................... 40–030K12 ........................................... 40–010KCS1 ........................................ NM10KCS2 ........................................ NM10KCS3 ........................................ NM12KCS1 ........................................ NM12KCS2 ........................................ NM12KCS3 ........................................ NM14KCS1 ........................................ NM14KCS2 ........................................ NM14KCS3 ........................................ NM16KCS2 ........................................ NM16KCS3 ........................................ NM16KCS4 ........................................ NM16KCS5 ........................................ NM18KCS2 ........................................ 35–018KCS3 ........................................ NM18KCS4 ........................................ NM18KCS5 ........................................ NM20KCS2 ........................................ 36–020KCS3 ........................................ 39–020KCS4 ........................................ NM20KCS5 ........................................ NM22KCS2 ........................................ 36–022KCS3 ........................................ 40–022KCS4 ........................................ 40–022KCS5 ........................................ 40–024KCS2 ........................................ 39–024KCS3 ........................................ 40–024KCS4 ........................................ 40–024KCS5 ........................................ 40–026KCS2 ........................................ 39–026KCS3 ........................................ 40–026KCS4 ........................................ 40–026KCS5 ........................................ 40–028KCS2 ........................................ 40–028KCS3 ........................................ 40–028KCS4 ........................................ 40–028KCS5 ........................................ 40–030KC53 ......................................... 40–030KCS4 ........................................ 40–030KCS5 ........................................ 40–0

NM=diagonal bolted bridging not mandatoryfor 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.


TABLE B.—ERECTION BRIDGING FOR LONG SPAN JOISTS—Continued

Joist Span

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.


(e) Landing and placing loads. (1)During the construction period, theemployer placing a load on steel joistsshall ensure that the load is distributedso as not to exceed the carrying capacityof any steel joist.

(2) Except for paragraph (e)(4) of thissection, no construction loads areallowed on the steel joists until allbridging is installed and anchored andall joist-bearing ends are attached.

(3) The weight of a bundle of joistbridging shall not exceed a total of 1000pounds (454 kg). A bundle of joistbridging shall be placed on a minimumof 3 steel joists that are secured at oneend. The edge of the bridging bundleshall be positioned within 1 foot (.30 m)of the secured end.

(4) No bundle of decking may beplaced on steel joists until all bridginghas been installed and anchored and alljoist bearing ends attached, unless all ofthe following conditions are met:

(i) The employer has first determinedfrom a qualified person anddocumented in a site-specific erectionplan that the structure or portion of thestructure is capable of supporting theload;

(ii) The bundle of decking is placedon a minimum of 3 steel joists;

(iii) The joists supporting the bundleof decking are attached at both ends;

(iv) At least one row of bridging isinstalled and anchored;

(v) The total weight of the deckingdoes not exceed 4000 pounds (1816 kg);and

(vi) The edge of the bundle of deckingis placed within 1 foot (.30 m) of thebearing surface of the joist end.

(5) The edge of the construction loadshall be placed within 1 foot (.30 m) ofthe bearing surface of the joist end.

§ 1926.758 Pre-engineered metalbuildings.

(a) Erection of pre-engineered metalbuildings shall not begin until the site

layout has been completed inaccordance with § 1926.752(b).

(b) Each column shall be anchored bya minimum of 4 anchor bolts.

(c) Rigid frames shall have 50 percentof their bolts or the number of boltsspecified by the manufacturer(whichever is greater) installed andtightened on both sides of the webadjacent to each flange before thehoisting equipment is released.

(d) Construction loads shall not beplaced on any structural steelframework unless such framework issafely bolted, welded or otherwiseadequately secured.

(e) In girt and eave strut to frameconnections, when girts or eave strutsshare common connection holes thefollowing shall apply:

(1) At least one bolt with its wrench-tight nut shall remain connected to thesecond member unless a field-attachedseat or similar connection device ispresent to secure the first member so


that the girt or eave strut is alwayssecured against displacement; and

(2) The seat or similar connectiondevice shall be provided by themanufacturer 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 structurebefore:

(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 arrestsystem unless written direction to do sois obtained from a qualified person.

(h) Purlins may only be used as awalking/working surface wheninstalling safety systems, after allpermanent bridging has been installedand fall protection is provided.

(i) Construction loads may be placedonly within a zone that is within 8 feet(2.5 m) of the centerline of the primarysupport member.

§ 1926.759 Falling object protection.(a) Securing loose items aloft. All

materials, equipment, and tools, whichare not in use while aloft, shall besecured against accidentaldisplacement.

(b) Overhead protection. Thecontrolling contractor shall ensure thatno other construction processes takeplace below steel erection unlessadequate overhead protection for theemployees below is provided.

§ 1926.760 Fall protection.(a) General requirements. (1) Except

as provided by paragraph (a)(3) of thissection, each employee covered by thissubpart who is on a walking/workingsurface with an unprotected side or edgemore than 15 feet (4.6 m) above a lowerlevel shall be protected from fallhazards.

(2) Protection from fall hazardsrequired by this subpart shall consist ofperimeter safety cable systems, guardrailsystems, safety net systems, or personalfall arrest or fall restraint (positioningdevice) systems. Guardrail systems,safety net systems, personal fall arrestsystems and fall restraint (positioningdevice) systems shall conform to thecriteria set forth in § 1926.502.

(3) Connectors and employeesworking in controlled decking zonesshall be protected from fall hazards asprovided in paragraphs (b) and (c) ofthis 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 trainingin accordance with § 1926.761; and

(3) Be provided, at heights over 15and up to 30 feet above a lower level,with a personal fall arrest or fallrestraint (positioning device) systemand wear the equipment necessary to beable to be tied off; or be provided withother means of protection from fallhazards in accordance with paragraph(a)(2) of this section.

(c) Controlled decking zone (CDZ). Acontrolled decking zone may beestablished in that area of the structureover 15 and up to 30 feet above a lowerlevel where metal deck is initially beinginstalled and forms the leading edge ofa work area. In each CDZ, the followingshall apply:

(1) Each employee working at theleading edge in a CDZ shall be protectedfrom fall hazards of more than twostories or 30 feet (9.1 m), whichever isless.

(2) Access to a CDZ shall be limitedexclusively to those employees engagedin leading edge work.

(3) The boundaries of a CDZ shall bedesignated and clearly marked. TheCDZ shall not be more than 90 feet (27.4m) wide and 90 feet (27.4 m) deep fromany leading edge. The CDZ shall bemarked by the use of control lines or theequivalent. Examples of acceptableprocedures for demarcating CDZ’s canbe found in Appendix D to this subpart.

(4) Each employee working in a CDZshall have completed CDZ training inaccordance with § 1926.761.

(5) During initial placement, deckpanels shall be placed to ensure fullsupport by structural members.

(6) Unsecured decking in a CDZ shallnot exceed 3000 square feet (914.4 m 2).

(7) Safety deck attachments shall beperformed in the CDZ from the leadingedge back to the control line and shallhave at least two attachments per deckpanel.

(8) Final deck attachments andinstallation of shear connectors shall notbe performed in the CDZ.

(d) Covering roof and floor openings.(1) Covers for roof and floor openingsrequired by § 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 forfloors; or

(ii) twice the weight of the employees,equipment and materials that may beimposed on the cover at any one time.

(2) All covers shall be secured wheninstalled to prevent accidentaldisplacement by the wind, equipment oremployees.

(3) All covers shall be painted withhigh-visibility paint or shall be marked

with the word ‘‘HOLE’’ or ‘‘COVER’’ toprovide warning of the hazard.

(4) Smoke dome or skylight fixtures,which have been installed, are notconsidered covers for the purpose ofthis section unless they meet thestrength requirements of paragraph(d)(1) of this section.

(e) Custody of fall protection. Fallprotection provided by the steel erectorshall remain in an area to be used byother trades after the steel erectionactivity has been completed only if thecontrolling contractor or its authorizedrepresentative:

(1) Has directed the steel erector toleave the fall protection in place; and

(2) Has inspected and acceptedcontrol and responsibility of the fallprotection prior to authorizing personsother than steel erectors to work in thearea.

§ 1926.761 Training.The following provisions supplement

the requirements of § 1926.21 regardingthe hazards addressed in this subpart.

(a) Training personnel. Trainingrequired by this section shall beprovided by a qualified person(s).

(b) Fall hazard training. The employershall provide a training program for allemployees exposed to fall hazards. Theprogram shall include training andinstruction in the following areas:

(1) The recognition and identificationof fall hazards in the work area;

(2) The use and operation of perimetersafety cable systems, personal fall arrestsystems, fall restraint (positioningdevice) systems, safety net systems,controlled decking zones and otherprotection to be used;

(3) The correct procedures forerecting, maintaining, disassembling,and inspecting the fall protectionsystems to be used;

(4) The procedures to be followed toprevent falls to lower levels and throughor into holes and openings in walking/working surfaces and walls; and

(5) The fall protection requirements of§ 1926.760.

(c) Special training programs. Inaddition to the training required inparagraphs (a) and (b) of this section,the employer shall provide specialtraining to employees engaged in thefollowing activities.

(1) Multiple lift rigging procedure. Theemployer shall ensure that eachemployee who performs multiple liftrigging has been provided training inthe following areas:

(i) The nature of the hazardsassociated with multiple lifts; and

(ii) The proper procedures andequipment to perform multiple liftsrequired by § 1926.753(c).


(2) Connector procedures. Theemployer shall ensure that eachconnector has been provided training inthe following areas:

(i) The nature of the hazardsassociated with connecting; and

(ii) The establishment, access, properconnecting techniques and workpractices required by §§ 1926.760(b) and1926.756(c).

(3) Controlled decking zoneprocedures. Where CDZs are being used,the employer shall ensure that eachemployee has been provided training inthe following areas:

(i) The nature of the hazardsassociated with work within acontrolled decking zone; and

(ii) The establishment, access, properinstallation techniques and workpractices required by §§ 1926.760(c) and1926.754(e).

Note to Appendices to Subpart R: Thefollowing appendices to subpart R of this partserve as non-mandatory guidelines to assistemployers in complying with the appropriaterequirements of subpart R of this part.

Appendix A to Subpart R—Guidelinesfor Establishing the Components of aSite-Specific Erection Plan: Non-Mandatory Guidelines for ComplyingWith § 1926.752(d)

(a) General. This appendix serves as aguideline to assist employers who elect todevelop a site-specific erection plan inaccordance with § 1926.752(d) with alternatemeans and methods to provide employeeprotection in accordance with

§§ 1926.752(d), 1926.753(a)(5), 1926.757(a)(3)and 1926.757(e)(4)(i).

(b) Development of a site-specific erectionplan. Pre-construction conference(s) and siteinspection(s) are held between the erectorand the controlling contractor, and otherssuch as the project engineer and fabricatorbefore the start of steel erection. The purposeof such conference(s) is to develop andreview the site-specific erection plan thatwill meet the requirements of this section.

(c) Components of a site-specific erectionplan. In developing a site-specific erectionplan, a steel erector considers the followingelements:

(1) The sequence of erection activity,developed in coordination with thecontrolling contractor, that includes thefollowing:

(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 protectionprocedures that will be used to comply with§ 1926.760.

(5) A description of the procedures thatwill be used to comply with § 1926.759.

(6) A description of the special proceduresrequired for hazardous non-routine tasks.

(7) A certification for each employee whohas received training for performing steelerection operations as required by§ 1926.761.

(8) A list of the qualified and competentpersons.

(9) A description of the procedures thatwill be utilized in the event of rescue oremergency 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 andmodification.

Appendix B TO Subpart R—AcceptableTest Methods for Testing Slip-Resistance of Walking/WorkingSurfaces (§ 1926.754(c)(3)) Non-mandatory Guidelines for ComplyingWith § 1926.754(c)(3).

The following references provideacceptable test methods for complying withthe requirements of § 1926.754(c)(3).

• Standard Test Method for Using aPortable Articulated Strut Slip Tester (PAST)(ASTM F1678–96)

• Standard Test Method for Using aVariable Incidence Tribometer (VIT) (ASTMF1679–96)



Appendix C to Subpart R—Illustrations of Bridging Terminus Points: Non-Mandatory Guidelines for Complying With§ 1926.757(c)(3)


BILLING CODE 4510–26–C


Appendix D to Subpart R—Illustrationof the use of Control Lines to DemarcateControlled Decking Zones (CDZs): Non-Mandatory Guidelines for ComplyingWith § 1926.760(c)(3)

(1) When used to control access toareas where leading edge and initialsecurement of metal deck and otheroperations connected with leading edgework are taking place, the controlleddecking zone (CDZ) is defined by acontrol line or by any other means thatrestricts access.

(i) A control line for a CDZ is erectednot less than 6 feet (1.8 m) nor morethan 90 feet (27.4 m) from the leadingedge.

(ii) Control lines extend along theentire length of the unprotected orleading edge and are approximatelyparallel to the unprotected or leadingedge.

(iii) Control lines are connected oneach 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 supportedin such a way that its lowest point(including sag) is not less than 39 inches(1.0 m) from the walking/workingsurface and its highest point is not morethan 45 inches (1.3 m) from thewalking/working surface.

(ii) Each line has a minimum breakingstrength of 200 pounds (90.8 kg).

Appendix E to Subpart R—Training:Non-Mandatory Guidelines forComplying With § 1926.761

The training requirements of§ 1926.761 will be deemed to have beenmet if employees have completed atraining course on steel erection,including instruction in the provisionsof this standard, that has been approvedby the U.S. Department of Labor Bureauof Apprenticeship.

Appendix F to Subpart R—Installationof Perimeter Safety Cables: Non-Mandatory Guidelines for Complyingwith § 1926.756(f) To Protect theUnprotected Side or Edge of a Walking/Working Surface.

In multi-story structures, the projectstructural engineer of record (SER) may

facilitate the ease of erecting perimetersafety cables, where structural designallows, by placing column splicessufficiently high so as to accommodateperimeter safety cables located at 42–45inches above the finished floor. The SERmay also consider allowing holes to beplaced in the column web, when thecolumn is oriented with the webperpendicular to the structuralperimeter, at 42–45 inches above thefinished floor and at the midpointbetween the finished floor and the topcable. When holes in the column webare allowed for perimeter safety cables,the column splice must be placedsufficiently high so as not to interferewith any attachments to the columnnecessary for the column splice.Column splices are recommended to beplaced at every other or fourth levels asdesign allows. Column splices at thirdlevels are detrimental to the erectionprocess and should be avoided ifpossible.

[FR Doc. 98–21112 Filed 8–12–98; 8:45 am]


federal register - Occupational Safety and Health ...

Documents

Transcript of federal register - Occupational Safety and Health ...