• Publication Date:
  • Publication Type:
    Notice
  • Fed Register #:
    63:43451-43513
  • Standard Number:
  • Title:
    Safety Standards for Steel Erection.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 156 (Thursday, August 13, 1998)][Proposed Rules][Pages 43452-43513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-21112]


      

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Department of Labor





_______________________________________________________________________



Occupational Safety and Health Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



29 CFR Part 1926



Safety Standards for Steel Erection; Proposed Rule

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part l926

[Docket No. S-775]
RIN No. 1218-AA65


Safety Standards for Steel Erection

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), U.S. 
Department of Labor.

ACTION: Proposed rule; Notice of hearing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 
proposes to revise the construction industry safety standards 
addressing steel erection. The intent of this revision is to enhance 
the protections provided to workers engaged in steel erection and to 
update and strengthen the general provisions that address steel 
erection. This proposal contains requirements for hoisting and rigging, 
structural steel assembly, beam and column connections, joist erection, 
pre-engineered metal building erection, fall protection and training. 
The proposed requirements address significant hazards in the steel 
erection industry. The principal hazards addressed by this proposal are 
those associated with working under loads; hoisting, landing and 
placing decking; column stability; double connections; hoisting, 
landing and placing steel joists; and falls to lower levels. Notice is 
also given of an informal public hearing.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed rule and notices of intention 
to appear at the informal public hearing on the proposed rule must be 
postmarked by November 12, 1998. Parties who request more than 10 
minutes for their presentations at the informal public hearing and 
parties who will submit documentary evidence at the hearing must submit 
the full text of their testimony and all documentary evidence 
postmarked no later than November 17, 1998. The hearing will take place 
in Washington, DC and is scheduled to begin on December 1, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposal are to be submitted in 
quadruplicate or 1 original (hardcopy) and 1 disk (5\1/4\ or 3\1/2\) in 
WP 5.0, 5.1, 6.0, 6.1, 8.0 or ASCII to: the Docket Officer, Docket S-
775, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, Room N2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, 
D.C. 20210, (202) 219-7894. Written comments of 10 pages or less may be 
transmitted by facsimile (fax) to the Docket Office at (202) 219-5046, 
provided an original and three (3) copies are sent to the Docket Office 
thereafter. Comments may be submitted electronically by e-mail to 
steelerection@osha-no.osha.gov. If the e-mail contains attached 
electronic files, the files must be in WordPerfect 5.0, 5.1, 6.0, 6.1, 
8.0 or ASCII. When submitting a comment by e-mail, please include your 
name and address.
    Any information not contained on the disk or in the e-mail (e.g., 
studies, articles) must be submitted in quadruplicate. Specific 
comments on the collection of information requirements may also be 
submitted to: The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: 
OMB Desk Officer for OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 
Washington, DC 20503, (202) 395-7316.
    Notices of intention to appear at the hearing, and testimony and 
documentary evidence which will be introduced into the hearing record, 
must be submitted in quadruplicate to: the Docket Officer, Docket S-
775, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, Room N2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, 
D.C. 20210, (202) 219-7894. The hearing will be held in Washington, 
D.C., beginning December 1, 1998 at 10:00 a.m. in the Auditorium of the 
Frances Perkins Building, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 
Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Office of Information and Consumer 
Affairs, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N3647, 200 Constitution 
Avenue, N.W., Washington D.C. 20210, (202) 219-8151.
    For an electronic copy of this Federal Register notice, contact the 
Labor News Bulletin Board, (202) 219-4784 (callers must pay any toll-
call charges. 300, 1200, 2400, 9600 or 14,400 BAUD; Parity: None; Data 
Bits = 8; Stop Bit = 1. Voice phone (202) 219-8831); or OSHA's Webpage 
on Internet at http://www.osha.gov/ and http://www.osha-slc.gov/. For 
news releases, fact sheets, and other documents, contact OSHA FAX at 
(900) 555-3400 at $1.50 per minute.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Congress amended the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act 
(CWHSA) (40 U.S.C. 327 et seq.) in 1969 by adding a new Section 107 (40 
U.S.C. 333) to provide employees in the construction industry with a 
safer work environment and to reduce the frequency and severity of 
construction accidents and injuries. The amendment, commonly known as 
the Construction Safety Act (CSA) [P.L. 91-54; August 9, 1969], 
significantly strengthened employee protection by providing for 
occupational safety and health standards for employees of the building 
trades and construction industry in Federal and Federally-financed or 
Federally-assisted construction projects. Accordingly, the Secretary of 
Labor issued Safety and Health Regulations for Construction in 29 CFR 
Part 1518 (36 FR 7340, April 17, 1971) pursuant to Section 107 of the 
Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act.
    The Occupational Safety and Health Act (the Act) (84 Stat. 1590; 29 
U.S.C. 651 et seq.), was enacted by Congress in 1970 and authorized the 
Secretary of Labor to adopt established Federal standards issued under 
other statutes, including the CSA, as occupational safety and health 
standards. Accordingly, the Secretary of Labor adopted the construction 
standards which had been issued under the CSA, in accordance with 
Section 6(a) of the Act (36 FR 10466, May 29, 1971). The Safety and 
Health Regulations for Construction were redesignated as Part 1926 of 
29 CFR later in 1971 (36 FR 25232, December 30, 1971). Subpart R of 
Part 1926, currently entitled ``Steel Erection,'' incorporating 
Secs. 1926.750 through 1926.752, was adopted as an OSHA standard during 
this process. The requirements in the existing standard cover flooring, 
steel assembly, bolting, plumbing-up and related operations. In 1974 a 
revision in the temporary flooring requirement was made pursuant to a 
rulemaking conducted under section 6(b) of the Act (39 FR 24361).
    Since that time, OSHA has received several requests for 
clarification of various provisions, including those pertaining to fall 
protection. The Agency began drafting a proposed rule to revise several 
provisions of its steel erection standard in 1984 and on several 
occasions discussed its intention with its Advisory Committee on 
Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH). During these discussions, the 
fall protection requirements of the standard often aroused controversy. 
The discussions with ACCSH led to the development of several draft 
notices requesting information or proposing changes to the rule. None 
of these draft notices was published, nor was public comment sought, 
except through the proceedings of the Advisory Committee.
    In 1986, the Agency issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for 
subpart M (Fall Protection) and announced that it
intended the proposed rule to apply to all walking/working surfaces 
found in construction, alteration, repair (including painting and 
decorating), and demolition work, except for five specific areas. 
Although none of the specific areas pertained to steel erection, the 
Agency noted that ``Additional requirements to have fall protection for 
connectors and for workers on derrick and erection floors during steel 
erection would remain in subpart R--Steel Erection.''
    This statement led to confusion. Many of the commenters to the 
subpart M rulemaking noted that they were not sure whether subpart M or 
subpart R would govern their activities. In one case, two sets of 
comments were provided, one to be used if subpart M applied and the 
other if subpart R applied. In the face of this uncertainty, the Agency 
decided that it would regulate the fall hazards associated with steel 
erection in its planned revision of subpart R.
    OSHA announced its intention to regulate the hazards associated 
with steel erection, and in particular the fall hazards associated with 
steel erection, in a notice published in the Federal Register on 
January 26, 1988 (53 FR 2048). In that notice OSHA stated the 
following:

    The rulemaking record developed to date indicates that the 
Agency needs more information in order to develop a revised standard 
covering fall protection for employees engaged in steel erection 
activities. The comments received to date have convinced the Agency 
to develop a separate proposed rule which will provide comprehensive 
coverage for fall protection in steel erection. OSHA intends, 
therefore, that the consolidation and revision of fall protection 
provisions in subpart M do not apply to steel erection and that the 
current fall protection requirements of Part 1926 continue to cover 
steel erection until the steel erection rulemaking is completed. 
Accordingly, in order to maintain coverage under existing fall 
protection standards pending completion of the separate steel 
erection fall protection rulemaking, OSHA plans to redesignate 
existing Secs. 1926.104, 1926.105, 1926.107(b), 1926.107(c), 
1926.107(f), 1926.500 (with Appendix A), 1926.501, and 1926.502 into 
subpart R when the Agency issues the final rule for the subpart M 
rulemaking.

    Since that time, the Agency drafted several documents which it 
presented to ACCSH for comment. The Agency was also petitioned by 
affected parties to institute negotiated rulemaking. The first request 
for negotiated rulemaking was submitted to the Agency in 1990. At that 
time, it appeared the Agency would soon publish a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking in the Federal Register and, therefore, the request was 
denied. However, affected parties once again made their concerns known, 
and the Agency delayed publication of the NPRM while it made a further, 
more comprehensive study of the concerns raised.
    OSHA retained an independent consultant to review the fall 
protection issues raised by the draft revisions to subpart R, to render 
an independent opinion on how to resolve the issues, and to recommend a 
course of action. In 1991, the consultant recommended that OSHA address 
the issue of fall protection as well as other potential revisions to 
subpart R by using the negotiated rulemaking process (Ex. 4-18A).
    Based on this recommendation and continued requests for negotiated 
rulemaking by affected stakeholders, on December 29, 1992, OSHA 
published a Federal Register notice of intent to establish a negotiated 
rulemaking committee (57 FR 61860). The notice requested nominations 
for membership on the Committee and comments on the appropriateness of 
using negotiated rulemaking to develop a steel erection proposed rule. 
In addition, the notice described the negotiated rulemaking process and 
identified some key issues for negotiation.
    In response to the notice of intent, OSHA received more than 225 
submissions, including more than 60 nominations for membership on the 
Committee and several sets of comments. After an evaluation of the 
submissions, it was apparent that an overwhelming majority of 
commenters supported this action, and OSHA decided to go forward with 
the negotiated rulemaking process. The Agency selected the members of 
the Committee from among the nominations.
    On May 11, 1994, OSHA announced that it had established the Steel 
Erection Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee (SENRAC) (59 FR 
24389) in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 
U.S.C. App. I), the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990 (NRA) (5 U.S.C. 
561 et seq.) and section 7(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 
(OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 656 (b)) to resolve issues associated with the 
development of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Steel Erection. 
Appointees to the Committee included representatives from labor, 
industry, public interests and government agencies. OSHA was a member 
of the committee, representing the Agency's interests.

II. Establishing the Steel Erection Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory 
Committee (SENRAC)

    Negotiated rulemaking is a process by which a proposed rule is 
developed through negotiation of differing viewpoints by a committee 
that is intended to be composed of representatives of all the interests 
that will be significantly affected by the rule. The negotiated 
rulemaking process is thus fundamentally different from OSHA's usual 
development process for proposed rules. Negotiation allows interested 
parties to discuss possible approaches to various issues rather than 
the Agency asking them to respond to the details of an OSHA draft 
proposal. The negotiation process involves a mutual education of the 
parties on the reasons for different positions on the issues as well as 
on the concerns about the practical impact of various approaches.
    Each committee member participates in resolving the interests and 
concerns of other members instead of leaving it up to OSHA to bridge 
different points of view.
    A key principle of negotiated rulemaking is that agreement is 
reached by consensus of all the interests. The NRA defines consensus as 
unanimous concurrence among the interests represented on a negotiated 
rulemaking committee, unless the committee itself unanimously agrees to 
use a different definition of consensus.
    SENRAC was formed with particular attention to obtaining full and 
adequate representation of those interests that may be significantly 
affected by the proposed rule. Section 562 of the NRA defines the term 
``interest'' as follows:

    ``interest'' means, with respect to an issue or matter, multiple 
parties which have a similar point of view or which are likely to be 
affected in a similar manner.

    Particular care was taken to identify any unique interests which 
were determined to be significantly affected by the proposed rule and 
ensure that they were fully represented on the Committee.
    The members of the Committee are: Richard Adams--Army Corps of 
Engineers, who was later replaced by Donald Pittinger; William W. 
Brown--Ben Hur Construction Company; Bart Chadwick--Regional 
Administrator, Region VIII, Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (since retired); James E. Cole--International 
Association of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers; Stephen D. 
Cooper--International Association of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental 
Iron Workers; Phillip H. Cordova--El Paso
Crane & Rigging, Inc.; Perry A. Day--International Brotherhood of 
Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers; James 
R. Hinson--J. Hinson Network, Inc.; Jim Lapping--Building and 
Construction Trades Department (AFL-CIO), replaced by Brad Sant and 
later replaced by Sandy Tillett; Richard King--Black & Veatch; John R. 
Molovich--United Steelworkers of America; Carol Murkland--Gilbane 
Building Company; John J. Murphy--Williams Enterprises of Georgia, 
Inc.; Steven L. Rank--Holton & Associates, Ltd.; Ray Rooth--CAL/OSHA; 
Alan Simmons--International Association of Bridge, Structural & 
Ornamental Iron Workers; William J. Smith--International Union of 
Operating Engineers; Ronald Stanevich--National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) later replaced by Tim Pizatella, 
Division of Safety Research; C. Rockwell Turner--L.P.R. Construction 
Co.; and Eric Waterman--National Erectors Association.
    SENRAC was chaired by Philip J. Harter, Esq., a trained 
facilitator. The role of the facilitator was to apply proven consensus 
building techniques to the OSHA advisory committee setting. This 
individual was not involved with the substantive development of the 
standard. Rather, the facilitator's role generally included:
    (1) Chairing the meetings of the committee in an impartial manner;
    (2) Impartially assisting the members of the committee in 
conducting discussions and negotiations;
    (3) Acting as disclosure officer for committee records under the 
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA); and
    (4) In accordance with FACA's requirements, keeping minutes of all 
committee meetings.
    SENRAC consists of 20 members. Although these members represent 
particular interests, natural coalitions formed around particular 
issues, and certain members were identified as spokespersons for these 
coalitions.
    Interested parties who were not selected to membership on the 
Committee were provided an opportunity to contribute to the negotiated 
rulemaking effort in the following ways:
    (1) by being placed on the Committee mailing list and submitting 
written comments to the Committee as appropriate;
    (2) by attending the Committee meetings, which were open to the 
public, caucusing with the SENRAC member representing his or her 
interest on the Committee, and addressing the Committee (usually 
allowed at the end of the discussion of an issue or the end of a 
session, as time permitted); and/or
    (3) by participating in a workgroup established by the Committee.
    Informal workgroups were established by SENRAC to assist the 
Committee in ``staffing'' various technical matters (e.g., researching 
or preparing summaries of the technical literature or commenting on 
particular matters before the Committee) to facilitate Committee 
deliberations. They also assisted in drafting regulatory text. The 
workgroups were made up of SENRAC members and other parties who had 
expertise or a particular interest in the technical matter(s) being 
studied.
    SENRAC began negotiations in mid-June, 1994, and has met 11 times. 
Initial meetings dealt with procedural matters, including schedules, 
agendas and the establishment of workgroups. Workgroups addressed major 
issues, such as Scope, Fall Protection, Joists, Slippery Surfaces, Pre-
Engineered Metal Buildings, and Cranes. During subsequent meetings, the 
foundations for negotiations were established and preliminary 
resolutions of issues were reached. Through negotiations at full 
Committee meetings and options developed by Committee workgroups, the 
Committee reached consensus on a proposed revision to the regulatory 
text for subpart R. This preamble addresses that text, which is the 
basis for OSHA's proposed rule.
    During SENRAC negotiations, the Committee addressed some difficult 
issues. Particularly controversial was the relationship between the 
fall protection requirements of subpart M (OSHA's standard for Fall 
Protection in construction) and such requirements in the steel erection 
context. Subpart M was published in the Federal Register on August 9, 
1994 (59 FR 40672), and became effective on February 6, 1995. 
Initially, that standard applied to steel erection in non-building 
structures such as tanks, towers and bridges but not to steel erection 
in buildings. On October 7, 1994, five steel erection companies 
petitioned OSHA for an administrative stay of final subpart M to the 
extent that the standard applied to steel erection activities. The 
companies alleged that they had not received fair notice that the 
requirements of subpart M would apply to steel erection in non-building 
structures such as bridges, tanks and towers and that, in consequence, 
they had not had the opportunity to comment on the issue. Subsequently, 
OSHA agreed to stay subpart M as it applied to such activities and 
announced this decision to SENRAC on December 8, 1994. The Committee 
was informed that the Agency had decided to consider fall protection 
standards for all steel erection activities in the subpart R rulemaking 
as part of the SENRAC process. OSHA also indicated that it intends to 
address any aspects of steel erection fall protection not ultimately 
addressed by SENRAC by proposing to include them under subpart M or in 
a separate regulation, after notice and comment.
    On January 26, 1995, OSHA issued a notice in the Federal Register 
(60 FR 5131) delaying the application of subpart M to non-building 
steel erection activities until August 6, 1995. On August 2, 1995, OSHA 
published a follow-up notice in the Federal Register (60 FR 39254) 
amending subpart M to indicate that its provisions did not cover steel 
erection, and that requirements relating to fall protection for 
employees performing steel erection work are included in Sec. 1926.105 
and in subpart R. The notice also stated that, until such time as 
subparts M and R have been revised, the Agency's enforcement policy on 
fall protection during steel erection would be the policy outlined in 
Deputy Assistant Secretary James R. Stanley's July 10, 1995, memorandum 
to the Office of Field Programs, ``Fall Protection in Steel Erection'' 
(Ex. 9-13F)(see full discussion of this memo in the fall protection 
section below). The notice also noted the Agency's intention to conduct 
a supplemental rulemaking in the near future, to provide an opportunity 
for public comment on the extension of subpart M coverage to any steel 
erection activity that subpart R does not address.
    OSHA believes that the proposed subpart R will help to reduce the 
significant risk of death and serious injury that has continued to 
confront workers engaged in steel erection activities. In addition, the 
clarified and revised language of the proposal will help employers and 
employees understand the requirements of the steel erection standard 
and will improve worker safety by clarifying and consolidating current 
requirements into a single set of provisions that will be easier for 
employers to understand. OSHA is also proposing changes and additions 
to the current rules to provide more protective requirements and to 
close gaps in the current rule's coverage of steel erection hazards. 
These proposed revisions have been achieved through the SENRAC 
negotiations, with active participation from workgroup members such as 
the Steel Joist Institute (SJI), American Institute for Steel 
Construction (AISC), Steel Erectors Association of America (SEAA), 
American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), Metal Building Manufacturers
Association (MBMA), Steel Deck Institute (SDI), National Association of 
Miscellaneous, Ornamental and Architectural Products Contractors 
(NAMOA), the Institute of the Ironworking Industry (III), the 
Ironworkers Employers Associations of Washington, D.C. and Western 
Pennsylvania (IWEA), and the Allied Building Metal Industries. These 
organizations, although not members of the Committee, were able to 
contribute significantly to the negotiations through recommendations 
they made at various full Committee and workgroup meetings. This 
proposal has also been reviewed by OSHA's Advisory Committee on 
Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH). ACCSH was kept informed of 
SENRAC's progress throughout the negotiated rulemaking process and was 
given copies of the draft consensus regulatory text (Exs. 9-147, 9-
148).
    In summary, the SENRAC Committee was established by OSHA to 
negotiate a draft revision of the steel erection standard to serve as 
the basis for a proposed rule. The Committee and its workgroups met 
over an 18-month period and recommended a consensus document to OSHA. 
OSHA believes that the consensus document reflects the concerted effort 
of the entire steel erection community--steel erectors (both union and 
non-union); employee representatives; steel fabricators; major 
producers of domestic steel; manufacturers of steel joists, steel deck, 
steel coatings, pre-engineered metal buildings and safety equipment; 
insurance interests; safety consultants; and construction safety 
associations--to develop a comprehensive, workable and enforceable 
proposed standard for the safe erection of steel. In accordance with 
the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990 and the Department of Labor's 
Negotiated Rulemaking Policy (57 FR 61925), the draft regulatory text 
and accompanying rationale presented to OSHA by the SENRAC Committee 
constitute the basis for this proposed rule.
    In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), OSHA provides notice 
to all affected employers and employees of these proposed revisions to 
subpart R, which the Agency believes are necessary to protect 
employees. OSHA believes the clarified language of the proposal will 
help employers to protect their employees more effectively and to 
comply more readily.

III. Pertinent Legal Authority

    The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. 
Secs. 651 et seq. (``the Act''), is ``to assure so far as possible 
every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working 
conditions and to preserve our human resources.'' 29 U.S.C. 
Sec. 651(b). To achieve this goal, Congress authorized the Secretary of 
Labor to promulgate and enforce occupational safety and health 
standards (see 29 U.S.C. Secs. 655(a) (authorizing summary adoption of 
existing consensus and federal standards within two years of Act's 
enactment), 655(b) (authorizing promulgation of standards pursuant to 
notice and comment), 654(b) (requiring employers to comply with OSHA 
standards)).
    A safety or health standard is a standard ``which requires 
conditions, or the adoption or use of one or more practices, means, 
methods, operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate 
to provide safe or healthful employment'' (29 U.S.C. Sec. 652(8)).
    A standard is reasonably necessary or appropriate within the 
meaning of Section 652(8) if it substantially reduces or eliminates 
significant risk, and is economically feasible, technologically 
feasible, and cost effective, and is consistent with prior Agency 
action or is a justified departure, is supported by substantial 
evidence, and is better able to effectuate the Act's purposes than any 
national consensus standard it supersedes. See 58 FR 16612--16616 
(March 30, 1993).
    OSHA has generally considered, at minimum, a fatality risk of 1/
1000 over a 45-year working lifetime to be a significant health risk. 
See the Benzene decision Industrial Union Dep't v. American Petroleum 
Institute, 448 U.S. 607, 646 (1980); the Asbestos decision Building and 
Constr. Trades Dep't, AFL-CIO v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258, 1265 (D.C. Cir. 
1988); the Formaldehyde decision International Union, UAW v. 
Pendergrass, 878 F.2d 389, 392 (D.C. Cir. 1989).
    A standard is technologically feasible if the protective measures 
it requires already exist, can be brought into existence with available 
technology, or can be created with technology that can reasonably be 
expected to be developed. American Textile Mfrs. Institute v. OSHA, 452 
U.S. 490, 513 (1981)(``ATMI''); AISI v. OSHA, 939 F.2d 975, 980 (D.C. 
Cir. 1991)(``AISI'').
    A standard is economically feasible if industry can absorb or pass 
on the costs of compliance without threatening its long term 
profitability or competitive structure. See ATMI, 452 U.S. at 530 n. 
55; AISI, 939 F.2d at 980. A standard is cost effective if the 
protective measures it requires are the least costly of the available 
alternatives that achieve the same level of protection. ATMI, 453 U.S. 
at 514 n. 32; International Union, UAW v. OSHA, 37 F.3d 665, 668 (D.C. 
Cir. 1994) (``LOTO III'').
    Section 6(b)(7) authorizes OSHA to include among a standard's 
requirements labeling, monitoring, medical testing and other 
information gathering and transmittal provisions. 29 U.S.C. 
Sec. 655(b)(7).
    All standards must be highly protective. See 58 FR at 16614-16615; 
LOTO III, 37 F.3d at 669. Finally, whenever practical, standards shall 
``be expressed in terms of objective criteria and of the performance 
desired.'' Id. 

IV. Hazards in Steel Erection

    Accidents during steel erection continue to cause injuries and 
fatalities at construction sites. Based on a review of compliance 
problems and public comments over the past several years, OSHA believes 
that the current standard, which has been in place with little change 
for 25 years, needs a complete revision to provide greater protection 
and eliminate ambiguity and confusion. OSHA believes that reorganizing 
the standard's requirements into a more logical sequence and providing 
more effective protection will help employers to understand better how 
to protect their employees from the hazards associated with steel 
erection and will thus reduce the incidence of injuries and fatalities 
in this workforce.
    OSHA tracks fatalities through its Integrated Management 
Information System (IMIS), which captures a large percentage of the 
fatalities in the steel erection industry; however, detailed 
information on the conditions that give rise to steel erection 
accidents is less readily available. The best available data are 
derived from NIOSH and industry studies and from the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics (BLS) (Ex. 9-39). During SENRAC negotiations, OSHA staff and 
a Committee statistical workgroup analyzed accident information derived 
from OSHA's IMIS system (Exs. 9-14A and 9-42). Of the data reviewed, 
the IMIS fatality/catastrophe reports provided the richest source of 
accident descriptions. However, it was frequently difficult for OSHA 
and the Committee to determine several critical elements, such as the 
precise activity being undertaken at the time of the accident, whether 
the victim was a trained ironworker, or the type of structure under 
construction or repair.
    Nevertheless, OSHA believes that the IMIS reports, combined with 
the collective experience of the members of the SENRAC workgroup, 
provide a solid basis for identifying the types of hazards that result 
in accidents during steel
erection. An analysis of OSHA fatality/catastrophe data was performed 
by the SENRAC Statistical Workgroup which analyzed an eleven-year 
period (January 1984 through November 1994) and determined that 323 
fatal accidents involved factors that are addressed both by OSHA's 
current and proposed steel erection standards [Ex. 9-42, Attachment C]. 
After categorizing the accidents according to primary contributing 
factors, the SENRAC workgroup concluded that the leading initial cause 
of accidents was slips (23.8 percent). The next highest categories were 
unknown (17.3 percent) and collapse (15.8 percent). Categorizing the 
accidents in the IMIS database by the immediate (final) cause of death, 
the SENRAC analysis reveals that 284 of the 323 fatalities (87.9 
percent) involved falls from various heights where fall protection was 
either not provided or not used. Categorized by activity, decking was 
associated with the most fatalities (22.9 percent), followed by 
connecting (17.0 percent) and bolting (11.5 percent). An OSHA staff 
evaluation of these reports for an eight year period (January 1984 
through December 1990) revealed that fatalities associated with various 
types of accidents were caused by the following factors:
     Collapses while landing or placing a load--most were the 
result of placing loads on unsecured or unbridged joists.
     Collapses while connecting joists or trusses--most were 
the result of prematurely disconnecting the crane before the piece was 
secure.
     Workers struck by objects during miscellaneous 
activities--most were the result of walking or working under a load.
     Workers struck by objects and then falling--most were the 
result of being struck while landing a load or making a connection, by 
a tool slipping, or by a piece of decking being blown off a pile when 
fall protection was not provided or used.
     Improper use or failure of fall protection--most were the 
result of employee failure to use available fall protection systems 
even though the worker was wearing a belt (and in some cases lifelines 
were rigged).
     Unsecured or unstable decking--most were the result of 
stepping onto or working on unsecured decking that slipped out of place 
when fall protection was not provided or used.
     Other falls during decking activities--most were the 
result of stepping off the metal decking onto insulation (and then 
falling to the ground) during roofing operations where fall protection 
was not provided or used.
     Plumbing, bolting, welding and cutting--most were the 
result of the worker not being tied off while at the work station 
(whether or not fall protection was provided).
     Walking/standing on the beam/joist (i.e., moving point-to-
point)--most were slips or falls where fall protection was not provided 
or used.
    Based upon these analyses, OSHA has preliminarily determined that 
the SENRAC recommendations would, taken together, generally address 
those situations that have caused a significant number of ironworker 
catastrophes and fatalities in the past.
    For the time period examined, the fatality/catastrophe reports 
described accidents that involved at least one fatality or 5 
hospitalizations. (In April, 1994, the reporting criterion was changed 
to 1 fatality or 3 hospitalizations (59 FR 15594).) These reports do 
not cover the entire universe of steel erection accidents; for example, 
an individual accident that did not result in a fatality would not be 
reported in the IMIS reports. Nonetheless, the IMIS data enabled OSHA 
to broadly characterize the fatality data in a way that permitted the 
estimation of baseline risk for specific types of steel erection 
hazards.
    For its assessment of baseline risk in steel erection, OSHA used 
fatality data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) Census of 
Fatal Occupational Injuries and distributed the data according to the 
committee's categorization of the OSHA IMIS accident data. BLS reports 
that over the period 1982-1993, structural metal workers experienced an 
average of 40 fatalities per year. OSHA determined that, of these 
fatalities, approximately 28 deaths per year were caused by factors 
that are addressed by the proposed standard (see the preliminary 
economic analysis, Chapter III, summarized below in Section VII). 
Furthermore, results from the 1992 BLS injury survey identify 1,836 
lost-workday injuries (1,164 ``struck-by'' injuries and 672 ``falls to 
lower levels'') whose circumstances would be addressed by provisions in 
the proposed standard. With an estimated workforce of 38,980 iron 
workers in construction ([BLS, Occupational Employment Statistics 
Survey, 1993]; see the preliminary economic analysis), OSHA concludes 
that these baseline fatality and injury levels are high and clearly 
pose a significant risk to these workers that justifies Agency action. 
Therefore, OSHA has undertaken this negotiated rulemaking to reduce 
these significant risk levels. OSHA preliminarily concludes that the 
proposed standard will substantially reduce this significant risk.
    Even though detailed data targeted exclusively at steel erection 
accidents are not available, steel erection is known to have a high 
rate of serious accidents. Available sources of information on steel 
erection injuries and fatalities include a draft report on fatal work-
related falls in structural steel erection (Ex. 9-13E); a draft 
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) document 
entitled ``Structural Steel Erection: Falls'' (Ex. 9-15); the report of 
the SENRAC Statistical Workgroup (Exs. 9-42 and 9-49); a comparison of 
non-union and union contractor construction fatalities (Ex. 9-85); and 
a report on fatalities in the construction industry in the United 
States, 1992 and 1993, by the Center to Protect Workers' Rights (Ex. 9-
119). The Committee urged OSHA to use improved technology to collect 
more detailed steel erection fatality inspection data. OSHA agrees with 
SENRAC on this issue, because an improved fatality data base will 
permit a more in-depth analysis of construction fatalities and provide 
information not available at the time of the negotiations on the most 
hazardous types of construction and construction activities by 
occupation. In response, OSHA has developed and implemented an enhanced 
coding system which must be used by OSHA compliance officers when 
recording construction fatality investigations for entry into the 
Agency's IMIS. This system was implemented nationally on January 1, 
1997. The data OSHA is now recording when making fatality 
investigations will provide a rich source of detailed information 
indicating how and where construction fatalities occur.
    Three years after the rule becomes final, OSHA will use the 
improved fatality data to evaluate the rule's effectiveness. Based upon 
this evaluation, a determination will be made as to whether 
modifications to the standard are necessary (see Ex. 9-130).
    The following examples from OSHA's IMIS reports of accident 
investigations illustrate the types of accidents that occur in steel 
erection (Ex. 9-157):
    1. April 25, 1990: 1 Fatality and 3 injuries. Four employees were 
sitting on steel roof beams. Two employees were bolting beams to 
columns and the other two employees were sitting on the beams 
connecting roof purlins. A gust of wind caused the columns to topple in 
a domino fashion. One of the employees connecting roof purlins fell 25 
feet to his death and the other three employees
fell and were hospitalized. OSHA believes that compliance with the 
anchor bolt requirements of proposed Sec. 1926.755(a) could have 
prevented this accident by requiring that all columns be anchored by a 
minimum of four anchor bolts and that unstable columns be guyed or 
braced where deemed necessary by a competent person.
    2. July 23, 1984: Fatality. An employee was welding roof decking 
adjacent to an unguarded staircase opening. The employee fell through 
the opening 57 feet to the sub-level and died of multiple injuries. 
OSHA believes that compliance with proposed Sec. 1926.754(e)(2) could 
have prevented this accident by requiring proper procedures for cutting 
and covering floor and roof openings.
    3. October 5, 1988: Fatality. While walking atop structural steel 
checking joints and bolts, an employee slipped or misjudged his footing 
and fell approximately 20 feet to the concrete floor below, resulting 
in his death. OSHA believes that compliance with the fall protection 
requirements of proposed Sec. 1926.760(a)(1) could have prevented the 
accident by ensuring that the employee was properly protected from fall 
hazards.
    4. July 24, 1987: Fatality. While bolting-up, an employee's foot 
slipped, causing him to fall nearly 24 feet head first to the concrete 
below. OSHA believes that compliance with the fall protection 
requirements of proposed Sec. 1926.760(a)(1) could have prevented the 
accident by ensuring that the employee was properly protected from fall 
hazards.
    OSHA believes that in this case and the case before, compliance 
with the proposed fall protection requirements in Sec. 1926.760(a)(1) 
could have prevented these fatalities by requiring that employees on a 
walking/working surface with an unprotected side or edge more than 15 
feet above a lower level be protected from fall hazards.
    5. November 12, 1987: Fatality. An employee was connecting X-
bracing at the end of a bar joist. The joist was 40 feet long and 
welded at one end. The employee was sitting on the joist connecting the 
X-bracing when the joist slipped. The employee rode the joist down 25 
feet and died of massive head injuries. OSHA believes that compliance 
with existing Sec. 1926.751(c)(3) or the clarified and more 
comprehensive provisions of proposed Sec. 1926.757, the open web steel 
joist section, and more specifically with paragraph (d)(1), could have 
prevented the accident by ensuring that specific erection bridging 
requirements were met before the hoisting cable was released from a 
joist.
    6. April 2, 1987: 1 Fatality, 1 hospitalized injury. Two employees 
had unloaded 2 bundles of metal decking, 2 bundles of bridging and 2 
bundles of roof frames onto 6 open web steel joists 25 feet above 
ground level. The joists were at 5\1/2\ foot centers and welded on the 
end to the ``I'' beam. The employees had just unhooked the second 
bundle of frames when the joist rolled, causing the employees to fall. 
All six joists broke from the welds and collapsed, landing on the 
employee. OSHA believes that this accident also could have been 
prevented by compliance with the proposed open web steel joist section 
of the proposed standard. Specifically, the proposed provisions of 
Sec. 1926.757(e) provide criteria to be met before landing loads on 
joists. The requirements of current subpart R are not as complete or 
comprehensive in this regard.
    OSHA believes that the proposed provisions will enhance employee 
protections by adding new requirements to close gaps in current 
coverage, strengthening many of the existing requirements, and 
promoting compliance by clarifying and consolidating current 
requirements. For further discussion of accident rates and significant 
risk, see Section VII, Preliminary Economic Analysis. 
    Based on the available information referenced in OSHA's preliminary 
economic analysis and other record evidence, OSHA finds that structural 
metal workers are faced with a significant risk of serious injury or 
death that can be reduced substantially by the revisions contained in 
this proposal. The Agency has estimated that, each year, approximately 
38,980 workers in the United States suffer 1,836 serious (i.e., lost-
workday) steel erection injuries. In addition, an estimated 28 steel 
erection workers die every year because of preventable hazardous 
workplace conditions. OSHA's analysis has estimated that, of the 28 
annual steel erection fatalities, 26 (93 percent) will be averted by 
compliance with the proposed standard. Additionally, of the 1,836 lost-
workday steel erection injuries occurring annually, OSHA's analysis 
estimates that 1,151 (63 percent) will be averted by compliance with 
the proposed standard. Therefore, OSHA preliminarily finds it both 
necessary and appropriate to proceed with rulemaking for steel erection 
activities.

V. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard

    The following discussion summarizes and explains each provision in 
the proposal and the substantive changes proposed to be made to the 
provisions of OSHA's existing steel erection standard.

Section 1926.750  Scope and application

    The existing standard does not contain a scope and application 
section. OSHA is proposing to add this new section to clarify that the 
standard would apply to employers engaged in the erection, alteration 
and/or repair of steel in single and multi-story buildings, bridges and 
other structures where steel erection occurs as well as to identify 
some of the specific activities that may be included in steel erection.
    Paragraph (a) Scope. This proposed paragraph states the purpose of 
the subpart, which is to protect employees from the hazards associated 
with steel erection in the construction, alteration and/or repair of 
single and multi-story buildings, bridges, and other structures where 
steel erection occurs. The fact that the existing standard does not 
clearly address scope has caused much debate in the past over what 
structures are covered by subpart R. This paragraph would also clarify 
that subpart R does not apply to electrical transmission towers, 
communication and broadcast towers, or tanks. These structures are 
covered by provisions in other subparts of Part 1926.
    Paragraph (b) Application. In this paragraph, OSHA lists the steel 
erection activities that may be covered by subpart R.
    When SENRAC began negotiations on subpart R, the scope and 
application of subpart R was anticipated to be a major issue for 
deliberation. At the first meeting, the Committee formed a workgroup to 
determine what the proposed scope of subpart R should be. The Committee 
wanted to state clearly that this proposed steel erection standard 
would apply to more than multi-story buildings. The workgroup 
recommended, and the Committee agreed, that steel erection activities 
should include hoisting, connecting, welding, bolting, and rigging 
structural steel, steel joists and metal buildings. The Committee also 
decided that steel erection activities should include the installation 
of metal deck, siding systems, miscellaneous metals, ornamental iron 
and similar materials as well as moving point-to-point while performing 
these activities. OSHA is proposing to include these activities among 
those considered to be steel erection activities, as recommended by the 
Committee.
    In an attempt to clarify what structures and activities could be 
considered steel erection, the scope and application paragraph includes 
an
extensive list of structures and activities as developed by SENRAC (see 
notes to paragraphs (a) and (b) of proposed Sec. 1926.750). The notes 
are an attempt to ensure that employers performing the listed 
activities will be aware that they could potentially be covered by the 
proposed steel erection standard.
    SENRAC intended the notes to enhance compliance by listing 
structures where steel erection could occur since many of the 
structures listed do not always involve steel erection. Likewise, the 
steel erection activities listed include examples of construction 
activities that are sometimes involved in steel erection but may not 
always be conducted by the steel erector. Simply because an employee is 
working on a listed structure or is performing a listed activity does 
not necessarily mean that the employee is engaged in steel erection. 
Thus, there is no presumption that every listed item constitutes a 
steel erection activity or operation. To determine whether a given 
activity on a particular structure does indeed constitute steel 
erection, the employer first must determine that steel erection is 
actually being performed and that the activities being performed are 
covered by this subpart. This determination would be based on the 
following criteria: (1) Whether the work falls within the definition of 
steel erection found in proposed Sec. 1926.751; and (2) Whether the 
structure being erected and the activities being performed fall within 
the scope and application paragraphs found in proposed Sec. 1926.750. 
In other words, in order to be covered by subpart R, as proposed, work 
would have to fit within the definition of steel erection, the scope of 
the proposed standard, and the application of the proposed standard.
    The Committee discussed at length the differences between 
construction and maintenance because the construction industry performs 
millions of manhours per year of ``industrial maintenance'' work. The 
definition of construction contained in the Davis-Bacon Act is:

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

OSHA has interpreted this definition to include alteration, repair, 
renovation, rehabilitation and remodeling of existing facilities or 
structure.
    After clarifying that work is defined based on the nature of the 
work being performed rather than on the job title of the worker 
performing it, SENRAC agreed that the scope of proposed subpart R 
should be governed by the definition of construction work contained in 
Sec. 1910.12(b), Sec. 1926.13 and Sec. 1926.32(g).
    SENRAC debated extensively the detailed lists of structures and 
activities. The Committee decided that these lists should be placed in 
the standard itself in paragraphs (a) and (b), respectively, because 
they stated the broad range of structures and activities that might be 
covered by subpart R. The lists are intended to enhance compliance by 
listing structures where steel erection could occur. OSHA is proposing 
these lists for comment from interested parties. Specifically, are 
these lists necessary? Do they clarify the extent of steel erection 
activities? Will they introduce confusion by suggesting that all steel 
erection activities and structures are included in these lists or, 
alternatively, that any listed activity performed on a listed structure 
necessarily constitutes steel erection? Because of their size, would 
they be more effective as an appendix to the rule or in compliance 
materials?
    OSHA is proposing that the scope of subpart R exclude electrical 
transmission towers, communication and broadcast towers, and tanks from 
coverage. The Committee concluded that tower erection is a specialized 
form of steel erection and that electrical transmission towers are 
regulated under subpart V of 29 CFR Part 1926. In discussing potential 
exclusions from the scope of the proposed standard, the Committee as a 
whole expressed uncertainty about the extent to which these towers were 
currently covered by OSHA standards. OSHA provided a memo to the 
Committee (Ex. 9-53) describing the current coverage of towers in OSHA 
standards. Based on that information and the tower erection industry's 
reasons for exclusion from coverage by subpart R (Ex. 9-127), the 
Committee agreed that it would be appropriate to exclude electrical 
transmission, communication, and broadcast towers from the proposed 
scope. The Committee also believes that tanks should not be included in 
the scope of subpart R since tank construction is also, based on its 
use of cylindrical construction techniques, a specialized industry. In 
addition, the tank industry has clearly stated its reasons for not 
being covered by subpart R (Ex. 9-32F). Since tanks have never been 
covered by subpart R, OSHA is proposing to exclude them from the scope 
of revised subpart R, as well, and the Committee is in agreement with 
this approach. In the case of water towers, OSHA intends subpart R to 
cover the steel structure upon which the water tank is supported but 
not the water tank itself, as recommended by the Committee. OSHA 
specifically solicits comments on the appropriateness of these 
exclusions from the scope of the proposed standard.

Section 1926.751  Definitions

    The current standard does not contain a definitions section. Since 
the proposal is more comprehensive than the existing standard and 
refers to many technical concepts, terms and materials, a definition 
section is being proposed. The proposed definition section lists and 
defines all major terms used in the proposed standard to assist 
employers in understanding the proposed provisions and thus facilitate 
compliance.
    Anchored bridging. This term would be defined by OSHA to mean that 
the steel joist bridging is connected to a bridging terminus point. 
This definition was recommended by the Steel Joist Institute (SJI), 
accepted by the Committee and is being proposed by OSHA.
    Bolted diagonal bridging. OSHA is proposing to define this term to 
mean diagonal bridging which is bolted to a steel joist or joists. This 
definition was developed by a SENRAC workgroup, was accepted by the 
Committee, and is being proposed by OSHA.
    Bridging clip. OSHA is proposing that this term be defined as a 
device that is attached to the steel joist to allow the bolting of the 
bridging to the steel joist. This definition was recommended by SJI and 
accepted by the Committee.
    Bridging terminus point. This term would be defined to mean a wall, 
beam, tandem joists (with all bridging installed and a horizontal truss 
in the plane of the top chord) or other element at an end or 
intermediate point(s) of a line of bridging that provides an anchor 
point for the steel joist bridging. This definition was recommended by 
SJI, accepted by the Committee, and is being proposed by OSHA.
    Choker. OSHA would define this term to mean a wire rope or 
synthetic fiber rigging assembly that is used to attach a load to a 
hoisting device. This definition was developed by a SENRAC workgroup 
and accepted by the Committee.
    Clipped connection. This term would be defined by OSHA to mean the 
connection material on the end of a structural member intended for use 
in a double connection which has a notch at the bottom and/or top to 
allow the bolt(s) of the first member placed on the opposite side of 
the central member to remain in place. The notch(es) fits around the 
nut or bolt head of the opposing member to allow the second member to 
be bolted up without
removing the bolt(s) holding the first member. This definition was 
developed by a workgroup of the Committee and accepted by SENRAC.
    Cold formed joist. OSHA defines this term as an open web joist 
fabricated with cold formed steel components. This definition was 
recommended by SJI, was accepted by the Committee, and is being 
proposed by OSHA.
    Cold forming. This term would be defined by OSHA to mean the 
process of using press brakes, rolls, or other methods to shape steel 
into desired cross sections at room temperature. This definition was 
recommended by the Steel Deck Institute, was accepted by the Committee, 
and is being proposed by the Agency.
    Competent person. This term is defined in Sec. 1926.32(f) as one 
who is capable of identifying existing and predictable hazards in the 
surroundings or working conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous, or 
dangerous to employees, and who has authorization to take prompt 
corrective measures to eliminate them. Because of the frequent use of 
the term in this proposal, the Committee urged OSHA to repeat this 
definition in subpart R even though the definition appears in 
Sec. 1926.32 and applies to all of the standards contained in 29 CFR 
Part 1926, and OSHA agrees with the Committee's recommendation. The 
Committee reasoned that an employer performing steel erection should be 
able to locate the competent person definition in subpart R instead of 
having to search for it elsewhere in Part 1926.
    Composite joists. OSHA defines this term to mean steel joists 
designed to act in composite action with concrete floor and (or) 
concrete roof slabs. Typically, a portion of the top chord of the joist 
(or a lug or similar device attached to the top chord of the joist) is 
embedded in the concrete slab. This definition was developed by a 
SENRAC workgroup and accepted by the Committee.
    Connector. OSHA would define this term to mean an employee who, 
working with hoisting equipment, is placing and connecting structural 
members and/or components. After lengthy discussion on how to define 
what a connector is and what tasks a connector performs, the Committee 
decided to define as narrowly as possible the activities that a 
connector performs in light of the connector-specific proposed fall 
protection provisions in Sec. 1926.760, which will be discussed later 
in the preamble. OSHA requests comment on this definition.
    Construction load for joist erection. This term would be defined to 
mean any load other than the weight of the employee(s), the joists and 
the bridging bundle. This definition was recommended by SJI, accepted 
by the Committee, and is being proposed by OSHA.
    Controlled Decking Zone (CDZ). This term would be defined by OSHA 
to mean an area in which certain work (e.g., initial installation and 
placement of metal deck) may take place without the use of guardrail 
systems, personal fall arrest systems or safety net systems provided 
that alternative procedures (e.g., controlled access, worker training, 
use of control lines or equivalent) are implemented. Controlled decking 
zones are discussed in proposed Sec. 1926.760(c). OSHA requests comment 
on the necessity of defining a CDZ since all of the requirements for a 
CDZ are in proposed Sec. 1926.760(c). If it is necessary to define a 
CDZ, is this an appropriate definition?
    Controlled load lowering. OSHA would define this term to mean 
lowering a load by means of a mechanical hoist drum device that allows 
a hoisted load to be lowered with maximum control using the gear train 
or hydraulic components of the hoist mechanism. Controlled load 
lowering requires the use of the hoist drive motor to lower the load. 
This definition was developed by a SENRAC workgroup and accepted by the 
Committee. Controlled load lowering is an essential component of the 
multiple lift rigging procedure and the hoisting of personnel platforms 
addressed in proposed Sec. 1926.753.
    Controlling contractor. OSHA would define this term to mean a prime 
contractor, general contractor, construction manager or any other legal 
entity at the site who has, by contract with other parties, the overall 
responsibility for the project, its planning, quality and completion 
and is intended to describe an entity in addition to the steel erector 
who is responsible for hazards that result from poor performance, pre-
planning, or communication. Based on its analysis of actual steel 
erection fatalities, catastrophes and collapses, the Committee agreed 
that many hazardous situations could have been avoided if, for example, 
concrete foundations had been properly cured, anchor bolts that were 
replaced had been properly repaired, or cranes had been appropriately 
placed to avoid overhead exposure. All of these primarily fall within 
the responsibility of the controlling contractor. In several of the 
proposed revisions, therefore, OSHA is proposing, based on the 
Committee's recommendation, that the controlling contractor be held 
responsible for communicating with the steel erector to prevent 
accidents from happening during certain activities; see, for example, 
Sec. 1926.752(a), (b) and (c) (Approval to begin steel erection, site 
layout and overhead protection, respectively); Sec. 1926.755(b)(3) 
(Repair, replacement or field modification of anchor bolts); 
Sec. 1926.759(b) (Falling object protection); and Sec. 1926.760(e) 
(Fall protection). OSHA solicits comments from interested parties on 
the appropriateness of this approach to ensuring accountability for 
adequate planning and coordination.
    Critical lift. OSHA proposes to define this term to mean a lift 
that (1) exceeds 75% of the rated capacity of the crane or derrick, or 
(2) requires the use of more than one crane or derrick. This definition 
was developed by a SENRAC workgroup and accepted by the Committee.
    Decking hole. OSHA would define this term to mean a gap or void 
more than 2 inches (5.1 cm) in its least dimension and less than 12 
inches (30.5 cm) in its greatest dimension in a floor, roof or other 
walking/working surface. Pre-engineered holes in cellular decking are 
not included in this definition. This definition was developed by a 
SENRAC workgroup to be industry specific and was accepted by the 
Committee. The workgroup borrowed part of this definition from the 
subpart M definition of ``hole.'' The subpart M definition was 
modified, however, to limit the size of a hole to more than 2 inches in 
its least dimension and less than 12 inches in its greatest dimension 
to be compatible with the definition of an opening (defined later). The 
proposed definition of decking hole and the proposed definition of 
opening differ from the subpart M definitions in that subpart M uses 
the term ``hole'' to describe all holes and openings in floors, roofs 
and other walking/working surfaces and uses the term ``opening'' to 
apply only to holes and openings in walls. By custom and practice, the 
common usage of these same terms in steel erection refers to different 
situations and hazards. In steel erection, a hole is a commonly used 
term that means a small gap or void that presents a tripping hazard or 
a falling object hazard and an opening is a larger gap or void in a 
walking/working surface that presents a fall hazard to the employee. 
Therefore, to be more industry specific, OSHA is proposing to define 
``decking hole'' and ``opening'' based on the size of the gap or void 
in a floor, roof or other walking/working surface only. This proposal 
contains requirements that treat ``decking holes'' and ``openings'' 
differently, which necessitates having
two separate definitions based on the size of the gap or void.
    Derrick floor. This term, which was developed by a SENRAC workgroup 
and accepted by the Committee, would be defined by OSHA to mean that 
elevated floor of a building or structure that has been designated to 
receive hoisted pieces of steel prior to their final placement.
    Double connection. OSHA proposes to define this term to mean an 
attachment method where the connection point is intended for two pieces 
of steel which share common bolts on either side of a central piece. 
This definition was developed by the Committee to address the serious 
collapse hazard involved in making this complex connection. Double 
connections are discussed in proposed Sec. 1926.756(c).
    Erection bridging. OSHA would define this term to mean the bolted 
diagonal bridging that must be installed prior to releasing the 
hoisting cables from the steel joists. This definition was recommended 
by SJI and accepted by the Committee and the term is found in proposed 
Sec. 1926.757, Open Web Steel Joists.
    Fall restraint (Positioning device) system. This term would be 
defined by OSHA to mean a body belt or body harness used to prevent an 
employee from free falling more than 24 inches (61 cm) and where self 
rescue can be assured. Such a system consists of an anchorage, 
connectors, a body belt or harness and may include a lanyard, 
deceleration device, lifeline, or suitable combination of these. This 
definition was developed by the Committee, and the term is used in 
proposed Sec. 1926.760, Fall Protection. The criteria for ``positioning 
device systems'' found in Sec. 1926.502(e) would apply to these types 
of fall restraint systems used in steel erection.
    Girt (in pre-engineered metal buildings). This term would be 
defined by OSHA to mean a ``Z'' or ``C'' shaped member formed from 
sheet steel spanning between primary framing and supporting wall 
material. This definition was developed by a SENRAC workgroup, accepted 
by the Committee, and the term is used in proposed Sec. 1926.758, Pre-
engineered Metal Buildings.
    Headache ball. OSHA proposes to define this term to mean a weighted 
hook that is used to attach loads to the hoist load line of the crane. 
This definition was developed by a SENRAC workgroup, accepted by the 
Committee, and is used in proposed Sec. 1926.753, Hoisting and Rigging.
    Hoisting equipment. This term would be defined to mean commercially 
manufactured lifting equipment designed to lift and position a load of 
known weight to an erection location at some known elevation and 
horizontal distance from the equipment's center of rotation. ``Hoisting 
equipment'' includes but is not limited to cranes, derricks, tower 
cranes, barge-mounted derricks or cranes, gin poles and gantry hoist 
systems. The Committee developed a definition for hoisting equipment 
that would include all equipment that is used in steel erection to lift 
loads to a specified location. The intent was to ensure that this 
equipment is not strictly limited to cranes. The definition was also 
crafted to avoid a situation where a steel erector might elect to 
characterize employees who are not true connectors, e.g., detailers, as 
connectors by providing them with a ``come-a-long'' to meet the 
definition of connector. Thus, a ``come-a-long'' would not be included 
in the definition of hoisting equipment because a ``come-a-long'' is a 
mechanical device, usually consisting of a chain or cable attached at 
each end, that is used to facilitate movement of materials through 
leverage rather than true hoisting equipment.
    Leading edge. OSHA proposes to define this term to mean the 
unprotected side and edge of a floor, roof, or formwork for a floor or 
other walking/working surface (such as deck) which changes location as 
additional floor, roof, decking or formwork sections are placed, formed 
or constructed. This definition is based on the subpart M definition of 
``leading edge'' but was enhanced by the Committee which added 
``unprotected side and'' before ``edge'' to clarify that all 
unprotected sides and edges would be defined in subpart R as leading 
edges.
    Metal deck. This term would be defined by OSHA to mean a 
commercially manufactured, structural grade, cold rolled metal panel 
formed into a series of parallel ribs; for this subpart, this would 
include metal floor and roof decks, standing seam metal roofs, other 
metal roof systems and other products such as bar gratings, checker 
plate, expanded metal panels, and similar products. After installation 
and proper fastening, these decking materials serve a combination of 
functions including, but not limited to: a structural element designed 
in combination with the structure to resist, distribute and transfer 
loads, stiffen the structure and provide a diaphragm action; a walking/
working surface; a form for concrete slabs; a support for roofing 
systems; and a finished floor or roof. This definition was developed by 
a SENRAC workgroup and accepted by the Committee. This workgroup 
believes that, for the purposes of steel erection, rather than 
referring to several similar building materials associated with a 
particular hazard, a generic term should be defined and then be used 
consistently in the standard. Since the materials listed in this 
definition are all similarly installed and eventually become walking/
working surfaces, the workgroup believes that a single term would 
provide both greater clarity and facilitate compliance. In developing 
this definition, the workgroup relied on the Steel Deck Institute (SDI) 
``Manual of Construction with Steel Deck,'' in addition to its own 
collective expertise.
    Multiple lift rigging. OSHA would define this term to mean a 
rigging assembly manufactured by wire rope rigging suppliers that 
facilitates the attachment of up to five independent loads to the hoist 
rigging of a crane. This definition was developed by a SENRAC workgroup 
and accepted by the Committee.
    Opening. OSHA would define this term to mean a gap or void 12 
inches (30.5 cm) or more in its least dimension in a floor, roof or 
other walking/working surface. For the purposes of this subpart, 
skylights and smoke domes that do not meet the strength requirements 
for covered openings in Sec. 1926.760(d)(1) would be regarded as 
openings. This definition was developed by a SENRAC workgroup to 
prevent workers from sitting or walking on covers that are insufficient 
to support their weight. The last sentence of the definition was added 
to ensure that skylights and smoke domes would not be considered 
covered if they do not meet the strength requirements for covered 
openings in Sec. 1926.760(d)(1) and therefore must be protected by 
other means. This definition differs from the definition in subpart M 
of this part as discussed earlier in the definition of ``decking 
hole.''
    Permanent floor. This term would be defined by OSHA to mean a 
structurally completed floor at any level or elevation (including slab 
on grade). A floor would be considered a permanent floor when all the 
work contained on the structural contract documents has been completed 
for that floor. Concrete poured on metal deck and grating or floor 
plate applied to structural members would be considered permanent 
floors. This definition was developed by the Committee to promote 
clarity.
    Personal fall arrest system. OSHA would define this term to mean a 
system used to arrest an employee in a fall from a working level; a 
personal fall arrest system consists of an anchorage, connectors, and a 
body harness and may
include a lanyard, deceleration device, lifeline, or suitable 
combination of these. The Committee recommended that this definition be 
identical to the definition used in subpart M of this part.
    Pre-engineered metal building. This term would be defined by OSHA 
to mean a field-assembled building system consisting of framing, roof 
and wall coverings, and generally made of steel. Typically, in a pre-
engineered metal building, many of these components are cold-formed 
shapes. These individual parts are fabricated in one or more 
manufacturing facilities and shipped to the job site for assembly into 
the final structure. Engineering design of the system is normally the 
responsibility of the pre-engineered metal building manufacturer. This 
definition was developed by a SENRAC workgroup and accepted by the 
Committee.
    Project structural engineer of record. This term, which was 
developed by the Committee and is used throughout the proposed 
standard, would be defined by OSHA to mean the registered, licensed 
professional responsible for the design of structural steel framing and 
whose seal appears on the structural contract documents.
    Purlin (in pre-engineered metal buildings). OSHA proposes to define 
this term to mean a ``Z'' or ``C'' shaped member formed from sheet 
steel spanning between primary framing and supporting roof material. 
This definition was developed by a SENRAC workgroup and accepted by the 
Committee.
    Qualified person. This term, which is also defined in 
Sec. 1926.32(m), would be defined in the proposed standard to mean one 
who, by possession of a recognized degree, certificate, or professional 
standing, or who by extensive knowledge, training, and experience, has 
successfully demonstrated the ability to solve or resolve problems 
relating to the subject matter, the work, or the project. As with the 
definition of competent person, because of the frequent use of the term 
in this proposal, the Committee urged OSHA to repeat this definition in 
subpart R even though the definition already exists in Sec. 1926.32 and 
applies to all of the standards contained in 29 CFR Part 1926 because 
repeating it would enable an employer performing steel erection to 
locate the qualified person definition in subpart R instead of having 
to search for it somewhere else in Part 1926.
    Safety deck attachment. OSHA is proposing to define this term to 
mean an initial attachment that is used to secure an initially placed 
sheet of decking to keep proper alignment and bearing with structural 
support members. The term originally used in the controlled decking 
zone (CDZ) working draft was ``safety deck welding'' and ``tack 
welds.'' Committee members pointed out that there were ways to attach 
the decking other than welding, e.g., mechanical fastening. Since the 
intent is to safely ``attach'' the newly placed decking panels, the 
proposed rule uses the broader language recommended by the Committee.
    Seat. This term would be defined by OSHA to mean a structural 
attachment mounted to a structural member beneath a connection point, 
designed to support an incoming member that is to be connected to the 
first member. This term, which was developed by a SENRAC workgroup and 
accepted by the Committee, is used in the double connection section, 
Sec. 1926.756(c).
    Shear connector. OSHA is proposing to define this term to include 
headed steel studs, steel bars, steel lugs, and similar devices which 
are attached to a structural member for the purpose of achieving 
composite action with concrete, i.e., strengthening the top flange of 
the beam by interacting with the concrete to achieve a higher strength. 
This definition was developed by the Committee.
    Steel erection. This term would be defined by OSHA to mean the 
erection of steel buildings, bridges and other structures, including 
the installation of steel flooring and roofing members and all planking 
and decking used during the process of erection. This definition was 
developed by the Committee, and OSHA requests comments on the 
appropriateness of this definition.
    Steel joist. OSHA proposes to define this term to mean an open web, 
secondary load-carrying member of 144 feet (43.9 m) or less suitable 
for the support of floors and roofs. This term does not include 
structural steel trusses or cold-formed joists. This definition was 
recommended by SJI and accepted by the Committee.
    Steel joist girder. OSHA would define this term to mean an open 
web, primary load-carrying member, designed by the manufacturer, 
suitable for the support of floors and roofs. This does not include 
structural steel trusses. This definition was recommended by SJI and 
accepted by the Committee.
    Steel truss. This term would be defined by OSHA to mean an open web 
member designed of structural steel components by the project 
structural engineer of record. For the purposes of this subpart, a 
steel truss would be considered equivalent to a solid web structural 
member. This definition was recommended by SJI and accepted by the 
Committee.
    Unprotected sides and edges. OSHA proposes to define this term to 
mean any side or edge (except at entrances to points of access) of a 
walking/working surface, e.g., floor, roof, ramp or runway, where there 
is no wall or guardrail system at least 39 inches (1.0 m) high. This 
definition is identical to the corresponding definition in subpart M of 
this part.

Section 1926.752  Site Layout, Site-specific Erection Plan and 
Construction Sequence

    After a review of accident reports involving collapses, the 
Committee reached the conclusion that many of these accidents could 
have been averted had adequate pre-erection communication and planning 
occurred. This section of the proposed rule sets forth OSHA's 
requirements for proper communication between the controlling 
contractor and the steel erector prior to the beginning of the steel 
erection operation and proper pre-planning by the steel erector to 
minimize overhead exposure during hoisting operations; Appendix A, 
which is referred to in this section, would also provide guidelines for 
employers who elect to develop a site-specific erection plan. OSHA's 
current standard does not contain provisions similar to those being 
proposed in this section.
    Paragraph (a) Approval to begin steel erection.
    The Committee recognized that under current practices in the 
industry, erection decisions are often made in the field when the steel 
arrives. The Committee believes that pre-planning and coordination are 
currently not occurring to the extent they should be.
    OSHA agrees that lack of adequate planning and coordination 
contributes to accidents and is proposing, in paragraph (a)(1), that 
the controlling contractor ensure that the concrete in footings, piers, 
or walls, or the mortar in masonry piers and walls has achieved a 
minimum of 75% of its design compressive strength prior to the 
imposition of any structural steel load or has achieved a strength that 
is sufficient to support the loads imposed. This proposed requirement 
agrees with a recommendation by the American Institute of Steel 
Construction (AISC) and is similar to the OSHA requirement for concrete 
construction found in Sec. 1926.703(e)(ii), which requires that 
formwork not be removed from cast-in-place concrete ``* * * until the 
concrete has been properly tested with an appropriate American Society 
for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard
test method designed to indicate the concrete compressive strength, and 
the test results indicate that the concrete has gained sufficient 
strength to support its weight and superimposed loads.'' Since the 
footings, piers and walls intended to be covered by this proposed 
section will be supporting the steel structure being erected, OSHA, as 
well as the Committee, wishes to ensure that this information is 
provided to the steel erector before the steel is placed on the 
concrete.
    Paragraph (a)(2) cross-references Sec. 1926.755(b) and would 
require that any repairs, replacements, and field modifications be 
performed in accordance with the anchor bolt requirements contained in 
Sec. 1926.755(b). As in the case of proposed paragraph (a)(1), OSHA, 
along with the Committee, wishes to ensure that the steel erector is 
informed of any repair, replacement, or modification to the anchor 
bolts prior to the placement of steel.
    Paragraph (b) of this section sets out the site conditions that 
would have to be provided and maintained by the controlling contractor 
in order for the steel erector to move around the site and perform 
necessary operations in a safe manner.
    Paragraph (b)(1) would require that the controlling contractor 
provide and maintain adequate access roads into and through the site 
for the safe delivery and movement of derricks, cranes, trucks, other 
necessary equipment, and the material to be erected as well as means 
and methods for pedestrian and vehicular control. Compliance with this 
provision could be achieved by developing access roads and clearly 
demonstrated pedestrian areas, and maintaining these throughout the 
life of the project.
    Paragraph (b)(2) would require that the controlling contractor also 
provide and maintain a firm, properly graded, drained area, readily 
accessible to the work and with adequate space for the safe storage of 
materials and the safe operation of the erector's equipment. The 
provisions in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) are necessary to ensure that 
a site is prepared for the safe commencement of steel erection at a 
site. The Committee determined and OSHA agrees that the responsibility 
to provide and maintain site conditions lies primarily with the 
controlling contractor, who is responsible for the overall project and 
is the employer in the best position to minimize the hazards associated 
with improper site layout and conditions. The provisions in proposed 
paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) were derived from the AISC code of 
standard practice for steel buildings and bridges (Ex. 9-36).
    Proposed paragraph (c) addresses the hazards associated with 
overhead loads. Specifically, these hazards include failure of the 
lifting device, which would create a crushing hazard, and items falling 
from the load, which creates a struck by hazard. Given the nature of 
the loads used in steel erection, either of these events could result 
in serious injury or death.
    Paragraph (c) would require that all hoisting operations in steel 
erection be pre-planned to ensure that no employee is required to be 
exposed to overhead hazards and that this pre-planning be done in 
accordance with Sec. 1926.753(b), which contains criteria for working 
under loads, and Sec. 1926.759, which contains requirements for falling 
object protection. (Although the specific requirements of proposed 
Sec. 1926.753(b) and Sec. 1926.759 are discussed later in the preamble, 
OSHA believes that including a cross-reference to these overhead 
protection requirements along with the other requirements that deal 
with site preparation and pre-planning would enhance safety and promote 
compliance.)
    As a result of site-specific considerations, paragraph (d) would 
permit employers to elect, due to conditions specific to the site, to 
provide employee protection by means other than those specified in 
Sec. 1926.753(a)(5), Sec. 1926.757(a)(3), or Sec. 1926.757(e)(4)(i), if 
they develop a site-specific erection plan that specifies alternative 
means and methods to be used. The site-specific erection plan would 
have to be developed by a qualified person, and the plan must be 
available to the employees at the site. During initial discussions, the 
Committee considered a requirement that would require every steel 
erection employer to develop a site-specific erection plan in writing 
for every project but decided that such a requirement would be 
unnecessarily paperwork-intensive, especially for small businesses. 
OSHA is providing, in Appendix A, a guideline for establishing the 
components of a site-specific erection plan, as recommended by the 
Committee. This appendix will assist employers in developing a site-
specific erection plan. A site-specific erection plan will be easier to 
complete once the erector has developed a model plan. Some site-
specific conditions that might lead an employer to rely on an 
alternative rather than the requirements specified in paragraphs 
Sec. 1926.753(a)(5), Sec. 1926.757(a)(3), and Sec. 1926.757(e)(4)(i), 
and examples of possible alternative methods, are addressed in the 
discussion of these paragraphs later in this preamble.

Section 1926.753  Hoisting and Rigging

    An essential element of steel erection is the rigging and hoisting 
of structural steel members and materials. Several hazards are 
associated with these operations. This section proposes requirements 
for hoisting and rigging operations during steel erection activities.
    Paragraph (a) General. 
    Paragraph (a)(1) would require a pre-shift visual inspection of 
cranes to be used for steel erection. Paragraph (a)(1)(i) would require 
that, in addition to meeting the requirements of Sec. 1926.550, cranes 
being used in steel erection activities be visually inspected prior to 
each shift by a competent person; this inspection must include 
observation of the equipment during operation to detect any 
deficiencies.
    The current requirements of Sec. 1926.550 require that all crawler, 
truck or locomotive cranes in use meet the applicable requirements for 
design, inspection, construction, testing, maintenance and operation 
prescribed in the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard 
B30.5-1968, Safety Code for Crawler, Locomotive and Truck Cranes (Ex. 
9-114). In addition to the requirements of Sec. 1926.550, OSHA has 
preliminarily concluded, and the Committee agrees, that a more frequent 
inspection is needed for cranes being used for steel erection. An 
inspection prior to each shift is necessary to provide an added measure 
of protection because the proposed rule would permit certain 
specialized and potentially hazardous types of hoisting operations. 
These hoisting operations include the use of cranes to hoist employees 
on a personnel platform (Sec. 1926.753(a)(4)); to perform multiple 
lifts (Sec. 1926.753(c)); and to suspend loads over employees 
(Sec. 1926.753(b)). Since these operations are inherently dangerous, it 
is particularly critical for the hoisting equipment to be in proper 
working condition, which means that a complete visual inspection must 
be performed before each shift by a competent person, e.g., the 
operator or oiler of the hoisting equipment being used or, on a large 
project, the master mechanic who checks each crane. This pre-shift 
visual inspection is anticipated to take between 10 and 20 minutes. At 
a minimum, the inspection would include the items listed in paragraphs 
(a)(i)(A) through (L); namely, inspection of (A) all control mechanisms 
for maladjustment; (B) control and drive mechanisms for excessive wear 
of
components and contamination by lubricants, water or other foreign 
matter; (C) safety devices, including, but not limited to, boom angle 
indicators, boom stops, boom kick-out devices, anti-two block devices, 
and load moment indicators where required; (D) air, hydraulic, and 
other pressurized lines for deterioration or leakage, particularly 
those which flex in normal operation; (E) hooks and latches for 
deformation, chemical damage, cracks, or wear; (F) wire rope reeving 
for compliance with hoisting equipment manufacturer's specifications; 
(G) electrical apparatus for malfunctioning, signs of excessive 
deterioration, dirt, or moisture accumulation; (H) hydraulic system for 
proper fluid level; (I) tires for proper inflation and condition; (J) 
ground conditions around the hoisting equipment for proper support, 
including ground settling under and around outriggers, ground water 
accumulation or other similar conditions; (K) the hoisting equipment 
for level position; and (L) the hoisting equipment for level position 
after each move and setup.
    These are the inspection criteria listed in the ANSI B30.5-1968 
standard; this standard is referenced in the current OSHA crane 
requirements of Sec. 1926.550. These criteria are also included in the 
updated ANSI B30.5-1994, Mobile and Locomotive Cranes standard (Ex. 9-
113), as a guideline for items which should be included in a pre-shift 
visual inspection. Items (A) through (I) are essentially the same as 
the requirements contained in the ANSI B30.5-1994 standard. The 
Committee recommended using the B30.5-1994 standard as the basis of 
reference since it reflects the most up-to-date industry practices; 
OSHA agrees with this recommendation. In the B30.5-1994 standard, items 
(a)(1)(i)(A) through (I) must be inspected during frequent inspections 
which, according to that standard, are assumed to take place at daily 
to monthly intervals, although items (A) and (D) are specifically 
recommended for daily inspection by that standard. The Committee 
considered whether the items in (A) through (L) should be inspected 
daily rather than pre-shift. However, the Committee noted that if a 
crane or other piece of hoisting equipment is not used for several 
days, it is only necessary to inspect that equipment before the shift 
on which it is to be used. As recommended by the Committee, OSHA is 
proposing that equipment need not be inspected if it is not to be used 
that day. Items (J), (K) and (L) were added by the Committee to provide 
additional safety during the critical period when the hoisting 
equipment is being set up. Item (J) is important when hoisting 
equipment is set up to ensure that all ground conditions in the area of 
the hoisting equipment are adequate to provide proper support for the 
hoisting equipment. Item (K) would simply require that the operator 
check a site glass, carpenter's level or the leveling mechanism 
contained on the hoisting equipment. Item (L) would ensure that, if the 
hoisting equipment is moved during a shift, it would be checked for 
level after setup. OSHA requests comment on whether, since items (A) 
through (K) are pre-shift inspections and item (L) is actually an 
inspection that takes place during the shift, item (L) should be placed 
elsewhere in paragraph (a).
    As indicated above, the Committee intended these pre-shift 
inspections to reflect the current safe practices of the industry while 
at the same time imposing as little additional burden on the employer 
as possible. OSHA agrees with SENRAC's determination that a visual 
inspection is sufficient to accomplish these intentions, together with 
such movement of the crane as may be necessary to conduct the visual 
inspection. For example, to visually inspect the boom angle indicators 
the crane must be moved to determine that the indicators are 
functioning properly. Also, the anti-two blocking device can be 
visually inspected only by raising the headache ball to the crown block 
to ensure that the device automatically cuts off the power to the 
hoisting equipment. The ANSI B30.5 language, ``[Inspect] tires for 
recommended inflation pressure,'' was interpreted by the Committee to 
mean that a tire pressure gauge should be used to determine inflation 
pressure. However, the SENRAC Committee believes that the tires need 
only to be visually inspected for proper inflation as well as for 
overall condition and that no tire pressure gauge is needed. The 
proposal, therefore, calls for a ``visual inspection of tires for 
proper inflation and condition.''
    Paragraph (a)(1)(ii) would require that, after the pre-shift 
inspection has been completed and a deficiency has been identified, the 
competent person is to determine immediately whether the deficiency 
constitutes a hazard. This paragraph is essentially the same as the 
requirement in ANSI B30.5-1994. Paragraph (a)(1)(iii) proposes to 
require that, if the competent person determines that the deficiency 
constitutes a hazard, the hoisting equipment be removed from service 
until the deficiency has been corrected. The Committee felt and OSHA 
concurs that it is necessary not only to determine that there is a 
deficiency but to ensure that the hoisting equipment is taken out of 
service until corrective actions are taken.
    Paragraph (a)(1)(iv) would require that the employer keep a record 
of the inspection, including the date of the inspection; the signature 
of the person who inspected the hoisting equipment; and a serial number 
or other identifier for the hoisting equipment inspected. This 
certification record can be a check sheet or log book in which the 
operator or other inspector places a check mark next to the appropriate 
item on the list after visually checking it and then signs and dates 
the sheet or book. A crane operator's log book would be sufficient (Ex. 
9-112).
    Paragraph (a)(1)(v) would require that equipment operators be 
responsible for those operations under their direct control. Whenever 
there is any doubt as to the safety of the hoisting operation, the 
operator would have the authority to stop and to refuse to continue 
until safety has been assured. Since the operator is normally the most 
knowledgeable person about the equipment being used, OSHA agrees that 
the operator should have control over shutting down the equipment if it 
is believed to pose a safety concern. This requirement is identical to 
the parallel requirement in the ANSI B30.5-1968 standard for operating 
practices and is currently required since Sec. 1926.550(b)(2) 
incorporates the ANSI B30.5-1968 standard by reference. The Committee 
decided that the B30.5-1968 requirement assigning responsibility for 
the safe operation of the hoisting equipment to the operator provides a 
greater degree of safety than the ANSI B30.5-1994 requirement, which 
places authority with the supervisor. A letter from a professional 
engineering firm to the secretary of the ASME B30 committee (Exhibit 9-
133) addresses this issue as follows:

    * * * Control of a heavy-lifting operation solely under the 
direction of a supervisor or any other person who may be less 
qualified than he, is not prudent. The crane operator has 
instrumentation in the crane to base his action upon, and should be 
the ultimate person to make decisions about the capacity and safety 
of both the machine and lifting operation * * *
    A qualified crane operator can make decisions about handling a 
crane load. A supervisor may or may not have qualifications in safe 
crane operation. Safe crane operation belongs in the domain of 
qualified operators, not managers.

    Paragraph (a)(2) would require that, prior to each shift, a 
qualified rigger inspect the rigging in accordance with
Sec. 1926.251 of this part. OSHA accepts the Committee's conclusion 
that it is not necessary to define the term ``qualified rigger.'' A 
qualified rigger is thus simply a ``qualified person'' who is 
performing the inspection of the rigging equipment. Rigging would be 
inspected according to the requirements in Sec. 1926.251 of this part, 
Rigging Equipment for Material Handling. To promote ease of compliance, 
the proposal provides a cross reference to that section.
    Paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) address the issue of transporting 
employees using hoisting equipment. Paragraph (a)(3) would prohibit the 
direct use of the headache ball, hook or load to transport personnel 
except as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(v)(4) of this section. These 
practices are widely recognized to be unsafe since they expose the 
employee to hazards of falling off the load or, in a case where the 
load falls, falling with the load.
    Paragraph (a)(4) of the proposal would allow the use of cranes and 
derricks to hoist employees on a personnel platform (e.g., man basket) 
when work under this subpart is being conducted, even though the 
requirements of Sec. 1926.550(g)(2), Crane or Derrick Suspended 
Personnel Platforms, prohibit the use of a crane or derrick to hoist 
employees on a personnel platform unless structural design or worksite 
conditions make conventional means more hazardous or infeasible. In 
steel erection, however, the work station moves progressively as pieces 
of structural steel are connected to each other. This means that 
elevators cannot be installed until much of the structure has been 
completed. Transporting ironworkers to a workstation elevated hundreds 
of feet in the air by hoisting a personnel platform with a crane 
eliminates the hazards associated with worker fatigue that can occur 
from climbing or walking up. The Committee also believes that many 
steel erection activities (particularly repetitive activities performed 
at different locations, such as bolting-up, that require a great deal 
of climbing up and down) can be performed much more safely and 
efficiently, and with greatly reduced exposure to hazards, when done 
from a personnel platform than from scaffolding. The time to perform 
the activity is only a fraction of the time to erect and dismantle the 
scaffolding that would be required to do the job safely. Exposures to 
fall hazards and other hazards associated with erection and dismantling 
of scaffolds for short term, repetitive activities are eliminated by 
the use of a personnel platform. The Committee further noted that, when 
cranes or lifts are used to hoist a personnel platform, employees 
engaged in steel erection are still protected by the other requirements 
of Sec. 1926.550(g). These include hoisting work practices, such as 
performing the lift in a slow, cautious and controlled manner; holding 
pre-lift meetings; conducting trial lifts; requiring a safety factor of 
ten; and the use of engineering controls, such as anti-two blocking 
protection and controlled lowering capability. OSHA agrees that these 
measures increase the safety of employees being hoisted on a personnel 
platform; OSHA seeks comment from interested parties on the issue of 
hoisting employees as a regular practice in steel erection.
    Paragraph (a)(5) would prohibit safety latches on hooks from being 
deactivated or made inoperable except: when a qualified rigger has 
determined that the hoisting and placing of purlins and single joists 
can be performed more safely by doing so; or when equivalent protection 
is provided in a site-specific erection plan. Some activities in steel 
erection create a situation where it is actually safer to hoist members 
by deactivating the safety latch, e.g., when it eliminates the need for 
workers to climb up or onto unstable structural members, such as single 
columns or single bar joists, to unhook the member. The proposal would 
allow the employer to defeat or tie-back the safety latch in two 
situations: first, if a qualified rigger (during hoisting and placing 
of purlins and single joists) determines that deactivating the safety 
latch presents a lesser hazard than leaving it on, or second, if it 
provides equivalent protection and is incorporated as a safe practice 
for particular lifts in a site-specific erection plan. This would 
eliminate abuse of the technique and ensure that, when it is performed, 
the necessary precautions are taken. OSHA solicits information on the 
appropriateness of this approach, particularly with regard to the 
protection provided to the workers involved in such lifts.
    Paragraph (b) Working under loads. The proposed requirements of 
paragraph (b) were patterned after requirements in Sec. 5002 of the 
California Code of Regulations (Ex. 9-24D1) that regulate overhead 
loads for occasional unavoidable exposure.
    Paragraph (b)(1) would require that routes for suspended loads be 
pre-planned to ensure that no employee is required to work directly 
below a suspended load, with exceptions for certain employees. 
Normally, hoisting operations can be performed from one location with a 
clear travel path and no overhead passes. OSHA understands, however, 
that overhead passes cannot be eliminated entirely due to the 
complexity of modern construction, which requires that many activities 
take place concurrently. On many building sites, for example, existing 
buildings, structures, streets, overhead lines and so forth make it 
possible to hoist construction materials from one or two storage areas. 
As a result, loads must be moved over the same work areas throughout 
the course of the job. In addition, on some large projects, such as the 
construction of power plants, many hoisting operations take place 
simultaneously. In such situations, cranes must be located throughout 
the site to access every part of the project. Scheduling the work to 
avoid moving loads over occupied work areas is often not feasible. 
Although the proposed requirement allows loads to be moved overhead, it 
requires the employer to minimize such exposure to the extent possible.
    Employees engaged in the initial connection of steel and employees 
necessary for hooking or unhooking the load are the only employees 
allowed to work directly below a suspended load, because they must do 
so to accomplish their jobs. This provision is intended to limit the 
number of employees exposed to the hazard of falling overhead loads.
    OSHA has allowed employees to work under overhead loads in certain 
other, narrowly limited, work situations. For example, a similar 
provision is found in the OSHA construction standards in subpart Q of 
this Part, Concrete and Masonry Construction. Section 1926.704(e) of 
that standard provides:

    No employee shall be permitted under precast concrete members 
being lifted or tilted into position except those employees required 
for the erection of those members.

Similarly, the lift-slab section, Sec. 1926.705(k)(1), allows some 
employees in certain operations to work under a suspended load; in this 
case, the operation involves lifting the slabs into place by the jacks:

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

    When employees engaged in steel erection must work under a 
suspended load, such exposure must be governed by the criteria in 
paragraph (b)(2). These criteria require, first, that materials being 
hoisted be rigged to prevent unintentional displacement. In addition, 
safety hooks with self-closing latches or their equivalent must be used 
to prevent components from slipping out of the hook; this precaution 
eliminates the
chance of components disengaging from the hook and causing the load to 
fall. An equivalent device could be a hook with another type of closing 
device, i.e., a hook with a spring-loaded gate or another type of 
safety hook that would provide the same level of safety as a safety 
hook with a self-closing latch. Finally, the loads must be rigged by a 
qualified rigger.
    Paragraph (c) Multiple lift rigging procedure. 
    This section proposes specific performance and work practice 
requirements to be met when a steel erector chooses to lift multiple 
pieces of steel at one time as an alternative to single lifting of 
individual structural members. This procedure, also known as 
``christmas treeing'' or ``tandem loading,'' is not addressed in OSHA's 
existing steel erection standard. Although the hazards associated with 
the lifting of tandem loads are substantial, the Committee believes 
that the practice can be made safe if the means and methods set forth 
in this paragraph are strictly observed. In drawing this conclusion, 
the Committee considered the information described in the following 
paragraphs.
    Floor beams currently in use are comparatively light and may not be 
strong enough to support a bundle of structural steel safely. Thus, the 
steel must be picked up from the ground. Picking up single beams one at 
a time is not always practical, and tandem loads significantly increase 
efficiency. Some safety benefits are associated with this procedure, 
including a reduction in the length of time connectors and others are 
exposed to the hazards posed by overhead loads because fewer swings are 
required, a reduction in the time connectors must spend out on the iron 
because tandem loading allows them to complete their tasks more 
quickly, and reduced stress on the crane operator because fewer 
mechanical operations are required.
    An OSHA letter dated September 9, 1993, from the Director of the 
Office of Construction and Engineering to the Regional Administrator of 
Region 1 describes some of the benefits of christmas treeing:

    Christmas treeing could indeed be productive and efficient on 
projects when erecting floor or roof filler beams, all of the same 
length and weight with similar details at each end of the beams. In 
large industrial projects where the location of the crane is much 
farther away from the bay under erection, christmas treeing could 
also prove to be efficient. Further, the practice reduces the total 
number of swings the crane makes in each project, thus reducing the 
risk of exposing the workers located in the vicinity of the crane or 
in the path of travel of the load (Ex. 9-13G, p. 2).

    Paragraph (c)(1) would provide the criteria that must be met for a 
multiple lift to be permitted at all under this rule. A multiple lift 
rigging assembly, as defined in the definition section, must be 
utilized. By definition, the assembly must have been manufactured by a 
wire rope rigging supplier. Since this is a specialized type of lift, 
the rigging assembly must have been designed specifically for the 
particular use in a multiple lift and meet the specifics of the 
definition. A multiple lift may not involve hoisting more than five (5) 
members during the lift. Limiting the number of members hoisted is 
essential to safety, and the Committee has determined that five members 
is the maximum number that can be hoisted safely, taking into account 
the necessity of controlling both the load and the empty rigging. In 
addition, this limit on the number of members recognizes that a typical 
bay, consisting of up to five members, could be filled with a single 
lift. Too many members in a lift may create a string that is too 
awkward to control or allow too much empty rigging to dangle loose, 
creating a hazard to employees.
    In addition, only structural members may be lifted during a 
multiple lift. Other items, such as bundles of decking, do not lend 
themselves to the multiple lift procedure. A typical multiple lift 
member would be a wide flange beam section between 10 and 30 feet long, 
typically weighing less than 1,800 pounds. Employees engaged in a 
multiple lift operation must be trained in these procedures in 
accordance with Sec. 1926.761(c)(1), which contains specific training 
requirements for employees engaged in multiple lifts. Due to the 
specialized nature of multiple lifts and the knowledge necessary to 
perform them safely, this training requirement is necessary to ensure 
that employees are properly trained in all aspects of multiple lift 
procedures.
    Paragraph (c)(2) describes how the components of the multiple lift 
rigging assembly are to be designed and assembled. The employer must 
ensure that each multiple lift rigging assembly is designed and 
assembled with a maximum capacity for the total assembly and for each 
individual attachment point. This capacity, certified by the 
manufacturer or qualified rigger, would be based on the manufacturer's 
specifications and would have a 5 to 1 safety factor for all 
components. Since multiple lift rigging is special rigging used only 
for the purpose of performing a multiple lift rigging procedure (MLRP), 

the rigging would be certified by the qualified rigger who assembles or 
the manufacturer who provides the entire assembly to ensure that the 
main line is capable of supporting the whole load and each hook is 
capable of supporting the individual members. The appropriate rigging 
assembly to be used is the lightest one that will support the load. 
Typically, one assembly is manufactured and certified for the heaviest 
anticipated multiple lift on the job, and this rigging is then used for 
all the MLRPs.
    To ensure that a MLRP does not overload the hoisting equipment, the 
Committee recommended that OSHA propose a provision in paragraph (c)(3) 
that would prohibit the total load of the MLRP from exceeding either 
the rated capacity of the hoisting equipment as specified in the 
hoisting equipment load charts or the rated capacity of the rigging as 
specified in the rigging rating chart. Several crane manufacturers have 
recognized that MLRP is becoming an industry practice and have accepted 
the use of their cranes for this purpose provided that the crane is 
utilized in a manner consistent with the safe practices defined in the 
operator's manual and crane capacity chart (Ex.9-30). Paragraph (c)(3) 
proposes these provisions.
    Paragraphs (c)(4) and (c)(5) address safe rigging for the multiple 
lift. Paragraph (c)(4) would require that the multiple lift rigging 
assembly be rigged with the members attached at their center of gravity 
and be kept reasonably level, be rigged from the top down, and have a 
distance of at least 7 feet (2.1 m) between the members. In practice, 
these procedures mean that the choker attached to the last structural 
member of the group to be connected would be the one attached on the 
rigging assembly closest to the headache ball. The next to last member 
to be connected would be attached to the next lower hook on the rigging 
assembly and so on. As each member is attached, it would be lifted 
approximately two feet off the ground to verify the location of the 
center of gravity and to allow the choker to be checked for proper 
connection. Adjustments to choker location would be made during this 
trial lift procedure. The choker length would then be selected to 
ensure that the vertical distance between the bottom flange of the 
higher beam and the top flange of the next lower beam is never less 
than 7 feet. Thus, when the connector has made the initial end 
connections of the lower beam and moves to the center of each beam to 
remove the choker, there
will be sufficient clearance to prevent contacting the upper suspended 
beam. Furthermore, although the OSHA letter referred to earlier (Ex. 9-
13G) suggested that the beam spacing could be eight or nine feet, the 
Committee determined, and OSHA agrees, that seven feet is more 
appropriate since, in addition to the necessary clearance just 
mentioned, a typical connector could easily reach up and grab the 
member at seven feet but might have some trouble doing so if the 
spacing were greater. OSHA requests comment on whether spacing greater 
than 7 feet would constitute a hazard.
    Once the members are ready to be set, paragraph (c)(5) would 
require that the members be set from the bottom up. Even though this is 
the only practical way that the members can be set, the inclusion of 
this proposed requirement promotes clarity.
    Paragraph (c)(6) sets forth the proposed requirements for lowering 
the load. Like the hoisting of personnel platforms, multiple lifts must 
employ controlled load lowering when lowering loads into position for 
the connectors to set the members. OSHA agrees with the Committee's 
recommendation that such a device is essential to prevent potential 
accidents if the crane operator's foot should slip off the brake, the 
brake fails, or the load slips through the brake. When the load is over 
the connectors and is being lowered into place, the operator must have 
maximum control over the load. This proposed requirement would have 
prevented the July 20, 1990, fatality in Austin, Texas, referred to in 
Ex. 9-13G (p. 4).
    Several members of the Committee stated that the use of a MLRP 
reduces total employee exposure to suspended load hazards as well as to 
the hazards associated with crane supported loads traveling 
horizontally. An MLRP is treated as an engineered lift and accordingly 
receives the full attention of the entire raising gang. The lifts are 
made in a more controlled fashion due to the special rigging and 
physical size of the assembled load. In addition, cranes used for 
multiple lifts must have controlled load lowering devices.
    A Committee workgroup was formed to develop the MLRP section of the 
proposed regulatory text. This workgroup noted several additional 
benefits of MLRPs. For example, the increased weight of the load 
hoisted using an MLRP results in reduced swing, boom, and hoist speeds, 
which increases the amount of control the operator has over the lift. 
The workgroup also stated that crane operators report that the swing 
operation has the greatest potential for operator error and loss of 
load control, and therefore that reducing the number of swings enhances 
safety. The workgroup thus believes that the reduced number and speed 
of swing operations associated with MLRPs will increase safety, and 
that lift precision will also be increased because MLRPs require that 
controlled load lowering devices be used on cranes making such lifts. 
When the operator is working in the blind (where the connectors cannot 
be seen), according to the workgroup, reducing the number of swing 
cycles is particularly important because it minimizes the opportunity 
for a communication error, which could cause an accident. Furthermore, 
the workgroup stated that the total suspended load time and the 
frequency of loads passing overhead are reduced for all non-erection 
personnel on the job when an MLRP is being performed. This is 
particularly important, according to the workgroup, because these 
workers normally are occupied with other tasks and often do not pay 
attention to suspended loads that may be passing overhead. This group 
of employees includes those working under canopies and partially 
completed floor systems who cannot see hoisted material passing 
overhead but could be injured if a load were dropped.
    In addition, when single pieces are hoisted, the emphasis is often 
on speed. The lift is hoisted, swung and boomed at maximum crane speed 
in an effort to maximize production. Under these circumstances, the 
Committee felt that single piece hoisting increases the potential for 
problems in the hoist sequence and in the final placement of each 
member and additionally contributes to operator fatigue.
    According to the workgroup, a great safety benefit of multiple 
lifting is that the manipulation of the members at the point of 
connection limits the movement of the hoist hook, in most cases, to an 
area less than 10 feet in diameter and additionally requires that such 
movement be done at a slow speed and with maximum control. The hazard 
that connectors consider the most serious, that of a high speed 
incoming beam, is thus minimized using the MLRP process.

Section 1926.754  Structural Steel Assembly

    This section sets forth the proposed requirements for the assembly 
of structural steel.
    Paragraph (a) would require that structural stability be maintained 
at all times during the erection process. This would be a general 
requirement for any type of steel structure. Since structural stability 
is essential to the successful erection of steel structures, this 
proposed section is intended to prevent collapse due to lack of 
stability, a major cause of fatalities in this industry.
    Paragraph (b) proposes additional requirements specifically for 
multi-story structures. Paragraph (b)(1) would require that permanent 
floors be installed as the erection of structural members progresses 
and that there be not more than eight stories between the erection 
floor and the upper-most permanent floor, except where the structural 
integrity is maintained as a result of the design. This paragraph is 
identical to existing Sec. 1926.750(a)(1) in OSHA's steel erection 
standard.
    Paragraph (b)(2) would prohibit having more than four floors or 48 
feet (14.6 m), whichever is less, of unfinished bolting or welding 
above the foundation or uppermost permanently secured floor, except 
where the structural integrity is maintained as a result of the design. 
This paragraph is essentially the same as existing Sec. 1926.750(a)(2), 
except for the addition pertaining to situations where structural 
integrity is maintained as a result of the design. The Committee 
recommended an exception similar to that in paragraph (b)(1) to allow 
for flexibility in design.
    Paragraph (b)(3) would require that a fully planked or decked floor 
or nets be maintained within 2 stories or 30 feet (9.1 m), whichever is 
less, directly under any erection work being performed. This is 
essentially the same provision as existing Sec. 1926.750(b)(2)(i), 
except that the proposed revision adds the option of installing nets in 
addition to the planked or decked floor options. Paragraph (b) thus 
retains many of the requirements of OSHA's existing steel erection 
rule.
    Paragraph (c) Walking/working surfaces. This paragraph sets forth 
proposed requirements to control the slipping/tripping hazards 
encountered when working on steel structures. The Committee pointed out 
that the hazards posed by shear connectors need to be addressed in any 
revision of subpart R. Shear connectors are commonly found in bridges 
and in other types of steel erection. When attachments, like shear 
connectors, are shop-welded to the top flange of beams, the resulting 
projections can create a significant tripping hazard. Field 
installation of these attachments can significantly reduce exposure to 
this hazard. Any costs imposed by field installation of the attachments 
is likely to be more than offset by the increased productivity and 
safety for employees who walk on the top flange of the structural 
steel. It is much safer to walk on a beam that is not
studded with these shear connectors or otherwise covered with a 
temporary working surface. The installation of these shear connectors 
needs to be performed on a beam in a manner that allows the installer 
to maintain a clear walking surface.
    Paragraph (c)(1)(i) would prohibit the attachment of shear 
connectors (such as headed steel studs, steel bars or steel lugs), 
reinforcing bars, deformed anchors or threaded studs to the top flanges 
of beams, joists or beam attachments so that they project vertically 
from or horizontally across the top flange of the member until after 
the decking, or other walking/working surface, has been installed. 
Additionally, paragraph (c)(1)(ii) would require that when shear 
connectors are utilized in the construction of composite floors, roofs 
and bridge decks, employees lay out and install the shear connectors 
after the decking has been installed, using the deck as a working 
platform. This paragraph would also prohibit the installation of shear 
connectors from within a controlled decking zone (CDZ), as specified in 
Sec. 1926.760(c)(8).
    SENRAC reviewed the issue of slippery surfaces caused by painted or 
coated steel. The Committee found that a major cause of falls in the 
steel erection industry is the presence of slippery walking, working 
and climbing surfaces in steel erection operations when fall protection 
is not used. The problem initially arises from the application of 
protective coatings on structural steel used, for example, in the 
construction of mills, chemical plants and other structures exposed to 
highly corrosive materials as well as in the construction of stadiums 
or other structures exposed to varying weather conditions. It is 
usually impractical to leave the steel uncoated and then to paint the 
entire structure in the field after erection. Unfortunately, steel 
coated with paints or protective coatings can be extremely slippery. 
When there is moisture, snow, or ice on coated steel, the hazard is 
increased. Related to this is the issue of the slipperiness of metal 
decking.
    The problem of slipperiness created by coated steel has been 
discussed by industry and union safety committees for more than two 
decades. In the late 1970's, a study was conducted by the National 
Bureau of Standards. This study, according to a SENRAC workgroup, 
reached no definite conclusions and proposed no solution (Ex. 9-10). At 
the urging of labor and management during the late 1980's, a NIOSH 
sponsored study entitled, ``Correlation of Subjective Slipperiness 
Judgments with Quantitative COF Measurements For Structural Steel,'' 
was conducted by the University of Oklahoma's Institute for Safety & 
Ergonomics Studies (Ex. 9-10). This study looked into the effects that 
protective coatings have on the slipperiness of structural steel. Once 
again, according to the SENRAC workgroup, the data did not provide a 
sufficient basis for determining adequate means for controlling or 
eliminating the slippery surfaces on painted structural steel members.
    Slipperiness of painted surfaces has been a problem not only in the 
United States but also in Canada. In the Province of Alberta the 
problem has been addressed by requiring the use of an anti-skid 
coating. Although use of this coating involves an added cost, this cost 
is not significant, according to those involved (Ex. 9-10).
    A SENRAC workgroup considered all the information available to it 
and recommended that SENRAC adopt a performance standard that would 
mandate a minimum 0.5 static coefficient of friction (COF) for all 
working, walking and climbing surfaces when they arrive on the job 
site. The workgroup noted that the slippery surface issue was 
originally limited to slippery paint on structural members but had been 
expanded to include metal decking.
    This recommendation of the SENRAC workgroup was questioned by some 
members of the industry, including the Steel Deck Institute (SDI) 
(Ex.9-87) and the Metal Building Manufacturers Association (MBMA) (Ex. 
9-129). The main concern expressed by these groups was how an employer 
would know that it was in compliance, and, specifically, how surfaces 
would be tested to determine that this COF had been achieved and what 
instrument would be used to make this determination. An expert on slip 
prevention made a presentation to the Committee on how to measure the 
COF of a slippery surface.
    The expert reviewed the primary methods for testing the 
slipperiness of surfaces. The first instrument was described as a drag 
meter. A major limitation of this device is that it will not work on 
dirty or wet surfaces. Thus, testing wet and dirty surface conditions 
which actually occur on job sites is impossible using this device. A 
second instrument was an articulated strut device. This device is 
currently being tested by the American Society for Testing and 
Materials (ASTM). A third device examined was a pendulum-like device. 
It is limited in that it requires a level floor for proper measurement. 
Lastly, the expert described a measuring device that he has developed 
that measures not COF but slip resistance. He noted that this 
instrument has been modified and is available as a portable unit. He 
described two major advantages to this device: it can test wet surfaces 
and it can be used in the field to test surfaces as they are actually 
walked on.
    Following this presentation and after lengthy discussions on the 
slippery surface issue, the Committee concluded that conclusive studies 
and documented information on the subject of slippery surfaces in steel 
erection are not available. To obtain more information, the Committee 
agreed that a study should be conducted by the expert to test these 
slippery surfaces. This study, commissioned by SENRAC, was conducted in 
May of 1995 under the guidance of the SENRAC workgroup. In a final 
report of the study to SENRAC (Ex. 9-64), the expert summarized the 
methodology and findings. Seven surfaces were tested under both wet and 
dry conditions using two different instruments. In addition to these 
mechanical tests, five ironworkers ranked how slippery these surfaces 
felt while walking on them. The two results were compared. A minimum 
standard for slip resistance was set forth in the report.
    The study was presented to SENRAC and suggested the following 
tentative draft regulatory text for discussion based on the 
recommendation of the study: ``all painted, coated or otherwise visibly 
treated skeletal structural steel members that are walking/working 
surfaces shall have a finish that has a slip index of .75 or higher as 
measured with an English XL Slip-Resistance tester or a slip index of 
.60 or higher as measured with a Brungraber, Mark II Slip Tester and 
would have to be tested in accordance with certain test procedures set 
out in an appendix.'' The Committee determined, based on information 
obtained from and presentations given by industry groups at SENRAC 
meetings, that the draft language was not acceptable. The industry 
groups providing information included the Steel Deck Institute (Ex. 9-
73), the Metal Building Manufacturers Association (Ex. 9-74), the Metal 
Construction Association (Ex. 9-75), Bethlehem Steel (Exs. 9-106 and 9-
110), the National Coil Coaters Association (Ex. 9-108), American Iron 
and Steel Institute (Ex. 1-109), and the American Institute of Steel 
Construction (Ex. 9-128). The Committee thus concluded that it could 
not determine a minimum value for slip resistance or COF, given all the 
variables to be
considered, nor could it agree on an acceptable testing method.
    The Committee next decided to separate the issues of slippery 
surfaces on metal decking and on structural steel. Furthermore, based 
on perceived differences in the feasibility of compliance, there was 
general agreement that a requirement for structural steel could be 
proposed while one for metal decking should not be proposed at this 
time.
    The Committee, consequently, recommended that OSHA propose 
paragraph (c)(3) to prohibit workers from walking the top surface of 
any structural steel member which has been finish coated with paint or 
similar material unless documentation or certification, based on an 
appropriate ASTM standard test method, is provided stating that the 
finished coat has not decreased the COF from that of the original steel 
before it was finish-coated. This documentation or certification must 
be available at the site and to the steel erector. Rather than define a 
minimum requirement for the COF, the Committee decided to ensure that 
the product on which the workers are walking/working is no more 
slippery than bare, uncoated steel, which is considered by the 
Committee to be safe to walk/work on, even when wet. OSHA seeks 
comments and additional information on this point and on the 
availability of methods to increase the safety of workers in this 
situation and to measure the slipperiness of such surfaces. There are 
currently two ASTM standardized test methods for determining the COF of 
wet surfaces, thus enabling the painted or coated surface to be tested 
for possible certification that the COF has not decreased (see Appendix 
B).
    With regard to the issue of the slipperiness of metal decking, OSHA 
is reserving paragraph (c)(2) to allow additional time to study the 
slippery surface aspects of metal decking and identify a solution to 
the problem. A coalition of steel-producing and steel-related 
organizations has indicated its intention to gather data and prepare 
comments with respect to paragraph (c)(2). The coalition intends to 
identify the principal factors contributing to slip and fall injuries 
in steel erection, and devise feasible and effective approaches to 
reduce those risks (Ex. 9-151). OSHA invites additional comments and 
information on walking/working surfaces and the slippery aspects of 
metal decking from other interested parties.
    Paragraph (d) Plumbing-up. Paragraph (d)(1) would require that 
connections of the equipment used in plumbing up be properly secured. 
This is identical to existing Sec. 1926.752(d)(1) of OSHA's steel 
erection standard. Paragraph (d)(2) would require that plumbing-up 
equipment be removed only with the approval of a competent person. This 
is essentially the same as existing Sec. 1926.752(d)(4), except that 
the word ``guys'' is changed to ``equipment'' and ``under the 
supervision'' is changed to ``with the approval.'' In addition, 
Committee members noted that, with respect to open web steel joists, 
the stabilizer plate requirement of proposed Sec. 1926.757(a)(4) will 
greatly facilitate the plumbing-up of structures. It should be noted 
that several SENRAC members have raised an issue (issue #3 in section 
VI, Other Issues) regarding the adequacy of this performance language.
    Paragraph (e)  Decking. This paragraph sets forth the proposed 
requirements to protect employees during decking operations, including 
the installation of metal deck (metal deck is defined in the definition 
section of this standard). The Committee recognized that improper 
installation of decking can cause accidents. Analyses of the fatality/
catastrophe reports in OSHA's IMIS system by SENRAC and OSHA staff 
(Exs. 9-14A, 9-42 and 9-49) indicate that falls related to decking when 
fall protection is not used account for a large percentage of steel 
erection related fatalities. The proposed requirements contained in 
paragraph (e) attempt to address many of the hazards which cause 
decking accidents.
    Paragraph (e)(1) deals with some of the common hazards associated 
with hoisting, landing and placing of deck bundles. Many of the 
proposed requirements of this paragraph are adapted from the Steel Deck 
Institute Manual of Construction With Steel Deck (Ex. 9-34A).
    Paragraph (e)(1)(i) would prohibit the use of bundle packaging and 
strapping for hoisting unless specifically designed for that purpose. 
Bundle straps usually are applied at the factory and are intended to 
keep the bundle together until it is placed for erection and the sheets 
are ready to be spread. Decking is bundled differently; some 
manufacturers design the strapping to be used as a lifting device. 
However, hoisting a bundle by straps that are not designed for lifting 
is extremely dangerous. The bundle straps can break apart or loosen, 
creating a falling object hazard or, if a structural member is hit by 
the bundle or its contents, a potential collapse hazard.
    Paragraph (e)(1)(ii) would require that, if loose items such as 
dunnage, flashing, or other materials are placed on top of deck bundles 
which are being hoisted, such items must be secured to the bundles. 
Sometimes, to expedite unloading and hoisting, items such as dunnage or 
flashing are placed on the decking bundle to save time. Dunnage, for 
example, will be sent up with the bundle to help support it on the 
structure and to protect the decking which has already been installed. 
This proposal would prevent hoisting loose items or ``piggy backing'' 
unless the items are secured to prevent them from falling off the 
bundle in the event that it catches on the structure and tilts.
    Paragraph (e)(1)(iii) would require that the landing of bundles of 
decking on joists be conducted in accordance with proposed 
Sec. 1926.757(e)(4). This requirement is a cross-reference to the joist 
section of the proposed standard. Paragraph (e)(4) of that section sets 
out proposed criteria for landing decking on joists and will be 
discussed later in the preamble.
    Paragraph (e)(1)(iv) also addresses the landing of bundles. Under 
this proposed requirement, bundles would be landed on framing members 
that provide sufficient support for unbanding the bundles. The bundles 
would have to be set in such a manner that the decking can be unbanded 
without losing the support of the structure. If the blocking should 
move while the bundle is being unbanded, the bundle would be required 
to have enough support to prevent it from tilting and falling into 
``the hole.'' The analysis of the fatality/catastrophe reports produced 
from OSHA's IMIS system (Exs. 9-14A, 9-42 and 9-49) identified the 
improper landing of bundles of decking as a significant factor in 
decking accidents because it may cause a collapse of the support 
members and/or bundle. Proposed paragraphs (e)(1)(iii) and (iv) are 
intended to eliminate these hazards by providing direction for properly 
landing decking bundles.
    Paragraph (e)(1)(v) would require decking to be secured against 
displacement after the end of the shift or when environmental or 
jobsite conditions warrant. This requirement would prevent decking from 
being left unsecured between shifts or overnight and would prevent 
decking from becoming dislodged from the structure or bundle because of 
environmental conditions such as high wind. A gust of wind may cause 
individual sheets to peel off an unsecured bundle of decking and fly 
through the air. Wind can also move a sheet of loose decking and create 
a hazard where an employee inadvertently steps onto a loose piece of 
decking, believing it to be secured.
    Paragraph (e)(2)  Roof and floor openings. This paragraph proposes 
steel
erection procedures for installing metal deck at roof and floor 
openings to prevent, among other things, the hazard of employee falls 
through deck openings. The Committee found such falls to be a major 
cause of decking accidents.
    Paragraph (e)(2)(i) would require that, where structural design and 
constructibility allow, framed deck openings have structural members 
turned down to allow continuous deck installation. Requiring framed 
deck openings to be turned down allows continuous decking to be 
performed without having to cut the deck around the opening. This 
procedure generally applies to small openings rather than larger 
openings, such as elevator or mechanical shaft openings; it may not be 
appropriate to cut the decking around larger openings at a later time.
    Paragraph (e)(2)(ii) would require that roof and floor openings be 
covered during the decking process so that uncovered openings do not 
create potential fall hazards. If the design of the structure does not 
allow for covering of the roof and floor openings, they must be 
protected in accordance with proposed Sec. 1926.760(a)(2). Openings for 
elevator shafts and stairs are typically too large to cover and would 
usually be protected with a guardrail. To decrease even further the 
possibility of an employee falling through a deck opening, proposed 
paragraph (e)(2)(iii) would require that decking holes and openings not 
be cut until necessary for the construction process. Once cut, however, 
openings would have to be protected immediately in accordance with 
Sec. 1926.760(d), which sets forth the criteria for covering roof and 
floor openings, or they would have to be otherwise permanently filled 
(i.e., filled with the equipment or structure intended for the opening, 
at which time the opening would no longer be a fall hazard).
    Paragraph (e)(3) would require that wire mesh, exterior plywood, or 
the equivalent, be installed around columns where planks or decking do 
not fit tightly. Gauge metal, typically cut out to the profile of the 
column, is commonly used for this purpose and would be considered an 
equivalent material. This provision is identical to existing 
Sec. 1926.752(h), except that the proposed provision adds ``or 
decking'' to make clear that the requirement to cover open areas around 
columns applies during decking operations both to prevent falls and to 
prevent items from falling through these openings to lower levels.
    Paragraph (e)(4) would require that decking be laid tightly and 
secured to prevent accidental movement or displacement. This is 
essentially the same as existing Sec. 1926.752(f) of OSHA's steel 
erection standard. The analysis of the fatality/catastrophe reports of 
data in OSHA's IMIS system (Exs. 9-14A, 9-42 and 9-49) established that 
stepping onto or working on unsecured decking is a factor in decking 
accidents.
    Paragraph (e)(5)(i) would require that a derrick floor be fully 
decked and/or planked and the steel member connections be completed so 
as to support the intended floor loading. Paragraph (e)(5)(ii) would 
require that temporary loads on a derrick floor be distributed over the 
underlying support members to prevent local (spot) overloading of the 
deck material. These provisions contain essentially the same 
requirements as those in existing Sec. 1926.750(b)(1)(i). OSHA is 
clarifying and updating the existing requirement, but the basic concept 
of the provision would be unchanged. This provision would apply mainly 
to multi-story structures and is intended to ensure that the derrick or 
erection floor has been installed with all required bolts and that 
final decking has been completed before the floor is loaded and the 
sequence of constructing subsequent levels begins. This level, which 
then becomes the working level for the erection of floors above, may 
need to support a derrick and the steel members required for the 
erection of those levels. Such temporary loads would have to be 
distributed evenly over the derrick floor to ensure stability.

Section 1926.755  Anchor Bolts

    This section addresses the hazards associated with column stability 
and, specifically, the proper use of anchor bolts to ensure column 
stability. The Committee concluded that inadequate anchor bolt 
installation could be a factor in causing structure collapses. One 
participant, a connector by trade, addressed the Committee and asserted 
that collapses due to poor footings and anchor bolts are currently the 
primary cause of connector accidents (Ex. 6-3, p. 4). The Committee was 
in general agreement; OSHA solicits comments and additional information 
on the relative importance of these and other causes of structural 
collapse and the extent to which they result in falls during steel 
erection activities.
    This section sets out parameters for properly installing and, when 
necessary, modifying anchor bolts. Paragraph (a) proposes general 
requirements for ensuring erection stability. Paragraph (a)(1) would 
require that all columns be anchored by a minimum of 4 anchor bolts. 
Additionally, as discussed below, this paragraph would require that 
column anchor bolt assemblies, including the welding of the column to 
the base plate, be designed to resist a 300 pound (136.2 kg) eccentric 
load located 18 inches (.46 m) from the column face in each direction 
at the top of the column shaft. The Committee listened to some 
presenters who were of the opinion that there may be some types of 
columns that may require only two anchor bolts. Also, it was contended 
by some participants that space limitations or structural 
considerations may limit the size of the base plate or the bearing 
surface (particularly on a masonry wall) so that it is not wide enough 
to allow the placement of four anchor bolts. The Committee recommended, 
however, that OSHA propose to require a minimum of four anchor bolts 
for all columns, for the reasons discussed above. In some instances, 
installing two anchor bolts at the column base might create a stable 
structure, but this would not be the case until after all of the 
horizontal beams have been installed and the frame has been completed. 
Until the frame has been completed, using two bolts could cause a hinge 
effect that could tip the column. Requiring all column anchorages to 
have four bolts eliminates the possibility of creating this hinge 
effect.
    Additionally, since a connector with a tool belt must climb the 
column, which creates an eccentric load on the column, proper anchor 
bolt installation is doubly necessary. Anchor bolt assemblies would 
have to be designed to resist a 300 pound (136.2 kg) eccentric load 
located 18 inches (.46 cm) from the column face to prevent the column 
from toppling over with a worker on it. Based on a SENRAC workgroup 
determination, 300 pounds (136.2 kg) represents the maximum weight of 
an ironworker with a tool belt. Eighteen (18) inches (.46 cm) off the 
face of the column is the center of gravity for an ironworker climbing 
a column.
    Paragraph (a)(2) addresses the setting of columns and would require 
that columns be set on level finished floors, pre-grouted leveling 
plates, leveling nuts, or shim packs which are adequate to transfer the 
construction loads. This proposed requirement is intended to ensure 
that the column sits on a level surface. Placing a column on a surface 
that is not level could allow the column to pivot and pull out the 
anchor bolts, creating a collapse hazard.
    Paragraph (a)(3) would require that unstable columns be evaluated 
by a competent person and be guyed or braced where deemed necessary. If 
it is determined, for example, that the
anchor bolts could potentially be pulled out under field conditions, 
the competent person can elect to guy or brace the column.
    Paragraph (b) Repair, replacement or field modification. This 
paragraph addresses the situation where the steel erector may be 
working after another contractor who has repaired, replaced or modified 
an anchor bolt. The steel erector often cannot visually tell when an 
anchor bolt has been repaired and thus will not be aware of the repair 
unless notified that a repair has been made. If an anchor bolt has been 
improperly repaired, replaced or modified, it could lead to a collapse. 
The intent of this proposed paragraph is to ensure that the erector has 
the opportunity to make sure that any work on anchor bolts has been 
adequately performed.
    Paragraph (b)(1) would prohibit the repair, replacement or field 
modification of anchor bolts without the approval of the project 
structural engineer of record. This would ensure that any change to the 
original anchor bolt is performed in a manner consistent with original 
specifications.
    Paragraph (b)(2) would require that any such approval by the 
project structural engineer of record also indicate any requirements 
for special column guying or bracing as a result of the repair, 
replacement or modification. If the project structural engineer of 
record has approved the repair, replacement, or field modification, 
guying or bracing may be required as a precaution.
    Paragraph (b)(3) would require that, prior to the erection of a 
column, the controlling contractor provide written notification to the 
steel erector if there has been any repair, replacement or modification 
of the anchor bolts for that column. This proposed requirement, working 
in conjunction with proposed Sec. 1926.752(a)(2), completes the 
communication loop. Generally, the steel erector does not have contact 
with the project structural engineer of record and would rely on the 
controlling contractor to convey any notification from the project 
structural engineer of record. This form of communication between the 
controlling contractor and steel erector is already a common jobsite 
practice.

Section 1926.756  Beams and Columns

    This section sets forth proposed requirements for connections of 
beams and columns to ensure stability of the steel structure during the 
erection process. Recognizing that inappropriate or inadequate 
connections of beams and columns is inherently hazardous and can lead 
to collapse and worker fatalities, the Committee recommended, and OSHA 
proposes, a combination of performance and specification requirements 
to address these hazards.
    Paragraph (a) General. This paragraph would require that, during 
the final placing of solid web structural members, the load not be 
released from the hoisting line until the members are secured with at 
least two bolts per connection, drawn up wrench-tight, or the 
equivalent as specified by the project structural engineer of record. 
This is identical to existing Sec. 1926.751(a) of OSHA's steel erection 
standard, except that ``or the equivalent as specified by the project 
structural engineer of record'' has been added to allow for alternative 
types of connections such as welding, or, in the case of heavy members, 
allowance for more than two bolts.
    Paragraph (b) Diagonal bracing. Paragraph (b) would allow solid web 
structural members used as diagonal bracing to be secured by a single 
bolt per connection, drawn up wrench-tight or the equivalent as 
specified by the project structural engineer of record. In many cases, 
solid web structural members such as channels or beams are used as 
diagonal bracing or wind bracing. These members technically fall under 
paragraph (a) above; however, since they are used in a different 
application, i.e., as bracing to be welded at a later time, a one-bolt 
connection is sufficient. These members play a different role in 
erection stability since they are designed to provide stability for the 
final completed structure and are not used as walking/working surfaces. 
Compliance with this provision would provide safe connections for these 
members.
    Paragraph (c) Double connections at columns and/or at beam webs 
over a column. ``Double connections'' are an essential method for 
connecting structural steel members in some design concepts. However, 
these connections can pose significant hazards while erecting 
structural steel. When a double connection at a column is not properly 
executed, the resulting failure can lead to the immediate collapse of 
the entire structure, endangering the connector and every other worker 
on or around the structure. At one of the SENRAC meetings, several 
types of double connections were demonstrated with the use of scale 
model structural web members, together with a discussion of why they 
are hazardous and how they can be made safely. Proposed paragraph (c) 
would require that, when two structural members on opposite sides of a 
column web, or a beam web over a column, share common connection holes, 
at least one bolt with its wrench-tight nut must remain connected to 
the first member unless a shop-attached or field-bolted seat or similar 
connection device is present to secure the second member and prevent 
the column from being displaced. When seats are provided, the 
connection between the seat and the structural member that it supports 
must be bolted together before the nuts are removed for the double 
connection.
    A double connection, by definition, is one where more than two 
pieces of steel are bolted together using the same (common) bolts. This 
can occur where two beams are bolted to opposite sides of a column web 
or to the opposite sides of a beam or girder. OSHA's current steel 
erection standard does not address this practice. When utilizing a 
double connection in field erection procedures, a beam is first bolted 
to another beam or column. Later in the erection sequence, another beam 
or other member is added to the opposite side of the existing 
connection, using the same holes and the same bolts to ``make up'' the 
third piece in the connection. This is the situation where the practice 
of double connections becomes a safety concern: the nuts must be 
removed from the initially placed connection bolts and these bolts are 
then backed out to the point where they barely grip the first two 
pieces of steel, so that the third piece can be lined up with the 
existing holes. Then the same bolts are pushed back through all the 
holes and the nuts are tightened on the bolts to secure the three 
pieces of steel together. This maneuver is extremely dangerous for the 
connector because of the tenuous grip of the loosened bolts and the 
possibility that the connector's spud wrench, which is used to align 
the incoming piece, may slip. If at any time during the process, the 
carrying member (i.e., the central member to which the other two 
members are being attached) reacts to residual stresses developed 
through welding and/or misaligned connections at lower elevations, the 
carrying member can move suddenly, causing the bolts or the spud wrench 
to become dislodged. The incoming third member can also cause problems 
if it bumps up against the fitting or wrench end. Additionally, crane 
operators, wind, building movements and the connector straining to make 
a tough connection impose stresses that can lead to disengagement of 
the connection.
    Several methods for performing double connections safely were 
discussed by the Committee. For example, a seat lug could be inserted 
on one side of a column, below the
connection point. When the first beam is placed, two bolts could be 
inserted downward into the seat lug. This would leave the other side of 
the column web clear so that the new beam could be positioned without 
disconnecting the beam on which the connector sits. In another method, 
an extra set of holes on one side of the connection could be added to 
secure the first beam installed. This would require that the connection 
plate on the end of the first beam be enlarged so that two additional 
holes could be placed just below the double connection point. Bolts 
could be placed in these two holes to secure the beam to the column. 
Even though these two bolts would go through the web of the column, 
they would be located below the area where the second beam would be 
aligned. This again would not require the connector to disconnect the 
first beam to allow for the second beam to be positioned. This is the 
configuration used for a double connection situation in Canada, called 
the ``clipped end plate connection'' (Ex. 9-27).
    As mentioned earlier, double connections are essential in steel 
erection and cannot be eliminated; they can, however, be performed 
safely. The proposed requirements address hazards that exist whenever 
there are double connections which present a danger of structural 
collapse. It should be noted that double connections of filler beams in 
the webs of girders are not considered to be an unsafe situation and 
are not subject to the requirements of paragraph (c). This is because 
once the bay is ``boxed,'' all filler beams are trapped between the 
girders. The connector sits on the girder while making the double 
connection and has no exposure to collapse of the individual members. 
In these cases there is no reason to require bolts to remain in the 
connection or seats or other devices to restrain the first member while 
the second is being erected. The seat or similar device requirement of 
this paragraph is also addressed in the corresponding requirement in 
the latest American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A10.13-1989, 
Steel Erection-Safety Requirements standard (Ex. 9-35), which provides 
that ``when double connections are involved, the structural detailer 
and fabricator shall be consulted concerning the provisions for a seat 
lug or flange length extension on one of the beams, and a corresponding 
bolt hole in the web of the column floor or beam.'' The ANSI 
requirement does not, however, explicitly require a seat or similar 
device as proposed paragraph (c) would.
    Paragraph (d) Column splices. This paragraph would require that 
each column splice be designed to resist a 300 pound (136.2 kg) 
eccentric load located 18 inches (.46 m) from the column face in each 
direction at the top of the column shaft. This is similar to the 
proposed strength requirement for anchor bolts in Sec. 1926.755(a)(1). 
In the same manner as anchor bolts, a column splice must be designed to 
allow for a worker to climb the column to perform work. These splices 
are joints that are temporarily fastened until the final welding or 
bolting is performed, and they must be sufficient to support the worker 
without folding over.
    Paragraph (e) Perimeter columns. This paragraph would require that 
perimeter columns extend a minimum of 48 inches (1.2 m) above the 
finished floor to permit installation of perimeter cables, prior to 
erection of the next tier except where structural design and 
constructibility do not allow.
    Paragraph (f) Perimeter safety cables. Paragraph (f)(1) would 
require that perimeter safety cables be installed during the structural 
steel assembly of multi-story structures. Paragraph (f)(2) would 
require that the perimeter safety cables consist of \1/2\-inch wire 
rope or equivalent and be installed at 42-45 inches above the finished 
floor and at the midpoint between the finished floor and the top cable. 
Paragraph (f)(3) would require that where structural design and 
constructibility allow, holes or other devices be provided by the 
fabricator/supplier in, or attached to, perimeter columns at a height 
of 42 to 45 inches above the finished floor and at the midpoint between 
the finished floor and the top cable to permit installation of 
perimeter cables.
    Proposed paragraphs (e) and (f) update and clarify the existing 
requirement in Sec. 1926.750(b)(1)(iii) of OSHA's steel erection 
standard. They clarify that the columns need to extend far enough above 
the floor decking to facilitate the installation of perimeter cable. 
The perimeter cable must be installed at a height of 42 to 45 inches 
above the finished floor and at the midpoint between that cable and the 
finished floor level. These safety cables provide fall protection at 
the perimeter of the structure and are to be installed as soon as the 
deck has been installed to provide protection to subsequent detail 
crews. These perimeter safety cables are not intended to be used as 
lifelines or as attachment points for fall protection systems but 
rather as a guardrail system. The holes or other devices necessary to 
accommodate the safety cables would have to be provided by the 
fabricator of the columns prior to installation to enable the cables to 
be installed readily in the field after the columns have been erected. 
The AISC raised concerns regarding the impact of paragraph (f) on steel 
fabricators. The AISC is concerned that this provision will create 
liability for the fabricator, confuse existing contractual 
relationships, and create new feasibility and materials handling 
problems (Ex. 9-151). However, both SENRAC and OSHA believe that the 
enhanced safety afforded by this provision is necessary and the Agency 
seeks comment on this issue.
    The proposed requirements in paragraph (e) and (f) do allow for 
cases where the design of a structure would not allow either for the 
columns to extend 48 inches (1.2 m) above the finished floor or for the 
holes or other devices to be provided by the fabricator. Proposed 
Appendix F provides a guideline to assist employers in complying with 
these paragraphs.

Section 1926.757  Open Web Steel Joists

    Some of the most serious risks facing the ironworker are 
encountered during the erection of open web steel joists. A limited 
analysis of ironworker fatalities from January 1984 to December 1990, 
discussed in Section IV--Hazards in Steel Erection, indicated that, of 
the approximately 40 fatalities caused by collapse, more than half were 
related to the erection of steel joists (Ex. 9-14A). Although the 
existing OSHA steel erection standard addresses these hazards in a 
limited manner, this proposed section utilizes a combination of 
specification and performance requirements that will provide more 
comprehensive protection to workers engaged in these activities. SENRAC 
developed these proposed requirements in cooperation with the Steel 
Joist Institute (SJI) and many of its member companies.
    Paragraph (a)  General. Paragraph (a) addresses the erection of 
steel joists in general. Paragraph (a)(1) would provide that where 
steel joists or steel joist girders are utilized and columns are not 
framed in at least two directions with solid web structural steel 
members, the steel joist or steel joist girder must be field-bolted at 
or near columns to provide lateral stability to the column during 
erection. This proposed paragraph refines the existing steel erection 
standard provision, Sec. 1926.751(c)(1), which is otherwise identical 
to the proposed requirement, by adding the words ``solid web'' before 
``structural steel members'' and expanding ``bar joist'' to ``steel 
joists or steel joist girders.'' These additions are necessary 
clarification in light of technological advances in the industry.
Specifically, the existing language was developed at a time when the 
only structural steel involved in steel framing was solid web members. 
In the mid 1970's, the steel joist industry developed the steel joist 
girder to be used as a primary member in steel framing to support steel 
joists. Bolting these connections is considered preferable to other 
methods of connection because bolting provides the greatest safety 
while requiring the least amount of time and equipment.
    Several other provisions in this proposed paragraph refer to 
special requirements for connections at the column. Paragraph (a)(2) 
would require that steel joists at or near the column that span 60 feet 
or less be designed with sufficient lateral stiffness that, when bolted 
at both ends, and with the bottom chord restrained at each end with the 
required column stabilizer plate (required by paragraph (a)(4) of this 
section), the joist does not need erection bridging to prevent it from 
rotating when an employee goes out onto it to release the hoisting 
cable. The existing rule prohibits placing any load on joists until 
erection bridging has been installed. However, since the joist at the 
column is the first joist in place, there is no place to attach 
erection bridging and, consequently, the joist itself must possess 
sufficient lateral stiffness to allow the erection process to progress 
safely.
    The next provision, paragraph (a)(3), addresses a longer steel 
joist at the same position. The Committee preliminarily determined, and 
OSHA is proposing, that steel joists that span more than 60 feet 
located at columns must be set in tandem, i.e., two steel joists must 
be attached together, usually with bolted diagonal erection bridging, 
to ensure stability. These joists are commonly used in larger open 
structures such as warehouses, gymnasiums and arenas. This proposed 
provision would allow the use of alternate means of erection of such 
long span steel joists, provided that the alternative is designed by a 
qualified person to ensure equivalent stability and is included in the 
site-specific erection plan.
    Proposed paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) also refer to connections at 
the column. Paragraph (a)(4) is a specification for the column that 
would require a stabilizer plate to extend at least 3 inches (76 mm) 
below the bottom chord of the steel joist or steel joist girder. The 
plate would be required to have a \13/16\ inch (21 mm) hole placed in 
it to provide an attachment point for guying or plumbing cables. 
Paragraph (a)(5) works in conjunction with paragraph (a)(4) and would 
require that the bottom chords of both the primary steel joist girders 
and the secondary steel joists at columns be stabilized to prevent 
rotation.
    The foregoing provisions will result in a more stable primary 
structure upon which to erect steel joists. In addition, a stabilizer 
plate provides a ready attachment point for more efficient guying. The 
sequence of guying is essential to safety. These proposed requirements 
allow the erector more easily to guy the structure to prevent collapse 
as the steel is set in place. Moreover, compliance with these 
provisions should help to satisfy the stability requirements of 
paragraph (a)(6). Paragraph (a)(6) would prohibit the placement of 
steel joists on any support structure unless it has been stabilized. 
Again, this is essentially identical to the existing requirement found 
in Sec. 1926.751(c)(3) of OSHA's steel erection standard.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(7) addresses the hazard that arises when a 
steel joist or joists are placed on the structure and then left 
unattended and unattached. An example of a situation addressed by this 
paragraph involves lighter steel joists, under 40 feet in length, that 
would not require erection bridging under this section. A common 
practice in erecting these lighter joists, which can be set in place by 
hand, is to have a crane set the columns, steel joist girders, or solid 
web primary members as well as the boltable joists required by OSHA at 
the columns, thus boxing the bays. The crane would then place a bundle 
of filler joists at an end or, more likely, at the center of the bay, 
and then move on to the next bay. Because cranes are among the more 
costly pieces of equipment on a steel erection job, minimizing crane 
time at the site is cost effective. This provision would require that, 
when steel joists are landed on structures, they be secured to prevent 
unintentional displacement prior to installation, i.e., the bundles 
must remain intact until the time comes for them to be set. This 
proposed paragraph would also prevent those ironworkers who are shaking 
out the filler joists from getting too far ahead of those workers 
welding the joists, a practice that leaves too many joists placed but 
unattached (paragraph (b)(3) of this proposed section, discussed below, 
requires that at least one end of each steel joist be attached 
immediately upon placement in its final erection position and before 
additional joists are placed). A final example of a situation addressed 
by this paragraph would be when the exact dimensions of a piece of 
mechanical equipment to be installed in the decking is not known. A 
common practice, when this occurs, is to leave a joist unattached until 
the dimension is known. This paragraph requires such a joist to be 
secured (probably to the support structure or an attached joist) 
pending its attachment.
    The Committee spent considerable time debating the appropriateness 
of requiring that certain joists be fabricated with bolt holes at the 
ends to allow for field bolting to the structure. As recommended by 
SENRAC, OSHA is proposing paragraph (a)(8), which would require that, 
when individual steel joists are being connected to steel structures in 
bays of 40 feet or more, these joists be fabricated to allow for field 
bolting.
    This provision is necessary because certain joists that are thin 
and flexible can be difficult to install because of their sweep. 
Bolting these types of joists first allows straightening of the joist, 
thus returning its camber and eliminating torque. Additionally, after 
bolting, welding can be more easily accomplished. Note that this 
provision would not require these joists to be bolted as paragraph 
(a)(1) would require of the joist at the column. (Attachment 
requirements and the exceptions to this paragraph are discussed in 
connection with paragraph (b) below.) Instead, proposed paragraph 
(a)(8) would require that the joists arrive at the jobsite with holes 
pre-existing, thereby providing steel erectors with the option either 
of bolting or welding the joists. In practice, not requiring the joists 
to be fabricated in this manner would require the steel erector to 
drill holes in the joists in those cases where bolting is preferable. 
Just as the joist at the column is a special risk situation, long steel 
joists that are placed in bays of 40 feet or more have a greater 
tendency to twist or rotate, which creates hazards for the workers 
installing them.
    SENRAC discussed a number of hazardous situations for which bolting 
joists is a safer method of attachment than welding. For example, 
SENRAC noted that bolting is safer whenever unattached joists could be 
displaced by wind or construction activity, by the movement of 
employees, by trailing welding leads, by accidental impact against the 
supporting structure by a crane or other equipment, or by harmonic 
motion or vibration. In addition, the vision and balance of an employee 
working at elevation can be impaired while wearing a welding hood, 
which may make bolting a safer approach in this situation. Further, 
joists can roll and pop welds due to the movement of an erector on the 
joist or the stresses caused by removing the sweep; if the weld breaks, 
the joist fails and may cause a structural collapse. Finally, there are 
special hazards
associated with welding that are not associated with bolting, such as 
electrical and fire hazards.
    Both bolting and welding provide connections of equivalent 
strength, and both involve some risk. The Steel Joist Institute (SJI) 
asserted that welding joist ends is its recommended manner of 
attachment and that welding eliminates the weakening that holes in the 
supporting member can cause. After reviewing all relevant options, the 
Committee concluded that steel erectors should have the option of 
attaching joists either by bolting or welding. When conditions for 
welding are adverse, however, proposed paragraph (a)(8) would allow the 
steel erector to bolt the joists, thus avoiding many of the hazards 
mentioned above.
    As noted, questions were raised about this proposed requirement. 
SJI and others questioned whether it is possible to bolt a joist to a 
masonry or similar support structure. However, the proposal clearly 
states that the provision allowing bolting would apply only when the 
joist is to be attached to a steel support structure, usually a solid 
web beam or a steel joist girder. Additional concerns were raised about 
the cost and feasibility of putting holes in the steel joists and 
support members (see Ex. 6-8, p. 7), but SENRAC believes that the 
safety and other advantages of permitting bolting are clearly more 
important than the disadvantages of this technique.
    The American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) pointed out 
that, to put the holes in the supporting beams, the fabricator of the 
beams must know the exact location the joist will occupy before the 
member can be designed and fabricated. This information is frequently 
not available at the time the supporting beams are being fabricated, 
however, because of the relationship between the joist spacing and the 
availability of the building's mechanical equipment design. If the 
design information is not available to the fabricator, this could delay 
the fabrication of the steel and, possibly, the project.
    On the other hand, the Committee believes that requiring holes for 
bolting to be in place will promote better pre-erection planning and 
communication between all parties to the design and erection process, 
and may even lead to standardization of HVAC specifications, thus 
promoting better and safer construction sequencing. As the chairman of 
the SENRAC steel joist workgroup stated:

    Prior to sizing a structural member for supporting mechanical 
equipment, the structural engineer of record or design engineer must 
know the exact operating weight and physical footprint of the unit 
that will be imposed onto the structure. This type of information is 
critical in the sizing of the foundations, primary and secondary 
structural members (Ex. 9-142).

    SENRAC was convinced that, under the present system of fast-track 
construction, the owner, the construction manager and the general 
contractors are not giving sufficient attention to the selection of 
mechanical equipment to be installed, despite the fact that this 
information is available prior to construction (the lead time required 
for mechanical equipment is ten times greater than the time required to 
design and fabricate the steel for the structure) (Ex. 9-142). 
Therefore, the weight and size of the mechanical equipment is known 
long before fabrication or erection. In addition, standardizing the 
requirement for bolting the structure will help the industry adopt a 
standard ``curb'' sized to fit the structure, as well as promote better 
information exchange and forward planning. Currently the lack of 
importance assigned to the transmission of this critical information 
down the line is causing portions of the structure to be constructed 
out of sequence, increasing the fall hazard and risk of collapse.
    Another issue was raised by workgroup members concerning the 
situation where joists and supporting structural members arrive at the 
jobsite with the holes that allow field bolting in place, but the steel 
erector elects to weld instead of bolt them. These workgroup members 
were concerned that this situation would mean that the project 
structural engineer of record (SER) must make a determination to fill 
such holes with bolts. Conversely, when the joists have been bolted, 
the workgroup wondered whether the SER would still require the joists 
to be welded to the support structure. An additional concern raised is 
the structural impact the holes may have on the supporting steel 
member, i.e., the solid web beam or the steel joist girder. In the case 
of beams, the issue is whether, because of the holes, the size of the 
steel member would have to be increased. In the case of steel joist 
girders, the issue is whether re-engineering would be required, perhaps 
even to the point of welding an additional steel plate on the top chord 
to accommodate the bolting of the joists. OSHA raises all of these 
issues and solicits comment on them. As mentioned above, the Committee 
determined that the benefits of providing the option of bolting 
remained compelling and recommended that OSHA propose paragraph (a)(8).
    Paragraph (a)(9) addresses the hazard posed by bridging joists 
before an adequate terminus point has been established. Bridging is not 
truly bridging until a terminus point is created. ``Bridging,'' an 
operation integral to steel joist construction, refers to the steel 
elements that are attached between the joists (from joist to joist) to 
provide stability. ``Erection bridging'' is defined as ``* * * the 
bolted diagonal bridging that is required to be installed prior to 
releasing the hoisting cables from the steel joists.'' ``Horizontal 
bridging,'' usually angle iron, is attached to the top and bottom 
chords of the steel joists by welding. There are several provisions in 
this section that would require bridging to be anchored. This means, by 
definition, that the steel joist bridging must be connected to a 
bridging terminus point. The term, ``bridging terminus point,'' is also 
defined in the proposed rule:

    Bridging terminus point means a wall, beam, tandem joists (with 
all bridging installed and a horizontal truss in the plane of the 
top chord) or other element at an end or intermediate point(s) of a 
line of bridging that provides an anchor point for the steel joist 
bridging.

    Paragraph (a)(9) would simply require that a terminus point be 
established prior to installing the bridging in order to allow the 
bridging to be anchored. OSHA is aware that steel erection is a 
progressive process that requires one piece to be erected before the 
subsequent piece can be attached to it. This provision would require 
pre-planning to determine the particular location of the terminus point 
for the attachment of bridging. To assist in developing terminus 
points, SJI has developed several illustrative drawings that are found 
in non-mandatory Appendix C. In addition, paragraph (c)(3) of this 
section, discussed further below, deals with the problem of an erection 
sequence where the permanent bridging terminus points are not yet in 
existence at the time the joists and bridging are erected.
    Paragraph (a)(10) would prohibit the use of steel joists and steel 
joist girders as anchorage points for a fall arrest system unless 
written direction allowing such use is obtained from a qualified 
person. Allowing those joists and girders that have specifically been 
approved for use as fall arrest system anchorage points by a qualified 
person recognizes both that performance criteria and manufacturer's 
specifications are not currently available regarding the adequacy of 
steel joists to meet the requirements of proposed
Sec. 1926.760(a)(2) but that some steel joists and steel joist girders 
are adequate to meet these load requirements. This paragraph would 
allow steel joists and steel joist girders to be used as anchorage 
points for personal fall arrest systems in those situations where a 
qualified person has stated, in writing, that such use is appropriate.
    Paragraph (a)(11) addresses the potential for failure that can 
occur when a steel joist is modified from its original manufactured 
state. The Committee and SJI agreed that field modifications have had 
disastrous consequences in the past. To ensure against recurrences of 
this type, OSHA proposes to prohibit such modification without the 
prior approval of the project structural engineer of record.
    Paragraph (b) Attachments of steel joists and steel joist girders. 
SJI greatly assisted the Committee in the development of this proposal 
by creating Tables A and B, which relate the attachment and bridging 
requirements of paragraphs (b) and (d) to the actual performance of 
particular joists. SJI arranged for Dr. Theodore Galambos, Professor of 
Civil Engineering at the University of Minnesota, to:

    * * * Mathematically develop a table of theoretical safe and 
stable lengths for all K Series Joists. The stable joist length was 
defined as the maximum span at which a laterally unsupported steel 
joist will safely support a 300 pound load placed on the top chord 
at the mid span of the joist (Ex. 9-19, p. 6).

    Dr. Galambos developed joist stability spans using the following 
criteria: (1) the joists, which had top angles placed back to back with 
no space between the down standing legs of the chord angles, were free 
to rotate, i.e., were not attached; (2) the width of the bearing shoes 
of the joist was not made part of the equation; (3) there was no 
external lateral support; and (4) a 300-pound load was placed on the 
top chord of the joist at mid-span. A 300-pound load was chosen as 
representative of the weight of an average ironworker and his 
equipment, including a safety factor. Following a review of these 
results, SJI, through its members, field tested a representative 
sampling of the joists to verify the study. The joists were field 
tested by placing each joist on supports spaced to obtain the correct 
joist span plus 2\1/2\ inches of bearing length on the support member. 
The test load was applied in 25 pound increments by placing individual 
25 pound steel plates on top of the top chord at mid-span of the joist. 
The load was applied until a total static load of 300 pounds was 
obtained. The results closely paralleled those predicted by Dr. 
Galambos' mathematical model. In addition, the field testing added 
another criterion: that one end of the joist would be attached, which 
increased the stability and helped SJI with its attachment 
recommendations (Ex. 9-19).
    Based on the results of this stability study, SJI developed two 
tables that were adopted in part by the Committee. Table A, Erection 
Bridging for Short Span Joists, includes the lighter, K-Series joists, 
which run up to 60 feet in length. The K-Series open web steel joists, 
having joist depths from 8 inches through 30 inches, are primarily used 
to provide structural support for floors and roofs of buildings. 
Although light in weight, they possess a high strength to weight ratio 
(Ex. 9-141). Although Table A contains all the joists in the K-Series, 
Table B contains only those joists in the LH-Series that are 60 feet or 
less, even though the series spans through 96 feet. These joists are 
used for the direct support of floor or roof slabs or decks between 
walls, beams, and main structural members, and their depths range from 
18 inches to 48 inches. Although the tables do not address the ``Deep 
Longspan,'' or DLH-Series, other paragraphs in this section provide 
specific requirements for attaching these joists. The DLH-Series joists 
can run up to 144 feet and have depths from 52 inches through 72 inches 
(Ex. 9-19). SJI limited the tables to 60 feet for two reasons: 1) the 
K-Series only goes to 60 feet, and 2) over 60 feet, the LH-Series are 
manufactured for the use of diagonal, bolted bridging only. Horizontal 
bridging, according to SJI specifications, can be used only with joists 
of 60 feet or less.
    The attachment of all three series of joists is addressed in 
paragraph (b) of this section. The hazard addressed in that paragraph 
is the inadequate attachment of joists that could affect the stability 
of the joist and thus the safety of the employee erecting the joist. 
Paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) would specify the minimum attachment 
specifications for the lighter and the heavier joists, respectively. At 
a minimum, the K-Series would have to be attached with either two \1/
8\'' (3 mm) fillet welds 1 inch (25 mm) long, or with two \1/2\'' (13 
mm) bolts. In addition, the Committee built in alternative performance 
language by adding the phrase ``or the equivalent'' to allow for 
attachment by any other means that provides at least equivalent 
connection strength. Similarly, at a minimum, the LH-Series and DLH-
Series would have to be attached with either two \1/4\'' (6 mm) fillet 
welds 2 inches (51 mm) long, or with two \3/4\'' (19 mm) bolts. Again, 
OSHA is proposing alternative performance language, ``or the 
equivalent,'' for the reasons discussed above (Ex. 9-56).
    Paragraph (b)(3) addresses the hazards associated with the 
following improper erection sequence: landing joists on the support 
structure; spreading them out unattached to their final position; and 
then attaching them. This procedure creates the potential for worker 
injury because joists handled in this manner may fall or the structure 
may collapse. To eliminate these hazards, this paragraph would require, 
with one exception discussed in paragraph (b)(4) below, that each steel 
joist be attached, at least at one end, immediately upon placement in 
its final erection position, before any additional joists are placed.
    Paragraph (b)(4) is an exception to both the proposed (b)(3) 
``attachment upon final placement'' requirement, and the proposed 
paragraph (a)(8) ``all joists over 40 feet must be boltable'' 
requirement. Paragraph (b)(4) addresses the situation where steel 
joists have been pre-assembled into panels prior to placement on the 
support structure. Pre-assembly usually involves the installation of 
diagonal and horizontal bridging to form a platform at ground level, 
which eliminates fall hazards associated with attaching bridging at 
elevated work stations. Placing joists on the support structure in this 
manner eliminates the single joist instability concerns and other 
hazards that led the Committee to recommend, and OSHA to propose, 
paragraph (a)(8) (see discussion above). Furthermore, because of the 
inherent stability of these pre-assembled panels, this paragraph would 
require only that the four corners of the panel be attached to the 
support structure before releasing the hoisting cables. The attachment 
can be either bolted or welded.
    Additionally, the pre-assembled panel exception to paragraph (a)(8) 
allows for alternative joist erection methods such as a hybrid form of 
steel erection involving steel/wood-panelized roof structures, where 
wooden decking (dimensional wood and plywood) is attached to a single 
steel joist and the resulting panels are set on the support structure 
(Exs. 9-94, 9-95). Again, by placing joists on the support structure in 
this manner, the instability concerns and other hazards associated with 
attaching single joists, which led OSHA to propose paragraph (a)(8), 
are avoided (see discussion above).
    Paragraph (c)  Erection of steel joists. Paragraph (c)(1) would 
require that at least one end of each steel joist be attached to the 
support structure before
the weight of an employee is placed on the steel joist.
    Paragraph (c)(2) addresses steel joists that span 40 feet (12.2 m) 
or less and that do not require erection bridging as required by Tables 
A and B. OSHA's existing steel erection requirements, 
Sec. 1926.751(c)(2) and (c)(3), regarding steel joists and bridging, 
only address members 40 feet or longer:

    (c)(2) Where longspan joists or trusses 40 feet or longer, are 
used, a center row of bolted bridging shall be installed to provide 
lateral stability during construction prior to slacking of hoisting 
line.
    (c)(3) No load shall be placed on open web steel joists until 
these security requirements are met.

    In the last 25 years, many new and different open web steel joists 
have been manufactured. In developing Tables A and B, SJI demonstrated 
that there are dozens of joists that span less than 40 feet that 
require erection bridging to maintain stability during erection. As to 
joists that do not require erection bridging in accordance with these 
tables, OSHA is proposing in paragraph (c)(2) that only one employee be 
allowed on the joist until all permanent (horizontal) bridging is 
installed and anchored.
    Based on the Committee's recognition of the inherent danger of 
employees working on unstable joists, OSHA is proposing in paragraph 
(c)(3) that no employee be allowed on steel joists other than those 
addressed in paragraph (c)(2) unless the requirements of paragraph (d) 
of this section are met.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(4) addresses the situation where the 
erection sequence calls for joists to be erected before the permanent 
bridging terminus points have been established. This situation commonly 
occurs in a single story structure that has masonry or architectural 
precast walls installed after the steel is partially or fully erected. 
Complying with proposed paragraph (c)(4) would involve pre-planning and 
the addition of temporary bridging terminus points to provide stability 
and prevent structure collapse in this situation.
    Paragraph (d)  Erection bridging. Paragraph (d) sets forth proposed 
erection bridging requirements for the safe erection of steel joists. 
Paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2) and (d)(3) address steel joists that span 60 
feet or less, over 60 feet through 100 feet and over 100 feet through 
144 feet, respectively. Although, at first glance, these provisions 
appear similar, they reflect substantive differences that are based on 
engineering principles as well as the collective experience of SENRAC 
members. Since all of the other provisions of paragraph (d) apply 
across the board to all open web steel joists, breaking out these 
different requirements will promote ease of compliance.
    Paragraph (d)(1) refers to the joists that span less than 40 feet 
when the tables indicate the need for erection bridging of such joists, 
and to all joists in bays of 40 feet through 60 feet. Although the SJI 
has determined that there are certain joists with spans from 40 through 
60 feet that do not require erection bridging, the Committee determined 
that a center row of bridging should nevertheless be required to ensure 
stability. OSHA is accordingly proposing paragraph (d)(1). The Agency 
believes, because this practice is already required by OSHA's current 
steel erection standard, that it is already standard industry practice. 
Second, the loads imposed in the SJI tests were static loads, but the 
load imposed by an employee would be a dynamic load. Although SJI 
asserted that an erector ``cooning'' the joist would have a stabilizing 
effect on the joist, the Committee nonetheless concluded that, in bays 
of 40 feet through 60 feet, the row of erection bridging nearest the 
midspan of the steel joist should be bolted diagonal bridging 
(paragraph (d)(1)(i)); further, the Committee believes that the 
hoisting cables should not be released until after the installation of 
this bridging (paragraph (d)(1)(ii)). Additionally, only one employee 
would be allowed on these spans until all other bridging is installed 
and anchored (paragraph (d)(1)(iii)). Anchored bridging means that the 
steel joist bridging is connected to a bridging terminus point. 
Horizontal bridging would have to be welded or attached to each joist 
to be considered anchored. It is unnecessary to address anchoring for 
bolted diagonal bridging because, by the very nature of its connection 
in the erection sequence, the anchorage will have already been 
accomplished. However, as mentioned above in the discussion of 
paragraph (a)(9) of this section, a terminus point is required to be 
established before any bridging is installed.
    Paragraph (d)(2) addresses heavier joists that span over 60 through 
100 feet. Here, two rows of erection bridging would be required to be 
placed nearest the one-third points of the steel joists (paragraph 
(d)(2)(i)). Again, the hoisting cables would not be released until all 
the bolted diagonal erection bridging is installed (paragraph 
(d)(2)(ii)). Since these are heavier members and since two rows of 
bridging must be installed in the erection sequence, only two employees 
would be allowed on these joists until all other bridging is installed 
and anchored (paragraph (d)(2)(iii)).
    Paragraph (d)(3) addresses even heavier joists that span over 100 
through 144 feet. Here, all bridging is considered erection bridging 
and must be bolted diagonal bridging (paragraph (d)(3)(i)). Although 
all of the bridging addressed in paragraph (d)(2) above is bolted 
diagonal bridging, only the two rows nearest the third points are 
considered erection bridging. In the case of the largest open web steel 
joists, with depths up to 72 inches, all the bridging would have to be 
installed before the hoisting cables can be released (paragraph 
(d)(3)(ii)). Again, the reason for requiring bolting is that, in 
setting an individual steel joist, bolting is the safest and quickest 
way of securing the joist with the least equipment. According to 
proposed paragraph (d)(3)(iii), only two employees would be allowed on 
the spans until all the bridging is installed. In this case, since all 
the bridging is bolted diagonal bridging, using the term ``anchored'' 
would be superfluous because, as stated above, by the very nature of 
its connection in the erection sequence, anchoring will already have 
been accomplished. Additionally, a bolted diagonal bridging requirement 
would not apply to the attachment of the diagonal bridging to other 
than steel joists.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(4) reflects the Committee's agreement that 
open web steel members that span over 144 feet are not considered 
joists but rather structural trusses. The erection methods for such 
members are more appropriately treated in the section on solid web 
structural members found in proposed Sec. 1926.756, Beams and Columns, 
since they are larger, heavier members. Paragraph (d)(4) would limit 
what would be considered steel joists since steel trusses are heavy 
duty members, custom made and designed by a structural engineer, and 
usually made of structural shapes. The definition for ``steel truss'' 
is as follows:
    Steel truss means an open web member designed of structural 
steel components by the project structural engineer of record. For 
the purposes of this subpart it is considered equivalent to a solid 
web structural member.

    Although the term is not used in the body of this subpart, it is 
referred to in the definition of steel joists. The Committee believes 
that explaining what does not constitute a steel joist is important for 
clarity and in order to determine which erection provisions apply.
    Paragraph (d)(5) addresses the situation where a joist is bottom 
chord bearing (i.e., attached to the primary
structure by the bottom chord of the joist) and would require erection 
bridging; or is forty feet or less and would not require erection 
bridging per Tables A and B. When a joist is top chord bearing, which 
is the usual application, the center of gravity of the joist is below 
the bearing surface of the support structure--a factor that helps to 
keep the joist stable. In a bottom bearing situation, however, the 
center of gravity is above the bearing surface of the support 
structure--a factor that increases the tendency of the joist to roll 
over. Under these circumstances, this paragraph would require an 
additional row of bolted diagonal bridging near each support where the 
bottom chord receives support. Typically this would require two rows of 
bridging. It is not uncommon, however, for a one story building, such 
as a convenience store that has a high glass front and a lower ceiling 
in the rear, to have steel joists which are bottom bearing in the front 
and top bearing in the back. Under this scenario, only one set of 
bolted diagonal bridging would be required. Consistent with the other 
requirements for erection bridging in this paragraph, this erection 
bridging would have to be installed prior to the release of the 
hoisting cables.
    Paragraph (d)(6) proposes specifications and work practices for the 
placement and attachment of bolted diagonal erection bridging required 
by this proposed section. Paragraph (d)(6)(i) would require that this 
bridging be indicated on the erection drawing. The Committee discussed 
alternative indicators for the proper placement of the bridging and 
concluded that the erection drawing should be the exclusive placement 
indicator (Ex. 6-7, p. 11). Paragraph (d)(6)(ii) would require that the 
erection drawing be the exclusive indicator of the proper placement of 
this bridging.
    Paragraph (d)(6)(iii) is intended to make the attachment of 
erection bridging less difficult and safer to accomplish. This work is 
performed at an elevated work station and frequently involves awkward 
bending and reaching. This provision would require that shop-installed 
bridging clips or their functional equivalents be provided with the 
steel joists. In addition, the proposal defines a ``bridging clip'' as 
a device that is attached to the steel joist to allow the bolting of 
the bridging to the steel joist. Attachments that are the functional 
equivalent of bridging clips would be allowed by this paragraph to 
provide flexibility and to allow for technological innovation should a 
different type of attachment be developed.
    Paragraph (d)(6)(iv) addresses a hazard that is similar to that 
encountered with a double connection, discussed earlier. It would 
provide that where two pieces of bridging are attached to the steel 
joist by a common bolt, the nut that secures the first piece of 
bridging shall not be removed from the bolt for the attachment of the 
second. This is a work practice that is similar to a ``clipped 
connection'' (see definition section).
    Paragraph (d)(6)(v) addresses a ``cooning'' problem rather than a 
tripping hazard since cooning involves straddling the top chord while 
walking on the bottom chord. Nonetheless, this provision works in 
conjunction with proposed Sec. 1926.754(c)(1) and would require that 
bridging attachments not protrude above the top chord of the steel 
joist. This, of course, would apply both to bridging clips and their 
functional equivalents.
    Paragraph (e)  Landing and placing loads. Paragraph (e) addresses 
the hazards encountered in steel erection when landing and placing 
loads. Although work practice provisions found in Sec. 1926.754(e) 
regarding the hoisting, landing and placing of deck bundles in general 
have already been discussed, this paragraph addresses these hazards 
specifically with regard to landing and placing loads on steel joists. 
SJI stressed that accidents occur ``when loads are placed on unsecured/
unbridged joists'' (Ex. 6-8, p. 8). In addition, in the decking 
subgroup's analysis of the data workgroup's fatality and catastrophe 
reports, approximately 16 percent of the floor and roof deck fatalities 
were associated with collapses due to improper loading on steel joists 
(Ex. 9-49, p. 4).
    Proposed paragraph (e)(1) of this section would apply to any 
employer who places a load on steel joists during steel erection. This 
paragraph would require that the load is adequately distributed so that 
the carrying capacity of any steel joist is not exceeded. The remainder 
of proposed paragraph (e) sets forth specific conditions that the 
employer must meet in addition to the general performance criteria in 
paragraph (e)(1).
    Paragraph (e)(2) proposes general requirements that would have to 
be met before landing a construction load on steel joists, although an 
exception is allowed in paragraph (e)(4) for bundles of decking. 
Paragraph (e)(2) would prohibit placement of any construction loads on 
steel joists until all bridging is installed and anchored and all joist 
bearing ends are attached in accordance with paragraph (b) of this 
section (paragraph (b) contains attachment requirements for steel 
joists). A ``construction load for joist erection'' means any load 
other than the weight of the employee(s), the joists and the bridging 
bundle. Bundles of decking constitute a construction load under this 
definition. Under certain conditions, however, decking can be placed 
safely on the steel joists before all the bridging is installed and 
anchored. These conditions form the basis for the exceptions in 
paragraph (e)(4), which is discussed below.
    Although a bridging bundle is not considered a construction load, 
it nevertheless must be landed and placed on the steel joists in a safe 
manner that maintains stability. Proposed paragraph (e)(3) provides for 
the safe and stable placement of bridging on steel joists. Usually, 
this bridging will be 20 foot horizontal bridging because bolted 
diagonal bridging is too short to extend over 3 joists. In developing 
this proposed requirement, the Committee, following consultation with 
SJI in workgroup meetings, decided to limit the weight of the bundle to 
1,000 pounds because the bridging would be placed on the joists before 
they have been fully stabilized. One thousand (1,000) pounds would 
allow the joist erector to safely place the necessary bridging on the 
joists. To facilitate compliance with this requirement, the SJI has 
agreed to establish a new industry practice of bundling bridging into 
1,000 pound units. Placement of the bundle is also important. This 
paragraph would therefore require that the bundle of joist bridging be 
placed over a minimum of 3 steel joists secured on at least one end. 
Under these circumstances, the stability of the load would be further 
enhanced if the load is placed near the support member. Therefore, this 
provision would require that the edge of the bridging bundle be 
positioned within 1 foot of the secured end. A clearance of at least 
one foot is necessary for material handling purposes and to provide 
access to the steel joist's attachment point. This last proposed 
requirement is practically identical to the proposed requirement for 
the placement of construction loads found in paragraph (e)(5) of this 
section.
    Paragraph (e)(4) proposes special conditions to be met before a 
bundle of decking is placed on steel joists that do not yet have all 
bridging installed. Decking bundles are the most common construction 
loads imposed on steel joists. Although it is safe to place 
construction loads on steel joists when all the bearing ends have been 
attached and all the bridging is in place, there are certain commonly 
encountered situations where all the bridging in the
bay and all the bearing ends of the steel joists in the bay do not have 
to be fully installed and attached to land a bundle of decking safely. 
There are six conditions that would have to be met before an exception 
from paragraph (e)(2) is warranted.
    Paragraph (e)(4)(i) would require the employer to determine, based 
on information from a qualified person, that the structure or portion 
of the structure is capable of safely supporting the load of decking. 
This determination would have to be documented in a site-specific 
erection plan available at the construction site (see proposed 
Sec. 1926.753(d)).
    Under paragraph (e)(4)(ii), the bundle of decking would have to be 
placed over a minimum of 3 joists to distribute the load. Since most 
decking comes in 20 foot lengths and the standard distance between 
joists is 5 feet, typically the load will be supported by 4 joists.
    Paragraph (e)(4)(iii) would require that those steel joists 
actually supporting the bundle of decking have both ends attached to 
the support structure (the attachments would have to be in accordance 
with the requirements contained in paragraph (b) of this section).
    At least one row of bridging would have to be attached and 
anchored, according to proposed paragraph (e)(4)(iv). The qualified 
person would determine the type of bridging, erection bridging or 
horizontal bridging, to satisfy this proposed requirement. To assist 
the qualified person in making this decision, paragraph (e)(4)(v) would 
provide a load limit of 4000 pounds (1816 kg) for the total weight of 
the bundle of decking. The Steel Deck Institute (SDI) has indicated 
that, in the future, manufacturers will deliver decking in bundles that 
will accommodate this load limit.
    Finally, paragraph (e)(4)(vi) would require that the edge of the 
bundle be placed within a foot (0.30 m) of the bearing surface of the 
joist. This is the same requirement that applies to all loads in 
proposed paragraph (e)(5) of this section. Collapses could occur if any 
one of the six conditions in paragraph (e)(4) is not met. Therefore, to 
qualify for an exception, this paragraph would require that a site-
specific erection plan be developed that indicates that these bundles 
of 4000 pounds or less will be placed over 3 or more joists that have 
been attached at both ends and have at least one completely installed 
and anchored row of bridging. Additionally, the edge of the bundle of 
decking must be placed within 1 foot of the bearing surface of the 
joist end for the exception to apply.
    Paragraph (e)(5) addresses the proper placement of all construction 
loads (not just decking) on steel joists. As indicated above in the 
discussion of paragraph (e)(3), stability of the load is enhanced by 
placing the load near the support member. Therefore, this proposed 
provision would require that the edge of the construction load be 
positioned within 1 foot of the secured end. At least a one foot 
clearance is necessary for material handling purposes and for access to 
the steel joist's attachment point to the support structure.

Section 1926.758  Pre-Engineered Metal Buildings

    During SENRAC's deliberations on the prerequisites for anchor 
bolts, beams, columns and open web steel joists, the Committee 
discussed many anomalies that appeared to be associated with pre-
engineered metal buildings. The Committee was advised by the Metal 
Building Manufacturers Association (MBMA) that over 50 percent of the 
industrial buildings in steel erection are pre-engineered. This type of 
building frequently has lighter, cold formed members such as girts, 
eave struts and purlins (see definitions). Larger members in this type 
of construction are called rigid frames, a term not used in 
conventional steel erection. There are a large number of small 
specialized steel erectors who exclusively perform pre-engineered metal 
building erection. In light of these considerations and in an effort to 
facilitate compliance with this subpart, SENRAC developed a separate 
section for pre-engineered metal buildings.
    This section sets forth proposed requirements to erect pre-
engineered metal buildings safely. Pre-engineered metal buildings are 
defined in the definition section of this proposal. Pre-engineered 
metal buildings include structures ranging from small sheds to larger 
structures such as warehouses, gymnasiums, churches, airplane hangars 
and arenas.
    Pre-engineered metal buildings use different types of steel members 
and a different erection process than typical steel erection. Many 
contractors erect pre-engineered metal buildings exclusively. An 
overwhelming majority of these erectors are small employers. The 
erection of pre-engineered metal structures presents certain unique 
hazards that are not addressed specifically by OSHA's existing steel 
erection standard. With the help and support of the MBMA and two other 
major manufacturers, the Committee developed and recommended to OSHA a 
section devoted to this industry. Although some of the hazards are 
similar to general steel erection, other hazards, such as those 
associated with anchor bolts, construction loads and double 
connections, are different.
    Most of the proposed requirements in this section are similar to 
those in other sections of this document. Where a conflict arises 
between a provision in the pre-engineered metal building section and 
that of another section of subpart R, to the extent that the work being 
performed is pre-engineered metal building work, the more specific pre-
engineered metal building section would apply. This section, however, 
should not be interpreted to mean that the other provisions of subpart 
R do not apply to pre-engineered metal buildings where appropriate. 
OSHA requests comment and information on whether there are other 
hazards involved in the erection of pre-engineered metal buildings that 
are addressed elsewhere in this subpart but not in proposed 
Sec. 1926.758. If so, should provisions be added to Sec. 1926.758 to 
address those hazards? Additionally, should a cross-reference be made 
to Sec. 1926.760 (fall protection) and Sec. 1926.761 (training) since 
these sections apply to all steel erection?
    Paragraph (a) states that the erection of pre-engineered metal 
buildings may not begin until the site layout has been completed in 
accordance with proposed Sec. 1926.752(b), site layout, site-specific 
erection plan and construction sequence. The requirements in that 
section would apply to pre-engineered metal buildings as they do to 
other types of steel erection.
    Like proposed Sec. 1926.755(a)(1), paragraph (b) would require that 
all columns be anchored by a minimum of 4 anchor bolts. This 
requirement is necessary to ensure stability.
    The proposed requirement in paragraph (c) is unique to the erection 
of pre-engineered metal buildings because rigid frames are found only 
in this type of structure. This paragraph would require that rigid 
frames have 50 percent of their bolts or the number of bolts specified 
by the manufacturer (whichever is greater) installed and tightened on 
both sides of the web adjacent to each flange before the hoisting 
equipment is released. Like proposed Sec. 1926.756(a), this provision 
would require an adequate number of bolts to ensure stability before 
the hoist line is released. Rigid frames are fully continuous frames 
that provide the main structural support for a pre-engineered metal 
building. They provide the support that is typically provided by 
columns and beams in conventional steel erection. Due to
design and load requirements, connections in rigid frames occupy a 
greater area and require more than two bolts upon initial connection. 
The remaining bolts are used to attach other members to the structure 
and provide stability against wind loading. To require these 
connections to be bolted only with two bolts would not be adequate in 
many cases to prevent a collapse hazard.
    Paragraph (d) also pertains to stability and would prohibit 
construction loads from being placed on any structural steel framework 
unless such framework has been safely bolted, welded or otherwise 
adequately secured. Without proper bolting or welding to provide 
stability, a construction load could cause a collapse of the structure.
    Paragraph (e) pertains to double connections in pre-engineered 
metal buildings. When girts or eave struts share common connection 
holes, a double connection hazard exists. As with proposed 
Sec. 1926.756(c), a seat or similar connection would prevent one member 
from becoming displaced during the double connection activity. In girt 
and eave strut to frame connections where girts or eave struts share 
common connection holes, two provisions apply. Paragraph (e)(1) would 
require that at least one bolt with its wrench-tight nut remain in 
place for the connection of the second member unless a field-attached 
seat or similar connection device is present to secure the first member 
so that the girt or eave strut is always secured against displacement. 
Paragraph (e)(2) maintains that the seat or similar connection device 
must be provided by the manufacturer of the girt or eave strut so that 
it is designed properly for the intended use. Because this form of 
double connection is unique to pre-engineered metal building 
construction and might not be considered a double connection under a 
literal reading of proposed Sec. 1926.756(c), this provision 
specifically addresses girt and eave strut to frame connections.
    Proposed paragraph (f) would require that both ends of all steel 
joists or cold-formed joists be fully bolted and/or welded to the 
support structure before releasing the hoisting cables, allowing the 
weight of an employee on the joists, or allowing any construction loads 
on the joists. These proposed requirements are similar to those 
proposed in Sec. 1926.757 for joists. However, due to the uniqueness of 
pre-engineered metal building erection and the design factors of the 
members, the key elements of joist erection that apply to these 
structures are proposed to apply more stringently in paragraph (f).
    Paragraph (g) would prohibit the use of purlins and girts as 
anchorage points for a fall arrest system unless written direction to 
do so is obtained from a qualified person. Generally, purlins and girts 
are lightweight members designed to support the final structure. They 
may not have been designed to resist the force of a fall arrest system. 
If, however, a qualified person determines that the purlin or girt is 
of sufficient strength to support a fall arrest system, it may be used 
for that purpose. The qualified person would be required to provide 
written documentation of this determination. This proposed requirement 
is identical to the one for steel joists in proposed 
Sec. 1926.757(a)(10).
    Proposed paragraph (h) would prohibit purlins from being used as a 
walking/working surface except when installing safety systems. All 
permanent bridging must be in place, and fall protection must be 
provided to the employee installing the safety system and walking or 
working on the surface. Purlins are ``Z'' or ``C'' shaped lightweight 
members, generally less than \1/8\'' thick, 2''-4'' wide on the top and 
up to 40 feet long. They are not designed to be walked on and, because 
of their shape, are likely to roll over when used as a walking/working 
surface if not properly braced.
    Paragraph (i) addresses the placement of construction loads on pre-
engineered metal buildings to prevent collapse due to improper loading 
of the structure. This proposed paragraph would require that 
construction loads be placed within a zone that is not more than 8 feet 
(2.5 m) from the centerline of the primary support member. Unlike 
conventional decking, pre-engineered metal building decking bundles are 
lighter, and the sheets in the bundle are staggered. This staggering 
means that the bundles must be set so that the end of one bundle 
overlaps another bundle since the lengths of the sheets vary. The zone 
needs to be big enough to allow for the lapping while still having the 
support of the structure. An 8 foot (2.5 m) zone allows enough room to 
meet these objectives.

Section 1926.759  Falling Object Protection

    This proposed section sets forth the requirements for providing 
employees with protection from falling objects. A real and everyday 
hazard is posed to steel erection employees by loose items that have 
been placed aloft and that can fall and strike employees working below.
    Paragraph (a) would require that all materials, equipment, and 
tools that are not in use while aloft be secured against accidental 
displacement. This proposed requirement would expand on the existing 
requirement in Sec. 1926.752(a) which addresses bolts, drift pins and 
rivets. The Committee felt that the requirement should apply to any 
item that could become displaced, fall to a lower level and possibly 
injure a worker.
    The intent of paragraph (b) is that, when it is necessary to have 
other work performed below on-going steel erection activities, proper 
overhead protection be provided to those workers to prevent injuries 
from falling objects. If this protection is not provided, work by other 
trades would not be permitted below steel erection work. The 
controlling contractor's responsibility would be to ensure that job 
conditions do not increase the exposure of employees to overhead 
hazards because of accelerated project schedules or other jobsite 
conditions. Additionally, this paragraph is referenced in proposed 
Sec. 1926.752(c), which requires pre-planning to ensure that proper 
overhead protection is afforded to all employees during hoisting 
operations.

Section 1926.760  Fall Protection

    Section 1926.760 addresses fall protection and would establish 15 
feet as the fall distance triggering the proposed requirement for fall 
protection, with two exceptions: connectors working at heights between 
15 and 30 feet and workers engaged in decking in a controlled decking 
zone at a height between 15 and 30 feet.
    Subpart M, OSHA's fall protection standard for construction in 
general, was promulgated by OSHA on August 9, 1994 (59 FR 40672), and 
specifically excludes steel erection from its scope (see paragraph 
Sec. 1926.500(a)(2)(iii)). Subpart M sets the general trigger height 
for fall protection in construction at 6 feet. The questions that 
SENRAC needed to address in determining the appropriate trigger height 
for fall protection in steel erection included: Should the trigger 
height for fall protection in steel erection be different from that in 
other construction operations? If so, why? Is it possible to protect 
workers engaged in steel erection for the entire time that they are 
exposed to fall hazards? If not, why not?
    In answer to these questions, SENRAC pointed out that steel 
erection differs from general construction in several respects. 
Typically, in steel erection, the working surface is constantly being 
created as vertical columns are erected at various heights. Columns are 
connected with solid web beams or steel joists and joist girders to 
form an open
bay. In a multi-story building, the columns are usually two stories 
high. These structural members are set by connectors in conjunction 
with a hoisting unit--typically a crane. The first bay to be erected is 
part of the first tier or story; the bay of the second tier or story is 
formed. Initially the columns are attached to anchor bolts at the 
foundation. Usually, the next procedure is for the connector to install 
the header beams at the first level. Each floor is typically 12.5 to 15 
feet in height. After an exterior bay is formed (``boxing the bay''), 
the filler beams or joists are placed in the bay. The connector then 
ascends the column to the next level, where the exterior members are 
connected to form a bay, and so on. In connecting the filler beams of a 
bay, the connector uses two bolts.
    In making these initial connections, the connector is exposed to 
fall hazards as a result of several factors. One such factor involves 
the structure itself. Poor foundations and inadequate or ill-repaired 
anchor bolts (Ex. 6-3, p. 4) can fail, causing the column/structure to 
collapse and the connector to fall. The proposal first addresses this 
source of collapse to prevent failure in Sec. 1926.755, ``anchor 
bolts'' and Sec. 1926.757(a)(4), ``stabilizer plates,'' discussed 
earlier. Another factor is that both the connector and the structure 
are exposed to being struck by incoming steel. The proposal seeks to 
``engineer out'' the risk of falling in this situation by addressing 
the proper hoisting and rigging of the steel members to eliminate or 
minimize this hazard (see discussion in Sec. 1926.753).
    The unique nature of the work itself also exposes the connector to 
the risk of falling. In particular, the making of double connections at 
columns (or at beam webs over a column) puts the connector at risk of 
falling due to a structural collapse. OSHA is proposing a combination 
of engineering controls and work practices to deal with this hazard. 
Sec. 1926.756(c) would require a seat or similar device that must be 
secured prior to releasing the earlier connections. This prevents the 
column from falling away and eliminates the collapse hazard. Based on 
the data examined by the Committee's statistical workgroup (Ex. 9-42), 
SENRAC concluded that in steel erection work, relatively few worker 
falls occur at heights between 6 feet and 15 feet. Connections at these 
heights can be performed from ladders, scaffolds or personnel work 
platforms. The Committee, nevertheless, fully considered the use of 
personal fall arrest systems for heights between 6 and 15 feet.
    Several fall protection manufacturers participated in discussions 
of this issue. Of major concern was the relationship between the total 
fall distance of available personal fall arrest systems (and how they 
are used) and the trigger height for fall protection that needed to be 
established for the steel erection proposal. As was presented to the 
Committee by one fall protection equipment manufacturer, there are many 
variables that collectively need consideration in understanding fall 
protection. Personal fall arrest systems must first limit the force on 
the body and second limit the total fall distance. The best description 
of total fall distance offered to the Committee is that total fall 
distance is the sum of free fall distance, deceleration distance, 
harness effects and vertical elongation of parts of the personal fall 
arrest system. Through further definition of these terms and how they 
interact, the total fall distance or amount of clearance needed can be 
determined.
    Excluding anchorage connectors, there are 4 types of personal fall 
arrest systems commonly used by workers in full body harnesses 
including: (1) shock absorbing lanyards; (2) self-retracting lifelines; 
(3) rope grabs with vertical lifelines; and (4) shock absorbing 
lanyards with rope grabs and vertical lifelines. Lanyards having 
different lengths and which are allowed by the user to have more or 
less slack can result in a wide variation of free fall distance. The 
three common types of anchorage connectors were described to the 
Committee and include: (1) horizontally mobile and vertically rigid 
(e.g., a trolley connected to a flange of a structural beam); (2) 
horizontally fixed and vertically rigid (e.g., an eyebolt, choker or 
clamp connected to a structural beam, column or truss); and (3) 
horizontally mobile and vertically flexible (e.g., a horizontal 
lifeline suspended between two structural columns or between 
stanchions, attached to a structural beam, designed to support the 
lifeline). Each type contains various combinations of rigidity versus 
flexibility, both vertically and horizontally. Depending on how one 
configures the personal fall arrest system, the total fall distance can 
range from 3-23 feet and from 4-10.5 feet depending on the combination 
of equipment utilized (Exs. 6-10 and 9-77).
    The same fall protection equipment manufacturer indicated that the 
lowest point of the body of a worker performing steel erection should 
be at least 12.5 feet above the nearest obstacle in the potential fall 
path when the worker is properly using a rigidly anchored personal fall 
arrest system of the shock absorbing lanyard type or self-retracting 
lifeline type. Another participant indicated that, in a worst case 
scenario and with no overhead anchorage point (which is a common 
situation in steel erection), 15.5 feet was the lowest height that a 
steel erection worker could be protected. SENRAC acknowledged, however, 
that workers in some cases could be protected at lower heights but only 
at the expense of serious constraints to mobility (especially with 
respect to connectors working with incoming steel), which, in turn, 
could increase the hazards (Ex. 6-11, p. 5).
    In light of these considerations, the following requirements are 
proposed.
    Paragraph (a)  General Requirements. Paragraph (a) proposes the 
primary fall protection trigger height for steel erection activities 
(with certain exceptions), describes what constitutes fall protection 
in these circumstances, and provides specifications for alternative 
protection. Proposed paragraph (a)(1) would set the primary fall 
protection trigger height for most employees engaged in steel erection. 
Each employee covered by this subpart who is on a walking/working 
surface with an unprotected side or edge more than 15 feet above a 
lower level would have to be protected from fall hazards.
    OSHA's existing fall protection requirements for steel erection are 
found in three different provisions. Section 1926.750(b)(1)(ii) of the 
existing steel erection standard reads as follows:

    (ii) On buildings or structures not adaptable to temporary 
floors, and where scaffolds are not used, safety nets shall be 
installed and maintained whenever the potential fall distance 
exceeds two stories or 25 feet. The nets shall be hung with 
sufficient clearance to prevent contacts with the surface of the 
structures below.

    In addition, Sec. 1926.750(b)(2)(i) of the existing steel erection 
standard addresses falls to the interior and reads as follows:

    (2)(i) Where skeleton steel erection is being done, a tightly 
planked and substantial floor shall be maintained within two stories 
or 30 feet, whichever is less, below and directly under that portion 
of each tier of beams on which any work is being performed, except 
when gathering and stacking temporary floor planks on a lower floor, 
in preparation for transferring such planks for use on an upper 
floor. Where such a floor is not practicable, paragraph (b)(1)(ii) 
of this section applies.

    With regard to non-building steel erection (e.g., bridges, conveyor 
systems, etc.), exterior fall hazards on tiered buildings, and both 
interior and exterior fall hazards on non-tiered buildings (e.g., 
warehouses,
gymnasiums, etc.), Sec. 1926.105(a) of subpart E, Personal Protective 
and Life Saving Equipment, applies and reads as follows:

    (a) Safety nets shall be provided when workplaces are more than 
25 feet above the ground or water surface, or other surfaces where 
the use of ladders, scaffolds, catch platforms, temporary floors, 
safety lines, or safety belts is impractical.

    In an attempt to clarify these requirements, OSHA issued a 
memorandum on February 22, 1994 (Ex. 9-13F). That memo established the 
following enforcement policy for section 1926.750:

    Citations shall not be issued to employers engaged in steel 
erection activities (such as, but not limited to, initial 
connecting, decking, welding, and bolting) during the construction 
of skeleton steel buildings if those employers are in compliance 
with the requirements of 29 CFR 1926.750(b)(2) for falls to the 
inside of the structure and with 29 CFR 1926.105(a) for falls to the 
outside of the structure. By the same token, citations shall be 
issued to every employer not in compliance with those standards. 
(For the purposes of this document, ``buildings'' means tiered 
buildings and non-tiered buildings).
    With respect to fall hazards in other steel erection activities, 
such as in bridge and tower erection, 29 CFR 1926.105(a) shall be 
used where the fall hazard is 25 feet or more.

    In 1995, OSHA further clarified its policy with respect to tiered, 
as opposed to non-tiered, buildings. In non-tiered buildings, the fall 
protection requirements in Sec. 1926.105(a) apply to steel erection 
activities over 25 feet.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(1) would require fall protection for most 
employees covered by this subpart at heights 10 to 15 feet lower than 
is required by OSHA's existing requirements. The exception for those 
employees covered by paragraph (a)(3), as discussed below, also 
provides protection at lower heights than does the existing standard.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would specify the fall protection systems 
required by this section. Such fall protection systems shall consist of 
perimeter safety cable systems, guardrail systems, safety net systems, 
or personal fall arrest or fall restraint (positioning device) systems. 
In addition, guardrail systems, safety net systems, and personal fall 
arrest or fall restraint systems must conform to the criteria set forth 
in Sec. 1926.502 of this part (fall restraint systems would also be 
required to conform to the criteria for positioning device systems in 
Sec. 1926.502). Section 1926.502 contains OSHA's general construction 
requirements for fall protection systems. Unlike general construction, 
however, steel erection fall protection also includes perimeter safety 
cable systems; use of these systems has long been an industry practice 
and is required by Sec. 1926.750(b)(1)(iii) of OSHA's existing steel 
erection standard. It is OSHA's intent that the existing requirement 
for the installation of a perimeter safety cable system be maintained 
in this proposal. As mentioned in the discussion above on proposed 
Sec. 1926.756, Appendix F of this proposal provides non-mandatory 
guidance regarding the installation of these perimeter safety cable 
systems.
    The exception to the proposed general requirement that fall 
protection be provided at heights above 15 feet (paragraph (a)(1)) is 
addressed in paragraph (a)(3). According to this proposed requirement, 
connectors and employees working in controlled decking zones would have 
to be protected from fall hazards in accordance with paragraphs (b) and 
(c) of this section, as discussed below.
    Paragraph (b)  Connectors. Proposed paragraph (b) addresses the 
need to protect connectors from falls, to train them in the hazards 
associated with connecting, and to provide them with fall protection 
equipment. Proposed paragraph (b)(1) would require that each connector 
be protected from fall hazards of more than two stories or 30 feet (9.1 
m) above a lower level, whichever is less. Protection at this height is 
currently required by OSHA's existing steel erection standard for all 
employees engaged in steel erection.
    In addition, proposed paragraph (b)(2) requires that each 
connector, as defined, complete connector training in accordance with 
Sec. 1926.761. Such training must be specific to connecting and cover 
the recognition of hazards, and the establishment, access, safe 
connecting techniques and work practices required by proposed 
Sec. 1926.756(c) and Sec. 1926.760(b).
    Proposed paragraph (b)(3) would require that connectors be provided 
with a personal fall arrest or fall restraint (positioning device) 
system, i.e., be wearing the equipment and be provided with the means 
to tie-off at heights over 15 and up to 30 feet above a lower level. In 
the alternative, the connector could be provided with other equally 
effective means of protection from fall hazards in accordance with 
paragraph (a)(2) of this section, which would usually mean protection 
by the use of nets. The definition of these systems, discussed earlier, 
makes it clear that a personal fall arrest or fall restraint 
(positioning device) system would include an anchorage.
    The ability to tie-off and the provision of fall protection 
represent a central component of the SENRAC consensus. Paragraph (b)(3) 
should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the connector must be 
tied-off at heights in the range between 15 feet and 30 feet. The 
Committee's consensus agreement was only that the connectors be given 
the means to tie-off at any time the connector chooses to do so. In 
addition, an anchorage of some sort must always be available: this 
could be stanchions with a catenary lifeline, or simply a lifeline 
attached to the primary beam or joist girder; a ``beamer'' (a portable 
anchorage that rolls along the upper or lower flange of the beam) or a 
nylon web strap anchor; or any other form of anchor that meets the 
requirements of Sec. 1926.502 of this part. The Committee believes that 
under certain conditions, the connector is at greater risk if he/she is 
tied-off. For example, in the event of structural collapse, a tied-off 
connector could be forced to ride the structure to the ground. The 
Committee believes that the connector is in the best position to 
determine when to tie-off, and so the connector must have the ability 
to choose to tie-off.
    A concern was raised as to whether such a provision would affect a 
connector's rights under workers' compensation laws. For example, in 
some jurisdictions, failure to tie-off may be construed as ``employee 
misconduct''. The proposal would allow the connector the choice of when 
not to ``tie-off'' in order to avoid a potentially greater hazard. 
However, states determine eligibility requirements for state workers' 
compensation benefits.
    This exception applies only to connectors actively engaged in the 
placement of structural members and/or components working with hoisting 
equipment. Regardless of job title, when an employee has finished the 
``connecting'' phase and is performing other steel erection activities 
(such as detailing, bolting-up and decking), the employee would no 
longer be considered a ``connector'' for the purposes of the exception 
to paragraph (a)(1) of this section and would have to be protected from 
fall hazards in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) or paragraph (c) of 
this section.
    Paragraph (c)  Controlled decking zone (CDZ). Paragraph (c) 
addresses the other exception to providing fall protection above 15 
feet permitted by this proposal. This provision would allow a 
controlled decking zone to be established in that area of the structure 
over 15 and up to 30 feet above a lower level where metal deck is 
initially being installed and forms the leading edge of
a work area. The Committee developed a combination of specification and 
work practice requirements to protect employees engaged in decking 
activities if an employer elects to establish a controlled decking zone 
rather than provide fall protection as otherwise required by this 
section.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would require that each employee working 
at the leading edge in a CDZ be protected from fall hazards of more 
than two stories or 30 feet, whichever is less. Many decking operations 
do not lend themselves to the establishment of CDZs. For example, 
single story, high bay warehouse structures and pre-engineered metal 
buildings require decking operations that commonly take place more than 
30 feet above lower levels. The exception would not apply in these 
situations.
    An important aspect of a CDZ is controlled access. Based on the 
reviews of OSHA fatality data (Exs. 9-14, 9-49), some fatalities 
attributed to decking operations were experienced by employees not 
engaged in leading edge work. Proposed paragraph (c)(2) would limit 
access to the CDZ exclusively to those employees who are actually 
engaged in and trained in the hazards involved in leading edge work.
    Paragraph (c)(3) addresses the physical limits of a CDZ. The 
employer would be required to designate the boundaries of a CDZ and 
clearly mark them. Control lines would commonly be used for marking the 
boundaries, but the performance language of the proposed requirement 
also allows for the equivalent, e.g., a perimeter wall. Control lines 
are not defined in this proposal. OSHA requests comment on whether a 
definition of ``control lines'' is necessary or whether Appendix D 
provides adequate description, since it sets the criteria for control 
lines or, in the alternative, should Appendix D be incorporated into 
the provisions of Sec. 1926.760(c)?
    The intent of the proposed requirement is to limit access to the 
zone and to limit the overall size of the CDZ. Assuming a typical bay 
to be 40 feet in its greatest dimension, the Committee recommended and 
OSHA proposes that the CDZ not be greater than two bays plus ten feet 
back from the leading edge into a fully installed deck area to allow 
for staging. Because some bays could be larger, a specified distance 
criteria based on the typical bay of 40 feet or 90 feet in each 
direction is proposed. Additional guidelines for assistance in using 
control lines to demarcate CDZs are found in non-mandatory Appendix D.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(4) would require that each employee working 
in a CDZ have completed CDZ training in accordance with the training 
section of this subpart. Such training would cover recognition of the 
hazards associated with work in a controlled decking zone and the 
establishment, access, safe installation techniques and work practices 
required by proposed Sec. 1926.754(e) and Sec. 1926.760(c).
    Paragraph (c)(5) addresses the specific hazard that results when 
full support is not achieved in the placement of metal deck. For 
example, in steel joist construction, metal deck sheets are typically 
20 feet or longer and may span more than 4 joists that are typically 
spaced 5 feet apart. A hazard is created if the deck is placed so that 
only three joists are supporting the sheet and the deck ends are 
unsupported. A worker not using fall protection and stepping on the 
unsupported end of a deck sheet so placed is exposed to a potentially 
fatal fall hazard. This paragraph, therefore, would require that during 
initial placement, deck sheets be placed so as to ensure that the 
structural members provide the support as designed.
    Paragraph (c)(6) addresses the hazard presented to deckers when too 
much decking is left unsecured. The installation of metal deck requires 
it to be placed on the structural members, unsecured, at control marks 
to allow for proper alignment. As a result of the physical dynamics of 
the bundle during shipping, metal deck may have different widths. For 
example, in a typical bundle of decking, the bottom sheet can be wider 
than the top sheet by an inch or more. Due to these variations, field 
adjustment of the decking is necessary to fit the bay at the control 
marks. The proposal would limit the area of unsecured deck to 3000 
square feet (914.4 m\2\) to restrict the exposure of employees engaged 
in the placement of these deck sheets. Given the dimensions of a 
typical bay (a typical bay is approximately 900 S.F.), 3000 square feet 
was determined to be an appropriate limit that would allow for the 
decking to be placed and alignment to be performed prior to tack 
welding. This limit would thus greatly reduce the hazards associated 
with large areas of decking being left unattached and unattended.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(7) addresses the hazard in leading edge work 
that arises when an employee turns his/her back to the leading edge 
while attaching deck sheets. After the decking has been adjusted to fit 
the bay, a safety deck attachment (see definition section) must be 
performed with at least two attachments per panel. When such 
attachments are performed on the laps (although to do so is not 
required), there would be four attachments per panel. Safety deck 
attachments are usually done by tack welding the panel but can also be 
achieved with a mechanical attachment, such as self-drilling screws or 
pneumatic fasteners. The proposed provision would require that such 
attachments be made from the leading edge back to the control line to 
protect the employee from inadvertently stepping off the leading edge.
    Paragraph (c)(8) would prohibit final deck attachments and 
installation of shear connectors in the CDZ. These activities are not 
leading edge work and would not be permitted in a CDZ. Employees 
performing this work can be readily protected from falls by the use of 
conventional fall protection, e.g., guardrails.
    Paragraph (d)  Covering roof and floor openings. Paragraph (d) 
addresses proper covering of roof and floor openings, which is required 
by proposed Sec. 1926.754(e)(2), during steel erection to prevent 
employees from falling through them. Paragraph (d)(1) would require 
that coverings of roof and floor openings be capable of supporting, 
without failure, the greater of either 30 pounds per square foot for 
roofs and 50 pounds per square foot for floors or twice the weight of 
employees, equipment and materials that may be imposed on the cover at 
any one time. The pounds per square foot specifications are based on 
the strength requirements for steel roof and floor decks in the SDI 
Manual of Construction with Steel Deck (Ex. 9-34A). The performance 
language is based on subpart M criteria for covers (Sec. 1926.502(i)). 
This would allow for adequate protection for employees who may walk on, 
or for any equipment that may be placed on, a floor or roof covering.
    Paragraph (d)(2) would require that all covers be secured when 
installed so as to prevent accidental displacement by the wind, 
equipment or employees. Requiring that all covers be secured against 
displacement eliminates the fall hazard. Additionally, paragraph (d)(3) 
would require that all covers be painted with high visibility paint or 
be marked with the word ``HOLE'' or ``COVER'' to provide warning of the 
hazard so as to prevent an employee from inadvertently removing the 
cover.
    Paragraph (d)(4) would provide that smoke domes or skylight 
fixtures which have been installed are not considered covers for the 
purposes of this section unless the strength requirements of paragraph 
(d)(1) above are met. A
common cause of falls is employees leaning or sitting on skylights or 
smoke domes which will not support their weight. These structures may 
not be capable of supporting the load and may give way, causing a fall. 
Consequently, unless they have adequate strength, these structures 
cannot be relied upon to protect employees from falls. OSHA invites 
comment on whether these skylights and smoke domes would be more 
appropriately treated in Sec. 1926.754(e)(2), which addresses roof and 
floor openings, and in particular permanently filling openings, rather 
than in this section, Sec. 1926.760(d), which addresses covers for roof 
and floor openings.
    Paragraph (e) Custody of fall protection. Proposed paragraph (e) 
addresses fall protection, usually perimeter safety cables, initially 
installed and maintained by the steel erector but remaining on the site 
after steel erection has been completed. If no provision for the proper 
maintenance of such fall protection is made, the equipment could fall 
into disrepair and no longer function properly. Employees of 
contractors arriving later might rely on this potentially dangerous 
fall protection, creating a false sense of security in these workers. 
Paragraph (e) would require that fall protection provided by the steel 
erector not be left in an area to be used by other trades after the 
steel erection activity has been completed unless the controlling 
contractor or its authorized representative has directed the steel 
erector to leave the fall protection in place and has inspected and 
accepted control and responsibility of the fall protection prior to 
authorizing persons other than steel erectors to work in the area. This 
proposed requirement is consistent with the AISC Code of Standard 
Practice (Ex. 9-36, p. 15) which states:

    When safety protection provided by the erector is left remaining 
in an area to be used by other trades after the steel erection 
activity is completed, the owner shall be responsible for accepting 
and maintaining this protection, assuring that it is adequate for 
the protection of all other affected trades, assuring that it 
complies with all applicable safety regulations when being used by 
other trades, indemnifying the erector from any damages incurred as 
a result of the safety protection's use by other trades, removing 
the safety equipment when no longer required and returning it to the 
erector in the same condition as it was received.

Section 1926.761  Training.

    The OSHA steel erection proposal has many new requirements 
involving more widespread use of personal fall protection equipment and 
special procedures for making multiple lifts, for decking activities in 
controlled decking zones and for connecting. Early in the development 
of these new requirements, the Committee recognized the need for a 
separate training section. The requirements proposed in Sec. 1926.761 
would supplement OSHA's general training and education requirements for 
construction contained in Sec. 1926.21.
    Proposed Sec. 1926.761(a) would require that instruction on fall 
hazards and other specified hazards associated with steel erection 
activities and appropriate corrective actions be provided to employees 
by a qualified person.
    A ``qualified person,'' as defined in existing Sec. 1926.32 and 
restated in the definition section of this proposal, means one who, by 
possession of a recognized degree, certificate, or professional 
standing, or who by extensive knowledge, training, and experience, has 
successfully demonstrated the ability to solve or resolve problems 
relating to the subject matter, the work, or the project.
    Proposed paragraphs (b) and (c) specify particular training that 
would have to be provided by the employer to employees who are exposed 
to the specified steel erection hazards. Paragraph (b) would require 
that the employer provide a training program for all employees exposed 
to fall hazards. The program would have to include training and 
instruction in the recognition and identification of fall hazards in 
the work area; the use and operation of perimeter safety cable systems, 
guardrail systems, personal fall arrest systems, fall restraint 
(positioning device) systems, safety net systems, controlled decking 
zones and other protection to be used; the correct procedures for 
erecting, maintaining, disassembling, and inspecting the fall 
protection systems to be used; the procedures to be followed to prevent 
falls to lower levels and through or into holes and openings in 
walking/working surfaces and walls; and the fall protection 
requirements of Sec. 1926.760.
    In addition to fall hazards, the Committee identified certain 
activities that would require specialized training due to the hazardous 
nature of the activities. Accordingly, paragraph (c) requires such 
training for employees engaged in multiple lift rigging procedures 
(MLRP), connecting activities and work in controlled decking zones.
    Paragraph (c)(1) proposes additional training for employees 
performing MLRPs. This training would include instruction in the 
hazards associated with multiple lifts and the proper procedures and 
equipment to perform multiple lifts safely, as proposed in 
Sec. 1926.753(c).
    Paragraph (c)(2) would require the employer to ensure that each 
connector has been provided training in the hazards associated with 
connecting, and in the establishment, access, proper connecting 
techniques and work practices proposed in Sec. 1926.760(b) (fall 
protection) and Sec. 1926.756(c) (double connections).
    Paragraph (c)(3) would require additional training for controlled 
decking zone employees. The training must cover the hazards associated 
with work within a controlled decking zone, and the establishment, 
access, proper installation techniques and work practices required by 
Sec. 1926.760(c) (fall protection) and Sec. 1926.754(e) (decking 
operations).
    This proposed section has been drafted to allow the employer a 
reasonable degree of flexibility in developing a training program and 
conducting training. OSHA recognizes that there are differences in the 
techniques that will be successful with different employees. Therefore, 
the proposed section does not limit the employer by specifying the 
manner in which the training must be conducted. Similarly, the specific 
content of the training course has only been generally addressed 
because different topics must be taught to address the variations 
associated with different steel erection activities and to cover 
hazards specific to each workplace.
    The employer may choose the training provider. This could include 
contracting with an outside professional training company to train 
employees or developing and conducting the training program itself. In 
either case, the employer can choose the provider, method and frequency 
of training that are appropriate for the employees being trained. In 
addition, each employee must have been provided training prior to 
hazard exposure.

Appendices to Proposed Subpart R

    The following appendices neither create additional obligations nor 
eliminate obligations otherwise contained in the standard. They are 
intended to provide useful, explanatory material and information to 
employers and employees who wish to use it as an aid to understanding 
and complying with the standard.

Appendix A to Subpart R--Guidelines for Establishing the Components of 
a Site-Specific Erection Plan (Non-Mandatory)

    As explained in the discussion for the proposed section governing 
site-specific
erection plans, this appendix was developed by SENRAC as a non-
mandatory set of guidelines provided to assist employers in complying 
with the requirements of proposed paragraph Sec. 1926.752(d). If an 
employer follows these guidelines to prepare a site-specific erection 
plan, it will be deemed as complying with the requirements of paragraph 
Sec. 1926.752(d). OSHA welcomes comment on the adequacy of these 
guidelines.

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

    Appendix B is provided to serve as a non-mandatory guide to assist 
employers in complying with the requirements of proposed paragraph 
Sec. 1926.754(c)(3). The two nationally recognized test methods 
referred to in appendix B, ASTM F1678-96 (Standard Test Method for 
Using a Portable Articulated Strut Slip Tester) and ASTM F1679-96 
(Standard Test Method for Using a Variable Incidence Tribometer), would 
provide the protocol for testing skeletal structural steel surfaces to 
obtain the documentation or certification required by proposed 
Sec. 1926.754(c)(3). OSHA welcomes comment on the testing procedures 
contained in this appendix.

Appendix C to Subpart R--Illustrations of Bridging Terminus Points 
(Non-Mandatory)

    Appendix C is provided to serve as a non-mandatory guide to assist 
employers in complying with the requirements of proposed paragraph 
Sec. 1926.757(c)(3). Although the appendix does not show all possible 
bridging terminus points, the illustrations provide examples of common 
bridging terminus points. OSHA solicits information and comment on this 
proposed appendix.

Appendix D to Subpart R--Illustration on the Use of Control Lines to 
Demarcate Controlled Decking Zones (CDZs) (Non-Mandatory)

    Appendix D is provided to serve as a non-mandatory guide to assist 
employers in complying with the requirements of proposed paragraph 
Sec. 1926.760(c)(3). If the employer follows these guidelines to 
establish a control line to demarcate a CDZ, OSHA will accept the 
control line as meeting the requirements of paragraph 
Sec. 1926.760(c)(3). This appendix neither creates additional 
obligations nor eliminates obligations otherwise contained in the 
standard. It is intended to provide useful explanatory material and 
information to employers and employees who wish to use it as an aid to 
understanding and complying with the standard. OSHA solicits 
information and comment on this proposed appendix.

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

    Appendix E is provided to serve as a non-mandatory guide to assist 
employers in complying with the requirements of proposed paragraph 
Sec. 1926.761. Even before the existence of OSHA, the Ironworkers 
International Union provided apprenticeship training in steel erection 
to its members. This training has been approved by the U. S. Department 
of Labor's Bureau of Apprenticeship Training for over forty years. As 
soon as this program is updated to reflect the requirements of this new 
subpart R, training under this program will be deemed as complying with 
the training requirements of Sec. 1926.761. As stated in Article XI of 
the current approved National Apprenticeship and Training Standards for 
Ironworkers:

    The [Ironworkers Joint Apprenticeship] Committee shall seek the 
cooperation of all employers to instruct the apprentices in safe and 
healthful work practices and shall ensure that the apprentices are 
trained in facilities and other environments that are in compliance 
with either the occupational safety and health standards promulgated 
by the Secretary of Labor under [the OSH Act] or state [plan] 
standards * * * (Ex. 9-139, p. 8).

OSHA does not intend that training approved by the U.S. Department of 
Labor Bureau of Apprenticeship be the only training deemed to meet the 
requirements of Sec. 1926.761. Employers may choose to provide their 
own training, provided that it fulfills the requirements of 
Sec. 1926.761. The Agency invites comment on this proposed appendix.

Appendix F to Subpart R--Installation of Perimeter Safety Cables (Non-
Mandatory)

    Appendix F is provided to serve as a non-mandatory guide to assist 
employers in complying with the requirements of proposed paragraph 
Sec. 1926.756(f), when perimeter safety cables are used to protect the 
unprotected side or edge of a walking/working surface. If an employer 
elects to follow the guidelines of this appendix, the perimeter safety 
cable system shall be deemed to be in compliance with the provisions of 
Sec. 1926.756(f). OSHA solicits information and comment on this 
proposed appendix.

VI. Other Issues

    As indicated above, the Committee has reached consensus on the 
regulatory text. Although no negotiation sessions have been held since 
December 1995, Committee members have continued to provide technical 
assistance to OSHA staff in developing the ``Summary and Explanation'' 
section of the proposed rule. During this period, a number of 
additional concerns have been raised by Committee members, SENRAC 
workgroup members and OSHA staff. OSHA has determined that, rather than 
reopening the negotiations, these issues can be adequately addressed in 
the normal ``Sec. 6(b) rulemaking process'' that will follow the 
publication of this proposal. Normal rulemaking includes a comment 
period on the proposed rule, an informal public hearing, and, for those 
who have elected to participate in the hearing by filing a ``Notice of 
intent to appear'' (see Public Participation section), a post-hearing 
comment period. In addition, OSHA has decided that, in order to develop 
a complete record and to reach as many stakeholders as possible, these 
and other issues should be raised in this section of the proposal. The 
public is specifically requested to comment on all relevant issues, 
including the following:
    1. Some hazards currently addressed by the existing requirements in 
Sec. 1926.105(a) may not be adequately addressed in proposed subpart R 
(Ex. 9-152). Proposed Sec. 1926.754(b)(3), for example, would require 
that, in multi-story structures, a fully planked or decked floor or 
nets be maintained within 2 stories or 30 feet, whichever is less, 
below and directly under any erection work which is being performed. 
There was a difference of opinion among the Committee members as to 
whether the primary purpose of this requirement is to constitute fall 
protection or protection from falling objects. The Committee considered 
this issue and concluded that the fully planked, decked or netted floor 
provides fall protection just as the netting on a bridge provides fall 
protection. Comment is requested on whether a fully planked floor 
provides fall protection for falls of up to 30 feet.
    Existing Sec. 1926.750(b)(1)(ii) and Sec. 1926.105(a) provide that 
for buildings and other structures not adaptable to temporary floors, 
safety nets must be provided when workplaces are more than 25 feet 
above the ground or water surface, or other surface where the use of 
ladders, scaffolds, catch platforms, temporary floors, safety lines, or 
safety belts is impractical. These requirements have been applied to 
fall hazards on
bridges, as well as fall hazards to the outside of any steel erection 
structure, including those adaptable to temporary floors. However, 
bridges would not be covered by the proposed Sec. 1926.754(b)(3), which 
only applies to multi-story buildings. Therefore, public comment is 
requested on whether a requirement should be added to subpart R to 
continue to require nets for bridges over water. It is suggested that a 
provision could be inserted in Sec. 1926.754(b)(2) and read as follows:

    For bridges, safety nets shall be provided when workplaces are 
more than 30 feet above a water surface, Sec. 1926.760(a) 
notwithstanding.

Comment is requested on the need for this requirement and the 
appropriateness of the suggested language as well as any other 
recommended course of action on this issue.
    Additionally, the proposal would raise the height at which fall 
protection is required for connectors exposed to fall hazards to the 
outside of a building from 25 feet (existing Sec. 1926.105) to 30 feet 
(proposed Sec. 1926.760(b)(1)). Comment is also requested on the 
appropriateness of making this change in the standard.
    2. Proposed Sec. 1926.754(c)(3) uses the term finish-coated to 
describe paints or similar materials applied to steel members. It also 
prohibits workers from walking on a steel member that has been finish-
coated without documentation that the finished coat has not decreased 
the COF of the steel being coated. OSHA solicits information and 
comments on what should or should not be considered finish-coated. 
Should all single coat primer paints or coatings be exempted from being 
considered finished coats? Are there any primer paints that should not 
be exempted, such as epoxy primers? Should galvanized coatings be 
exempted? In addition, OSHA has received information from the 
Structural Steel Painting Council (SSPC) that the term ``finished 
coat'' already has a common understanding in the industry and that it 
refers to paint applied to steel members after the steel members have 
been erected (Ex. 9-152). Since SENRAC is concerned with the 
slipperiness of painted steel before the erection of the members, 
should this requirement be re-worded to avoid potential confusion? 
Since slip resistance information is now attainable (see, for example, 
Appendix B), please submit data to support your views. OSHA also 
requests comment on whether the requirement should avoid using the term 
``finish-coated'' at all; for example, should it simply state: 
``Workers shall not be permitted to walk the top surface of any 
structural steel member installed after [effective date of final rule] 
which has a COF less than that of the original steel.''
    3. The plumbing-up requirements in the proposal have been 
questioned as to whether they are specific enough to ensure structural 
stability as required by proposed Sec. 1926.754(a) (Ex. 9-152). Public 
comment is requested on whether additional plumbing-up requirements are 
necessary to protect employees. It has been suggested that the 
following provisions be added to Sec. 1926.754(a):

    (1) Plumbing-up equipment shall be installed in conjunction with 
the steel erection process to ensure the stability of the structure; 
and
    (2) Plumbing-up equipment shall be in place and properly 
installed before the structure is loaded with construction material 
such as loads of joists, bundles of decking or bundles of bridging.

    Comment is requested on the need for these requirements and the 
appropriateness of the suggested language as well as any other 
recommended course of action on this issue.
    4. The preamble identifies the provisions in the standard which are 
new or which are changed from the provisions of the existing standard. 
OSHA believes that many employers are already following the procedures 
that would be required by many of these proposed provisions. OSHA will 
evaluate, on the basis of all the evidence submitted to the public 
record, the likely effectiveness of the proposed revised and new 
provisions. To assist OSHA in this area, the public is asked to provide 
information on the following issues:
    a. Public comment is requested on the feasibility and effectiveness 
of the proposed changes. OSHA solicits information on the degree to 
which implementation of the proposed changes would reduce the 
occurrence or severity of accidents;
    b. Public comment is requested on the amount of any costs or 
savings that have not been identified by OSHA (see Section VII of this 
preamble--Summary of the Preliminary Economic and Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis) which might result from the proposed changes.
    5. In discussing the scope of proposed subpart R, the Committee 
originally developed an extensive list of structures and activities 
that could involve steel erection work for inclusion in an appendix 
that would be referenced by paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sec. 1926.750. 
However, the Committee subsequently decided that the list should be 
placed in the standard itself in notes to paragraphs (a) and (b), 
respectively. OSHA raised some concerns with this approach related 
primarily to how the courts might interpret a scope section with such a 
long and detailed list. The Agency suggested that a listed structure or 
activity might erroneously be viewed as being within the scope of 
subpart R, whether or not steel erection was taking place. Conversely, 
failure to include an activity or structure on the list might indicate 
that the activity is never to be covered by subpart R, since the list 
appears to be so inclusive. Moreover, the Agency stated that if the 
Committee's goal was to make the scope as broad as possible, it could 
accomplish this goal more directly by specifying instead what is not 
covered by the subpart. OSHA contended that voluminous lists of 
examples of covered workplaces are not appropriate in regulatory text. 
Nonetheless, the Committee reached consensus that the lists of 
structures and activities be placed in the standard as notes to 
paragraphs (a) and (b). OSHA requests comment on the scope and 
application section and specifically on whether these notes clarify the 
scope and application of the proposed standard; whether they restrict 
or expand the scope of what is considered steel erection; and whether 
such restriction or expansion is appropriate. In addition, OSHA notes 
that while the lists indicate workplaces which might be covered by 
subpart R, they would be covered only when steel erection work is being 
performed. The Agency seeks comment on whether the lists are necessary 
in light of that limitation.
    6. Proposed Sec. 1926.755(a) sets forth general requirements for 
ensuring erection stability. Paragraph (a)(1) would require that all 
columns be anchored by a minimum of 4 anchor bolts. Additionally, this 
paragraph would require that column anchor bolt assemblies, including 
the welding of the column to the base plate, be designed to resist a 
300 pound (136.2 kg) eccentric load located 18 inches (.46 m) from the 
column face in each direction at the top of the column shaft.
    OSHA invites comments on the following and any other relevant 
questions: Should these requirements include a 4:1 safety factor for 
the design of the column base to be consistent with other OSHA 
standards? Should the requirements call for the washer and nut to be 
placed and hand tightened at all four anchor bolts before the hoist 
line of the column is released to ensure that stability of the column 
is achieved? Should a cross-reference be provided to
Sec. 1926.752(a)(1) since the anchor bolts would have to be designed 
for the 300 lb. eccentric load when the concrete in the footings, piers 
and walls or the mortar in the masonry piers and walls has attained 
either 75 percent of the intended minimum compressive design strength 
or sufficient strength to support loads imposed during steel erection? 
Would a designer miss the provision in Sec. 1926.752(a)(1) without a 
cross-reference?
    7. Proposed Sec. 1926.756 sets forth requirements for connections 
of beams and columns to ensure stability of the steel structure during 
the erection process. However, the proposal does not have any specific 
requirements for cantilevered beams, which exert different forces on 
the connection than does a typical end-connected beam. A number of 
accidents have occurred because of inadequate connections of 
cantilevered beams during erection. Is a provision needed to require 
that, ``after proper evaluation of the span and the intended load by a 
competent person, cantilevered beams shall be secured with the number 
of bolts necessary to ensure stability.''
    Additionally, with regard to all connections, in some cases bolts 
of lesser diameter and strength than the permanent bolts specified are 
used on a temporary basis. If temporary bolts are used and prove to be 
of insufficient strength, the intent of the proposed paragraph would 
not be met. Is it necessary to require that the bolts used ``be of the 
size and strength shown on the construction documents'' to avert this 
situation? Comments addressing these concerns are requested.
    8. Proposed Sec. 1926.757(a)(8) and Sec. 1926.757(d)(1) introduce 
the term ``bay.'' Should this term be defined in the steel erection 
standard or is there a common understanding of the term? In addition, 
since the two provisions refer to specific sizes of bays, should the 
standard include the particulars of measuring a bay?
    9. Section 1926.757 of the proposal addresses SJI specification 
joists. There are joists being manufactured that are not constructed to 
SJI specifications (for example joists in excess of 144 feet). Should 
the joist requirements of the steel erection standard include 
provisions for non-SJI specification joists?
    10. In the course of SENRAC's deliberations, OSHA staff, NIOSH and 
Committee Workgroups made a considerable effort to study the injuries 
and fatalities resulting from steel erection activities (Exs. 9-13E, 9-
14A, 9-15 and 9-42) so that SENRAC could determine what caused the 
incidents which resulted in those injuries and fatalities and could 
propose appropriate protective and preventive measures.
    Some of the SENRAC participants suggested that the available data 
were unreliable and did not accord with their experience. They believe 
that structural collapse is the major cause of injuries and fatalities 
in steel erection. The Committee therefore decided that the best way to 
protect a worker from a fall is to eliminate structural collapses. The 
Committee believes that the usefulness of fall protection in steel 
erection is greatly reduced in a collapse situation. However, others 
have evaluated the fatality data available to OSHA and determined that 
fall fatalities not involving collapses exceed those which involve 
collapses by a factor of five. Should subpart R focus, to a greater 
extent, on the use of fall protection to prevent fatalities? OSHA seeks 
comments and information regarding the characterizations of the injury 
and fatality data and the conclusions to be drawn from that data. Also, 
the Agency solicits additional information and data on the causes of 
injuries and fatalities experienced by employees erecting steel 
structures.
    11. Proposed 1926.760(b) and (c) set alternative fall protection 
measures for employees performing the initial connection of structural 
steel and employees performing the installation of metal deck. Proposed 
subpart R does not require employers to demonstrate that the use of 
conventional fall protection (guardrails, safety nets or personal fall 
arrest systems) would be infeasible or would create a greater hazard in 
these cases (as do the alternative provisions to fall protection found 
in Sec. 1926.501(b)(2), (12) and (13)). Currently, under 
Sec. 1926.105(a), OSHA requires that employers provide fall protection 
to workers who are installing roof decking on non-tiered steel 
structures over 25 feet. Employers comply with this requirement in 
several ways, including the use of personal fall arrest systems. 
Proposed Sec. 1926.760(b)(3) permits employers to use a CDZ in place of 
fall protection.
    Should the Agency require employers to demonstrate that the use of 
fall protection is infeasible or would create a greater hazard before 
allowing employees to follow alternative measures for connecting or for 
decking operations? Should the standard specify that the connector 
determine that there is a greater hazard to tying-off before electing 
not to tie-off? OSHA seeks comments, suggestions, information and data 
regarding how a steel erection employer should determine what fall 
protection is appropriate for its affected employees.
    12. Proposed Sec. 1926.760(b)(3) requires that connectors be 
provided with fall protection equipment and an available anchorage but 
leaves the decision to the employee as to whether to tie-off. Some 
steel erection companies currently require employees to use fall 
protection at all times above six feet. Is it appropriate to permit 
some work above this height to be performed without fall protection? 
Should the standard allow employees the option of not tying-off? Should 
it be the responsibility of the employer to determine whether and what 
conditions warrant the use of the fall protection? Should the standard 
provide more specific criteria to indicate when the connector is 
required to be tied-off? Are there particular operations for which 
there is evidence that tying-off either is infeasible or poses a 
greater hazard to connectors? The Agency requests comments and 
supporting data on these and related issues.
    13. Proposed paragraph Sec. 1926.760 (a)(1) sets the general 
trigger height for fall protection in steel erection at 15 feet. Do the 
conditions (discussed in the preamble) justify the lack of fall 
protection at 6 feet, as is required by subpart M of OSHA's 
construction standards for most other construction activities? Are 
there activities or structures in the scope of proposed subpart R for 
which fall protection should be provided at other heights (either lower 
or higher)?
    14. Proposed paragraphs 1926.760 (b) and (c) provide exceptions to 
the 15 foot trigger height requirement for connectors and employees 
working in an established CDZ. Do the conditions discussed justify the 
alternative trigger height requirements for these workers? Are the 
alternative protective requirements in those paragraphs adequate to 
protect connectors and CDZ workers from falls? Is there evidence or 
data demonstrating that this is the case?
    15. Proposed 1926.753, Hoisting and Rigging, would allow employees 
to work under overhead loads under certain situations (proposed 
paragraph (b)-- Working Under Loads and proposed paragraph (c)-- 
Multiple Lift Rigging Procedure). In addition, proposed paragraph 
(a)(4) would allow the use of cranes and derricks to hoist employees on 
a personnel platform without a showing that methods are infeasible or 
pose a greater hazard (see 1926.500). Does the rationale (discussed in 
the preamble) justify the allowance of these procedures? Are data 
available to determine that hoisting using a
personnel platform is safe if the specified conditions are met?
    16. Proposed Sec. 1926.761 provides the training requirements for 
steel erection. Included in these requirements are provisions that are 
specifically and uniquely found in steel erection. Re-training 
requirements, a common element of the training provisions in OSHA 
construction standards, however, were rejected by the Committee. Should 
all steel erection employees be required to undergo refresher training? 
If so, what intervals are appropriate for such training? If such 
training is not required in all cases, are there certain conditions or 
situations that do warrant additional re-training? If, for example, an 
employee demonstrates (by using improper procedures, not following 
procedures, etc.) that the employee has not retained the requisite 
understanding or skill or there have been significant changes in fall 
protection equipment or other techniques or technologies since the 
employee was trained, should the standard require re-training? Under 
what circumstances, if any, should an employee be re-trained?
    An additional training requirement that is a part of many steel 
erectors' safety procedures is the so-called ``tool box'' meeting. 
Steel erection involves progressive sequences of erection, so that one 
day's shift may involve an entirely different workplace than the day 
before, possibly with different or unique new hazards. Would it be 
appropriate for OSHA to require a brief safety meeting prior to each 
shift or each change of activity to inform employees of identified 
hazards to be encountered during that shift and to make the employees 
aware of any particular procedures, equipment and work practices that 
will be used? What has been your experience with such meetings? Have 
you found them helpful? Protective? Cost-effective? Please provide any 
information or data to support your responses.
    Proposed 1926.761 does not specify the details of required training 
programs to allow the employer flexibility in designing training 
programs. Do the training requirements provide adequate direction or 
should the frequency of training and the initial administering of 
training be addressed?
    17. Based on the reasons stated in the preamble, is the lack of a 
specific requirement for slippery metal deck surfaces (reserved 
paragraph (c)(2) of proposed 1926.754) justified or is there adequate 
information to support such a requirement?
    18. Proposed 1926.752(d) allows employers to elect to develop a 
site-specific erection plan if compelled by site-specific 
considerations. Is there adequate support for not requiring a site-
specific erection plan for all sites? Are there more (or fewer) 
situations than those identified in proposed 1926.752(d) for which the 
development of a site-specific erection plan would be appropriate? Does 
the lack of a required site-specific erection plan for every site 
reduce the protectiveness of the proposed standard in situations where 
providing such plans is feasible? OSHA solicits information on the 
effectiveness of erection plans and employers' and employees' 
experiences in developing and implementing them.
    19. OSHA invites comments and information on proposed Sec. 1926.760 
(e). Specifically, to what extent do steel erection employers currently 
turn over fall protection systems to general contractors or follow-up 
contractor employers when steel erection operations have been 
completed? To what extent do ``controlling contractors'' currently 
assume responsibility for fall protection systems installed by steel 
erectors, as would be required by proposed Sec. 1926.760 (e)(1) and 
(e)(2)?
    20. There are six provisions in the proposal that exempt the 
employer from certain requirements of the standard where the design or 
constructibility would not allow or would eliminate the need to comply 
with the requirement. These are Sec. 1926.754(b)(1), 
Sec. 1926.754(b)(2), Sec. 1926.754(e)(2)(i), Sec. 1926.754(e)(2)(ii), 
Sec. 1926.756(e), and Sec. 1926.756(f). What criteria should be used to 
determine whether design or constructibility would allow the exemption? 
Should the employer be required to demonstrate these criteria prior to 
claiming an exemption to one of the provisions?
    21. Proposed Sec. 1926.760(a)(2) provides criteria for fall arrest 
systems and other fall protection equipment and includes strength 
requirements for anchorages used in fall arrest systems. Proposed 
Sec. 1926.757(a)(10) prohibits the use of joists and joist girders as 
anchorages and proposed Sec. 1926.758(g) prohibits the use of purlins 
and girts in pre-engineered metal buildings as anchorages unless 
``written direction to do so is obtained from a qualified person.'' In 
the discussion above, the explanation for the prohibition was explored 
but little was presented as to what the ``written direction'' should be 
based on. Should criteria be included in these provisions to develop 
the basis for the written direction and, if so, what should these 
criteria be?
    22. OSHA welcomes small business comments in response to the 
following:
    a. While conducting a negotiated rulemaking process, SENRAC 
considered a number of alternatives to the final proposal. The 
alternatives are presented in the preamble and the Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis. Are any of these alternatives more effective 
while achieving the same level of safety? Are there other cost-
effective alternatives to specific provisions in the rule that would 
produce an equally safe steel erection workplace? If so, please 
explain.
    b. Comments are welcome from affected small businesses on all 
aspects of the proposal. Comments could include anticipated costs 
(including capital outlay), revenue and profit estimates, feasibility 
and anticipated levels of safety resulting from the rule. In 
particular, OSHA welcomes comment and any available supporting 
information on the cost, feasibility and safety of the following 
specific requirements.
    (1) Section 1926.754(e)(1)(i) requirement disallowing hoisting by 
bundle packaging and strapping, unless the packaging and strapping are 
designed for hoisting.
    (2) Sections 1926.755(a)(1) and 1926.758(b) requirements to anchor 
all columns by a minimum of 4 anchor bolts, based on specific design 
assembly specifications.
    (3) Section 1926.756(f)(3) requirement that holes or other devices 
be provided by the fabricator/supplier and be attached to perimeter 
columns at 42-45 inches above the finished floor.
    (4) Section 1926.757(a)(4) requirement that a stabilizer plate be 
provided on each column for steel joists and steel joist girders.
    (5) Section 1926.757(a)(8) requirement for steel joists in bays of 
40 feet or more to be fabricated to allow for field bolting during 
erection--a requirement which requires the use of building specific 
bolt hole construction.
    (6) Section 1926.757(d)(6)(iii) requirement for shop-installed 
bridging clips, or functional equivalents, on all steel joists to be 
provided where the bridging bolts to the steel joists.
    (7) Section 1926.758(e)(2) requirement for the seat or similar 
connection device to be provided by the manufacturer of the girt or 
eave strut.
    c. OSHA assumes that the proposed rule will require construction 
and steel fabricator firms to either pass-through costs and increase 
prices or assume costs in some proportion and reduce profits by some 
amount. Small business representatives have expressed concern that, if 
the total cost of construction increases by greater than 5 percent, 
their client base will shift away from steel erection to less costly 
construction methods. Is this an accurate threshold
for determining the effects of the rule on the competitive position of 
steel erection firms? Do affected firms expect the proposed rule to 
increase costs of steel erection or related fabrication by more than 5 
percent? Explain the bases for this calculation. Will construction and 
fabrication firms lose significant numbers of jobs or specific types of 
jobs because of a price increase? Are specific types of firms within 
the steel erected building industry particularly sensitive to cost 
increases?
    d. ``Leading edge'' construction firms have already met many of the 
proposed rule's provisions. Thus, OSHA assumes that other firms will be 
able to meet the rule's requirements with existing equipment and 
production methods at reasonable economic costs. Is this an accurate 
assumption? Firms already in basic compliance with the proposal's 
provisions are welcome to comment on each of the following questions:
    (1) What is the size of your firm (e.g., number of employees, 
annual revenue, etc.)?
    (2) Which provisions of the proposed rule do you practice?
    (3) How much has compliance with these practices reduced or 
increased your profit and why?
    (4) How much has compliance with these practices increased or 
reduced your costs and why?
    (5) How much of increased costs have you been able to pass along to 
the customer?
    (6) When faced with the need to make a cost-competitive bid, how 
does your firm absorb or reduce costs associated with the additional 
safety practices?
    e. The proposed rule places new requirements on pre-engineered 
metal buildings. OSHA invites this industry sector to comment and 
provide supplemental information on the costs and benefits of these 
requirements. Specifically, the agency seeks comments on the following 
information:
    (1) The number of firms likely to be affected by this rule;
    (2) The typical size of these firms (e.g., number of employees, 
annual revenue, etc.);
    (3) The size of revenues of these firms and their profitability as 
a percent of revenues;
    (4) The costs of the proposed requirements on these firms;
    (5) The need for safety improvements associated with erection of 
various sized pre-engineered metal buildings; and
    (6) Regulatory alternatives that may be more appropriate or cost 
effective for this sector.
    f. OSHA has assumed that safety benefits accrue to employees in 
small firms at a rate equal to that in medium and large firms. OSHA's 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis assumed, however, that 44 
percent of iron workers affected by the rule are employed by small 
firms and that these small firms would have to pay only 22.5 percent of 
the costs, leaving the majority of the cost impacts to fall on medium 
and larger firms. OSHA welcomes comment on whether it should assume 
that benefits accrue on a different basis than costs. For example, OSHA 
welcomes comment on whether it has properly estimated that only 22.5 
percent of costs would fall on firms with fewer than 10 employees, even 
though 44 percent of all employees in the steel erection trade work for 
these very small firms? Comments are also invited on other cost and 
benefit assumptions.

VII. Summary of the Preliminary Economic and Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis

Introduction

    The Administrator of OIRA has determined that this proposal is a 
significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 and a major rule under 
the Congressional Review provisions of the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act. Accordingly, OSHA has provided OIRA with an 
assessment of the costs, benefits and alternatives, as required by 
section 6(a)(3)(C) of E.O. 12866, which is summarized below.
    Executive Order (EO) 12866 requires regulatory agencies to conduct 
an economic analysis for rules that meet certain criteria. The most 
frequently used criterion under EO 12866 is that the rule will impose 
annual costs on the economy of $100 million or more. OSHA's proposal to 
revise the steel erection standard in construction is projected to 
result in annual costs of less than $100 million; nevertheless, OSHA 
has prepared this preliminary economic analysis, summarized below.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended in 1996, 
requires OSHA to determine whether the Agency's regulatory actions will 
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Making such a determination for this proposal required OSHA to perform 
a screening analysis to identify any such impacts. OSHA's screening 
analysis indicated that the proposed rule might have significant 
impacts on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, OSHA 
has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, summarized 
below, of the proposed steel erection rule.
    OSHA's preliminary economic analysis and initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis include a description of the industries 
potentially affected by the standard; a summary of the major changes 
between OSHA's existing steel erection standard and the proposed rule; 
an evaluation of the risks addressed; an assessment of the benefits 
attributable to the proposed standard; a determination of the 
technological feasibility of the new requirements; an estimate of the 
costs employers will incur to comply with the standard; a determination 
of the economic feasibility of compliance with the standard; and an 
analysis of the economic and other impacts associated with this 
rulemaking, including those on small businesses. OSHA's preliminary 
economic analysis and initial regulatory flexibility analysis of the 
proposed standard are based on risk and cost data collected and 
analyzed by OSHA's contractor, Jack Faucett Associates; these data are 
presented in Appendices B and C of the preliminary economic analysis.

Affected Industries

    The proposed steel erection standard affects industries and 
establishments within the construction industry. Table 1 presents the 
industry groups in construction that will be directly affected by the 
proposed standard. Construction employers who will be directly impacted 
are concentrated within SIC 1791, Structural Steel Erection, an 
industry with 4,463 establishments and 51,108 employees in 1996, as 
reported by Dun & Bradstreet [D&B, 1996a]. Within this industry, 3,724 
establishments, or 83 percent of the total number of establishments, 
employed nineteen or fewer employees in 1996, while 3,099 
establishments (69 percent) employed nine or fewer employees. SIC 1791, 
however, also includes employers and workers who perform construction 
activities other than steel erection, notably pre-cast concrete 
erection. Thus, any comprehensive profile of the steel erection 
industry must, in addition to examining affected industry groups, focus 
on the type of work and the trade of the workers engaged in this form 
of construction.

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

                                             Table 1.--Industry Groups in Construction Potentially Affected by the Proposed Steel Erection Standard                                             
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Establishments with 1-  Establishments with 1-  Establishments with 1-    Establishments with     All establishments  
                                                                  Iron          9 employees            19 employees            99 employees           100+ employees     -----------------------
             SIC                       Industry group           workers  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                       
                                                                  (a)     Establish-              Establish-              Establish-              Establish-              Establish-  Employment
                                                                             ments    Employment     ments    Employment     ments    Employment     ments    Employment     ments              
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15...........................  Building Construction--General     13,760     250,639     736,753     267,669     948,795     278,225   1,310,692       3,306     185,116     281,531   1,495,808
                                Contractors and Operative                                                                                                                                       
                                Builders.                                                                                                                                                       
154..........................  General Building Contractors--     13,760      35,373     130,773      42,934     225,849      49,297     452,453       1,706     148,947      51,003     601,400
                                Nonresidential Buildings.                                                                                                                                       
1541.........................  Industrial Buildings and        .........       6,055      22,269       7,422      39,733       8,884      93,823         559      60,411       9,443     154,234
                                Warehouses.                                                                                                                                                     
1542.........................  Nonresidential Buildings,       .........      29,318     108,504      35,512     186,116      40,413     358,630       1,147      88,536      41,560     447,166
                                other than in SIC 1541.                                                                                                                                         
16...........................  Heavy Construction other than       2,490      30,861     107,284      36,389     177,080      42,484     406,738       3,663     240,183      46,147     646,921
                                Building Construction.                                                                                                                                          
161..........................  Highway and Street                    220      11,465      40,482      13,476      65,703      15,767     153,454         906     109,699      16,673     263,153
                                Construction, except Elevated                                                                                                                                   
                                Highways.                                                                                                                                                       
162..........................  Heavy Construction, except          2,270      19,396      66,802      22,913     111,377      26,717     253,284       2,757     130,484      29,474     383,768
                                Highway and Street                                                                                                                                              
                                Construction.                                                                                                                                                   
1622.........................  Bridge, Tunnel, and Elevated    .........         634       2,477         844       5,116       1,199      18,847         281      15,674       1,480      34,521
                                Highway Construction.                                                                                                                                           
1623.........................  Water, Sewer, Pipeline, and     .........       6,673      26,154       8,669      51,686      10,874     133,018       1,989      43,469      12,863     176,487
                                Communications and Power Line                                                                                                                                   
                                Construction.                                                                                                                                                   
1629.........................  Heavy Construction Not          .........      12,089      38,171      13,400      54,575      14,644     101,419         487      71,341      15,131     172,760
                                Elsewhere Classified.                                                                                                                                           
17...........................  Construction--Special Trade        22,730     537,914   1,617,998     582,095   2,176,861     611,076   3,165,136       7,899     335,227     618,975   3,500,363
                                Contractors.                                                                                                                                                    
176..........................  Roofing, Siding, and Sheet          1,060      37,688     116,697      41,185     160,798      43,671     244,033         451      13,315      44,122     257,348
                                Metal Work.                                                                                                                                                     
179..........................  Miscellaneous Special Trade        20,210     104,192     312,739     112,313     414,931     117,545     589,432       1,340      58,755     118,885     648,187
                                Contractors.                                                                                                                                                    
1791.........................  Structural Steel Erection.....  .........       3,099      10,986       3,724      18,914       4,346      40,696         117      10,412       4,463      51,108
                                                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Construction Totals......    ............................     38,980     819,414   2,462,035     886,153   3,302,736     931,785   4,882,566      14,868     750,526     946,653   5,643,092
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics Survey, 1993.                                                                                      
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, 1998, based on Dun & Bradstreet, National Profile of Businesses software, Dun & Bradstreet Information Services, 1996.   


BILLING CODE 4510-26-M

    The workers directly benefitting from the proposed standard are 
identified in occupational surveys as structural metal workers; in the 
industry, they are known as iron workers. According to the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics' Occupational Employment Statistics Survey [BLS, 
1993], there were 38,980 structural metal workers in construction in 
1993, the majority of whom are found in SIC 179, Miscellaneous Special 
Trade Contractors (20,210 structural metal workers), and SIC 154, 
Contractors--Nonresidential Buildings (13,760 structural metal workers) 
(Table 1). For this preliminary economic analysis, OSHA used this 
estimate of the number of iron workers affected by the proposed rule in 
its benefits and cost analyses. In addition to these construction 
workers, structural metal workers and other workers in general industry 
who perform steel erection repair or renovation operations that are 
defined by OSHA as construction may fall within the scope of the 
proposed standard. At this time, however, OSHA lacks data on the number 
of, and types of work performed by, workers not classified in 
construction SICs that perform steel erection activities. OSHA requests 
information on the number of structural metal workers and workers in 
other trades who perform steel erection outside of the construction 
industry.

Proposed Changes to OSHA's Steel Erection Standard

    The proposed steel erection standard modifies and strengthens the 
Agency's existing standard in a number of areas. For example, the 
proposed standard includes a scope and application section that 
identifies the types of construction projects and activities subject to 
the rule. Structures excluded from coverage under the scope of the 
standard are steel electrical transmission towers, steel communication 
and broadcast towers, steel water towers, steel light towers, steel 
tanks, and reinforced and pre-cast concrete. The proposed rule also 
includes a new section addressing site layout and construction 
sequence. Other proposed revisions to the existing standard include:
     Explicit requirements for hoisting and rigging and the 
resulting protection of workers and the public from the hazards of 
overhead loads;
     Additional and strengthened requirements for the 
structural steel assembly of beams, columns, joists, decking, and pre-
engineered metal buildings, including the protection of employees from 
tripping hazards and slippery surfaces on walking/working surfaces;
     Strengthened and clarified requirements for fall 
protection for connectors, decking assemblers, and other iron workers 
during the erection of structural steel; and
     New requirements for training in fall hazards, multiple 
lift rigging,
connecting, and controlled decking zones.
    For this analysis, OSHA has identified those requirements that 
would create substantial impacts or generate substantial benefits. OSHA 
estimates that current industry practice is at 10 percent with regard 
to providing fall arrest systems and personnel nets (i.e., 10 percent 
of affected firms currently use this equipment); at 75 percent for 
safety training; at 80 percent for column anchor bolts; and at 87 
percent for guardrail systems [Ex. 11]. OSHA anticipates that the 
proposed standard's requirements pertaining to overhead loads, trips 
and slips, falls, falling objects, collapses, and worker training will 
both generate substantial benefits for affected employers and impose 
costs on them.

Evaluation of Risk and Potential Benefits

    For this preliminary economic analysis, OSHA developed a profile of 
the risks facing iron workers who are performing steel erection 
operations. OSHA's risk profile for steel erection is based on data 
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' National Census of Fatal 
Occupational Injuries, data from the Bureau's Survey of Occupational 
Injuries and Illnesses, and an analysis by a SENRAC workgroup of OSHA 
fatality/catastrophe inspection data obtained from the Agency's 
Integrated Management Information System.
    OSHA anticipates that the proposed standard will significantly 
reduce the number of accidents and fatalities currently reported in the 
steel erection industry, particularly those accidents caused by falls 
from elevated levels and by objects such as dislodged structural 
members and building materials striking workers. OSHA believes that the 
proposed standard's more protective requirements for fall protection, 
structural stability, and training will help to save lives and prevent 
injuries in the iron worker workforce. For accidents involving events 
or exposures potentially addressed by the proposed standard, OSHA 
estimates that approximately 28 fatalities and 1,836 lost-workday 
injuries currently occur annually among structural metal workers (see 
Table 2, below); this is the current industry risk baseline used in 
this analysis. OSHA projects that full compliance with the proposed 
standard would prevent 26 of these fatalities and 1,152 of these lost-
workday injuries. Twelve of these fatalities and 328 serious injuries 
could be prevented if employers were currently in compliance with 
OSHA's existing steel erection standard. The proposed standard will 
prevent an additional 14 fatalities and 824 injuries not prevented by 
the existing standard. Further, OSHA believes that compliance with the 
steel erection standard will be enhanced because the proposed revision 
is clearer, allows for more flexibility in compliance, is easier to 
understand, and is effectively targeted toward steel erection hazards.

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

    Table 2.--Summary of Estimated Number of Deaths Averted and Injuries Avoided by Full Compliance With the    
                                        Proposed Steel Erection Standard                                        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Total number                 
                                                     Number of      Additional     of fatalities                
                                     Number of    fatalities and     number of       and lost-       Number of  
                                  fatalities and   lost-workday   fatalities and      workday     fatalities and
                                   lost-workday      injuries      lost-workday      injuries      lost-workday 
                                     injuries     preventable by     injuries     preventable by     injuries   
                                     currently      compliance    preventable by    compliance     judged not to
                                     occurring       with the       compliance       with the     be preventable
                                    among iron       existing        with the      existing and      by either  
                                      workers        standard        proposed        proposed        standard   
                                                                     standard        standards                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatalities......................              28              12              14              26               2
Lost-Workday Injuries...........           1,836             328             824           1,152             684
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, 1998.                                    


BILLING CODE 4510-26-M

    In addition to saving lives and improving overall safety in the 
steel erection industry, OSHA believes that the proposed standard, once 
fully implemented by erection contractors, would yield substantial cost 
savings to parties within and connected with the industry and 
ultimately to society as a whole. These monetized benefits take the 
form of reductions in employer and insurer accident-related costs in 
several areas: value of lost output associated with temporary total 
disabilities and permanent partial disabilities, an income-based 
measure derived from estimates of workers' compensation indemnity 
payments; reductions in accident-related medical costs; administrative 
expenses incurred by workers' compensation insurers; and indirect costs 
related to productivity losses, work stoppages, and accident 
investigations and reports. Applying data from the construction and 
insurance industries on the direct costs of accidents and data from the 
literature on the indirect costs of accidents and other tort and 
administrative-related costs to OSHA's preliminary estimate of avoided 
injuries (see Chapter III in the preliminary economic analysis [Ex. 
11]), the Agency monetized the value of the cost savings employers and 
society will accrue by avoiding these injuries. In sum, OSHA estimates 
that annual costs savings of $11.6 million would result from full 
compliance with the current rule and an additional $28.7 million would 
be saved as a result of compliance with the proposed rule (Table 3). 
Thus annual monetized benefits of $40.3 million are expected after the 
proposed steel erection standard is implemented as a final rule.

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

      Table 3.--Summary of Annual Incremental Monetized Benefits of     
  Preventable Lost-Workday Injuries Attributable to the Proposed Steel  
                            Erection Standard                           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lost Output Associated with Temporary Disabilities......      $4,356,347
Lost Output Associated with Permanent Disabilities......      14,450,838
Medical Costs...........................................       3,923,949
Insurance Costs (Administrative)........................       2,384,945                                                                        
Indirect Costs..........................................       3,607,994
Costs Associated with Liability Claims Avoided..........             N/Q
                                                         ---------------
    Total Cost Savings..................................      28,724,074
------------------------------------------------------------------------
N/Q--Not Quantified.                                                    
                                                                        
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis,  
  1998.                                                                 


BILLING CODE 4510-26-M

    In addition to these monetized benefits, cost savings attributable 
to a decline in the number of third-party liability suits can be 
expected. Although quantification of these tort-related legal defense 
costs and dollar awards is difficult because of the unavailability of a 
sufficient volume of data, OSHA believes that these employer costs are 
substantial and would be slashed significantly through compliance with 
the proposed standard.

Technological Feasibility and Compliance Costs

    Consistent with the legal framework established by the OSH Act, 
Executive Order 12866 and court decisions, OSHA has assessed the 
technological feasibility of the proposed steel erection standard. The 
proposed standard clarifies and strengthens the Agency's existing 
standard, provides more specific requirements in some areas, and 
introduces requirements for some steel erection hazards newly addressed 
by the Agency. Many of the proposed revisions are consistent with 
current construction means and methods used by leading firms within the 
steel erection industry. The success of these firms in this competitive 
industry demonstrates that the requirements of the proposed standard 
can be met with existing equipment and production methods.
    Moreover, the proposed standard is based on a consensus draft 
recommended to the Agency by a negotiated rulemaking committee 
consisting of divergent industry interests--including small employers--
who would be affected by any changes to subpart R. The committee 
reached consensus on the language of the draft, thereby implicitly 
acknowledging the feasibility of the proposed revisions to the 
standard.
    Therefore, based on the fact that many firms in the industry are 
already implementing the controls and practices required by the 
proposed standard and that the negotiated rulemaking committee reached 
consensus on the draft underlying the proposed revisions, OSHA has 
preliminarily determined that the proposed steel erection standard is 
technologically feasible.
    OSHA developed estimates of the costs of compliance for 
construction employers subject to the proposed standard; OSHA's 
analysis is based on data gathering and analysis carried out by Faucett 
Associates under contract to OSHA. OSHA estimated annualized compliance 
costs for two compliance scenarios: (1) costs to achieve compliance 
with OSHA's existing steel erection standard, and (2) costs to achieve 
compliance with the proposed standard. OSHA's cost estimates take into 
account the extent of current industry compliance, i.e., the extent to 
which employers are already in compliance with the requirements of 
OSHA's existing standard and with the requirements of the proposed 
steel erection standard. Accounting for these costs, i.e., subtracting 
them from the costs attributed to the proposed standard, is important 
because only those costs employers would actually incur to come into 
compliance with the proposed standard are properly attributed to that 
standard.
    Table 4 presents OSHA's annualized compliance cost estimates, by 
provision or safety control, for establishments in the industries 
subject to the proposed standard. For establishments to achieve full 
compliance with OSHA's existing steel erection standard, annualized 
compliance costs are estimated to total $28.0 million. OSHA projects 
that full compliance with the proposed standard would, after deducting 
costs incurred to achieve compliance with the existing standard, result 
in net (or incremental) annualized costs of $49.4 million for affected 
establishments. Among incremental annualized costs, expenditures for 
fall arrest systems account for $14.4 million, or 29 percent of total 
costs; expenditures for the safe design and erection of steel joists 
required by the proposed standard account for $13.9 million, or 28 
percent of total costs; and expenditures for anchor bolts necessary for 
structural stability account for $13.7 million, or 28 percent of total 
costs. Other control costs associated with compliance with the proposed 
steel erection standard are those for railings, cables, and barriers 
($4.7 million); paperwork associated with administrative controls ($3.4 
million); and training ($0.7 million).

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

                                            Table 4.--Annualized Compliance Cost of the Proposed Standard by Industry Group and Proposed Controls (a)                                           
                                                                                         [1995 dollars]                                                                                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                              Proposed controls                                                 
                                                                                                                  -----------------------------------------                                     
                      SIC                              Industry group and size        Fall arrest  Personnel nets   Railings,                                Training   Paperwork       Total   
                                                                                        systems                     cables and  Anchor bolts      Joist                                         
                                                                                                                     barriers                   erection                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
154............................................  General Building Contractors--                                                                                                                 
                                                  Nonresidential Buildings                                                                                                                      
                                                 Establishments with 1-9 Employees.    $1,005,697      ($104,757)     $324,360      $958,333      $971,949    $50,944     $233,655    $3,440,181
                                                 Establishments with 1-99 Employees     3,664,730       (381,730)    1,181,959     3,492,139     3,541,752    185,637      851,432    12,535,919
                                                 Establishments with 100+ Employees     1,428,486       (148,796)      460,719     1,361,211     1,380,550     72,360      331,882     4,886,413
                                                 All Establishments................     5,093,216       (530,525)    1,642,679     4,853,350     4,922,302    257,997    1,183,315    17,422,332
161............................................  Highway and Street Construction,                                                                                                               
                                                  except Elevated Highways                                                                                                                      
                                                 Establishments with 1-9 Employees.        18,716         (1,949)        6,036        17,834        18,088        948        4,348        64,020
                                                 Establishments with 1-99 Employees        57,156         (5,954)       18,434        54,464        55,238      2,895       13,279       195,514
                                                 Establishments with 100+ Employees        24,276         (2,529)        7,830        23,133        23,461      1,230        5,640        83,041
                                                 All Establishments................        81,432         (8,482)       26,264        77,597        78,700      4,125       18,919       278,555
162............................................  Heavy Construction, except Highway                                                                                                             
                                                  and Street Construction                                                                                                                       
                                                 Establishments with 1-9 Employees.       134,569        (14,017)       43,402       128,232       130,054      6,817       31,265       460,320
                                                 Establishments with 1-99 Employees       524,969        (54,682)      169,314       500,245       507,352     26,592      121,967     1,795,757
                                                 Establishments with 100+ Employees       315,264        (32,839)      101,680       300,416       304,684     15,970       73,246     1,078,421
                                                 All Establishments................       840,233        (87,521)      270,994       800,662       812,037     42,562      195,213     2,874,178
176............................................  Roofing, Siding and Sheet Metal                                                                                                                
                                                  Work                                                                                                                                          
                                                 Establishments with 1-9 Employees.       150,303        (15,656)       48,476       143,224       145,259      7,614       34,920       514,141
                                                 Establishments with 1-99 Employees       361,729        (37,679)      116,666       344,693       349,590     18,323       84,041     1,237,363
                                                 Establishments with 100+ Employees        30,626         (3,190)        9,878        29,184        29,599      1,551        7,115       104,764
                                                 All Establishments................       392,355        (40,869)      126,544       373,877       379,189     19,875       91,157     1,342,127
1791...........................................  Structural Steel Erection                                                                                                                      
                                                 Establishments with 1-9 Employees.     1,821,328       (189,715)      587,420     1,735,552     1,760,209     92,259      423,152     6,230,206
                                                 Establishments with 1-99 Employees     5,131,108       (534,472)    1,654,900     4,889,457     4,958,922    259,916    1,192,118    17,551,950
                                                 Establishments with 100+ Employees     2,349,553       (244,737)      757,785     2,238,900     2,270,708    119,016      545,875     8,037,100
                                                 All Establishments................     7,480,661       (779,209)    2,412,685     7,128,357     7,229,630    378,933    1,737,994    25,589,050
                                                 Establishments with 1-9 Employees.     3,130,613       (326,095)    1,009,694     2,983,176     3,025,558    158,581      727,340    10,708,868
All Significally Affected Industry Groups......  Establishments with 1-99 Employees     9,739,692     (1,014,517)    3,141,274     9,280,999     9,412,855    493,364    2,262,838    33,316,503
                                                 Establishments with 100+ Employees     4,148,205       (432,090)    1,337,891     3,952,844     4,009,003    210,127      963,759    14,189,738
                                                 All Establishments................    13,887,897     (1,446,607)    4,479,165    13,233,843    13,421,857    703,491    3,226,597    47,506,242
Other Affected Industry Groups (b).............  ..................................       540,414        (56,291)       74,296       514,963       522,279     27,375      125,555     1,848,590
    Total......................................  ..................................    14,428,311     (1,502,898)    4,653,461    13,748,806    13,944,136    730,865    3,352,152   49,354,832 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Figures in the table may not sum to totals due to rounding.                                                                                                                               
(a) Total compliance costs were distributed among industry groups according to the percentage of iron workers employed in that group (see Table 1). Within SIC groups, costs were distributed by
  share of revenue for firms in the size class.                                                                                                                                                 
(b) Other industries potentially affected by the proposed steel erection standard employ a small percentage of iron workers. These industry groups are: SIC 171, Plumbing, Heating and Air-     
  Conditioninng;: SIC 173, Electrical Work; SIC 174, Masonry, Stone Work, Title Setting and Plastering; and SIC 175, Carpentry and Floor Work. Because firms in these industries are seldom     
  involved directly in structural steel erection. OSHA has grouped them separately.                                                                                                             
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, 1998, based on cost analysis by Jack Faucett Associates (See Appendix C of the preliminary economic analysis [Ex. 11])   
  and Dun & Bradstreet, National Profile of Businesses software, Dun & Bradstreet Information Services, 1996.                                                                                   

Economic Impacts

    OSHA analyzed the impacts of these compliance costs on prices, 
profits, construction output and other economic indices in the steel 
erection industry. In particular, OSHA examined economic impacts on SIC 
1791, Structural Steel Erection, where the majority of the 39,000 
structural metal workers are employed. This analysis shows that 
structural steel erectors will not be severely impacted by the costs 
associated with full implementation of the proposed standard.
    OSHA examined the potential economic impacts of the proposed 
standard by making two assumptions used by economists to bound the 
range of possible impacts: the assumption of no-cost pass-through, 
i.e., that employers will be unable to pass any of the costs of 
compliance forward to their customers, and the assumption of full-cost 
pass-through, i.e., that employers will be able to pass all of the 
costs of compliance forward to their customers. As summarized in Table 
5, below, OSHA estimates that, if affected firms in SIC 1791 were 
forced to absorb these compliance costs entirely from profits (a highly 
unlikely scenario), profits would be reduced by an average of 4.6 
percent. If, at the other extreme, affected firms were able to pass all 
of these compliance costs forward to general contractors and project 
owners, OSHA projects that the price (revenue) increase
required to pay for these costs would be less than 1 percent (0.28 
percent).
    In addition to examining the economic effects of the proposed 
standard on firms in SIC 1791, OSHA estimated the impacts of the 
proposed standard on two other construction industry divisions 
involving steel erection: (1) the entire construction sector; and (2) 
construction activity where structural steel constitutes the physical 
core of the project, termed ``steel-frame construction'' by OSHA.
    For the dollar value of business for the entire construction 
sector, OSHA totaled 1996 sales data for SICs 15, 16, and 17 provided 
in a Dun & Bradstreet national business database [D&B, 1996a]. OSHA 
derived pre-tax income (Column 2 in Table 5) for the construction 
sector by, first, calculating industry profit using Dun & Bradstreet 
data on post-tax return on sales (post-tax profits) and, second, 
applying a formula that converts post-tax income to pre-tax income 
based on tax rates in the U.S. corporate tax code. OSHA found that, for 
the construction sector as a whole, price impacts under full cost pass-
through would be 0.01 percent, and profit impacts assuming no cost 
pass-through would be 0.06 percent. Thus in the context of the 
construction sector as a whole, the proposed standard would have little 
impact.

  
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

   Table 5.--Potential Economic Impacts of the Proposed Steel Erection Standard on Selected Sectors Within the  
                                              Construction Industry                                             
                                             [Worst-Case Conditions]                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Dollar value                     Compliance      Compliance  
                                                    of business   Pre-tax income    costs as a      costs as a  
                                                      (a) ($          (b) ($        percent of      percent of  
                                                     millions)       million)       revenue (c)     profit (c)  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction Sector as a Whole..................      $768,155.9       $77,830.1            0.01            0.06
Steel-Frame Construction (d)....................       119,979.2        12,156.4            0.04            0.41
SIC 1791, Structural Steel Erection.............         9,285.7           562.4            0.28            4.55
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Based on data from Dun & Bradstreet, National Profile of Businesses, 1996.                                  
(b) Based on data from Dun & Bradstreet, National Profile of Businesses, 1996; Dun & Bradstreet, Industry Norms 
  and Key Business Ratios, 1996; and OSHA profit calculations.                                                  
(c) Revenue and profit impacts were calculated by dividing annual compliance costs for each of the three        
  construction sectors shown in the table by, respectively, dollar value of business and pre-tax income.        
  Compliance costs assigned to these sectors are based on total costs of $49.4 million and were applied as      
  follows: construction sector as a whole--$49.4 million; steel-frame construction--$49.4 million; and SIC 1791,
  Structural Steel Erection--$25.6 million.                                                                     
(d) Steel-Frame Construction is defined by OSHA as the body of construction projects where steel framing        
  constitutes the physical core of the structure. Dollar value of business and pre-tax income for Steel-Frame   
  Construction were computed by applying the percentage of the value of the steel market share (15.6 percent),  
  excluding that for tanks and towers, of all construction starts to the dollar value of business and pre-tax   
  income for the entire construction sector. Data on the steel market share for 1995 are based on memoranda to  
  OSHA from Construction Resources Analysis, College of Business Administration, University of Tennessee,       
  Knoxville [Exs. 9-143 and 9-144].                                                                             
                                                                                                                
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, 1998.                                    


BILLING CODE 4510-26-M

    OSHA calculated the value of steel-frame construction using data 
provided by the Construction Resources Analysis office of the 
University of Tennessee, College of Business Administration on the 
value of the steel market share of the entire construction industry. In 
this calculation, OSHA applied the percentage of the value of the steel 
market share (15.6 percent), excluding that for tanks and towers, of 
all construction starts to the dollar value of business and pre-tax 
income for the entire construction sector, thereby eliminating all non-
steel construction (as defined in the proposed standard) from the 
earnings total. Price increases for steel frame construction as a whole 
are of particular interest because they represent the price increases 
to the ultimate customers of steel erection services, the purchasers of 
buildings, bridges, etc. Under the worst-case price increase scenarios, 
the price of such projects would increase by 0.04 percent. It is 
exceedingly unlikely that a customer would fail to go ahead with a 
project as a result of a price increase of this magnitude; as a result 
cost pass-through at the project level is probably feasible.
    OSHA believes that, prior to the generation of the cost savings 
projected to accrue from implementation of the standard, most steel 
erectors will handle the increase in direct costs by increasing their 
prices somewhat and absorbing the remainder from profits. Within steel 
erection markets, the particular blend of impacts experienced by a 
given firm will depend on the degree of competition with concrete 
erection and other alternative types of construction in the firm's 
local market area. Although these minimal economic impacts would be 
felt by most affected employers after implementation of the standard, 
OSHA anticipates--based on testimony by members of SENRAC and other 
industry representatives whose current fall protection programs and 
other safety measures mirror those required by the proposed standard 
[Exs. 6-3, 6-8, and 6-10]--that offsetting cost savings will soon 
reverse any negative economic impacts.

Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended in 1996 (5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), requires regulatory agencies to determine whether 
regulatory actions will adversely affect small entities. The 
significance of any economic impact is measured by the effect on 
profits, market share, and an entity's financial viability. Pursuant to 
the RFA, OSHA has assessed the small-business impacts of the proposed 
steel erection standard. On the basis of this regulatory flexibility 
screening assessment and the underlying data, summarized below, OSHA 
has preliminarily determined that the proposed standard will have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Thus, 
OSHA has conducted a full Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, as 
required. OSHA's Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis follows the 
screening analysis presented in this section.
    The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines small entities, or 
``concerns,'' in terms of number of employees or annual receipts. For 
employers in SIC 17, small concerns are
defined by SBA as those with $7.0 million or less in annual receipts. 
OSHA has determined that in SIC 1791, Structural Steel Erection, based 
on 1996 data from Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) and using D&B's estimate of 
the dollar value of business to represent annual receipts, the class of 
establishments with 99 or fewer employees comes closest to the class of 
firms qualifying as small concerns under the SBA definition. Not all 
firms in this class would have annual receipts of less than $7.0 
million; however, OSHA would rather overestimate the number of small 
firms than try to extrapolate the number of small firms from the 
limited data available. Establishments with fewer than 99 employees 
represent 97.4 percent of the 4,463 establishments and employ 79.6 
percent of the 51,108 workers in SIC 1791, according to Dun & 
Bradstreet's national market profile [D&B, 1996a].
    OSHA projects that the magnitude of compliance costs for most 
safety measures mandated by the proposed standard will depend on the 
size of an employer's workforce. For requirements pertaining to fall 
protection, joist erection, and structural assembly, to name a few 
provisions, labor and equipment costs will vary by project size and 
duration. For the requirements for training, costs will vary by 
employment size. Thus, in some cases, smaller firms erecting smaller 
structures will incur relatively lower compliance costs. In sum, the 
proposed standard is designed to minimize requirements that would 
impose significant fixed capital costs and give larger firms a 
competitive advantage through economies of scale.
    In this regulatory flexibility screening assessment, OSHA assessed 
the impacts of compliance costs within the industry group with the 
largest concentration of affected employers and employees, SIC 1791, 
Structural Steel Erection. According to data from the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, of the approximately 39,000 iron workers in construction, 
20,210 are employed in SIC 179, Miscellaneous Special Trade 
Contractors. OSHA believes that the great majority of these workers are 
found in SIC 1791, Structural Steel Erection, because the other 
industries in SIC 179 (glass and glazing, excavation work, wrecking and 
demolition, installation and erection of building equipment (such as 
installing elevators, revolving doors and industrial machinery) and 
specialty trade contractors not elsewhere classified), are unlikely to 
employ significant numbers of iron workers. This contention is 
supported by the fact that available data on iron worker deaths (see 
Table III-2 in the preliminary economic analysis [Ex. 11]) show that 
SIC 1791 accounted for more than 90 percent of iron worker deaths in 
SIC 179 in 1992-93. Total employment for all trades in SIC 1791 is 
51,108 workers, according to Dun & Bradstreet. BLS and D&B data 
indicate that iron workers constitute roughly 40 percent of the labor 
force in SIC 1791, the largest concentration of iron workers in any 
four-digit group where iron workers are employed. In addition, only 
firms in SIC 1791 earn the majority of their revenues from steel 
erection. (According to the definitions used in the SIC system, firms 
classified in all other sectors must earn a minority of their total 
revenues from their steel erection business.)
    Compared with all other industry groups in the construction 
industry, firms in SIC 1791 have the greatest number of iron workers 
per firm and the highest percentage of iron workers relative to total 
employment. Since the costs of compliance are approximately 
proportional to the number of iron workers in a given firm, 
establishments in SIC 1791 will experience the greatest economic 
impact.
    To assess the financial impacts of the proposed standard on small 
firms in SIC 1791, OSHA distributed compliance costs within size 
classes according to an estimate of the percent of revenue (gross 
sales) earned by establishments within those size classes. Applying Dun 
& Bradstreet revenue figures, OSHA has determined that costs represent 
less than one percent (0.28 percent) of revenues for firms with 99 or 
fewer employees, so that under the extreme case of full-cost pass-
through to consumers, prices would rise by no more than one percent 
(see Table 6, below). Similarly, for the very smallest firms, those 
with fewer than ten employees, price impacts are projected to be low: 
0.28 percent.

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

 Table 6.--Potential Economic Impacts of the Proposed Steel Erection Standard on Small Firms in the Steel Erection Industry Under Worst-Case Conditions 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Annual                      Dollar                                                                           
                                         compliance    Compliance     value of                        Pre-tax       Pre-tax      Compliance   Compliance
                                         costs (a)      cost per      business      Revenue per      income (c)    income per    costs as a   costs as a
                                             ($      establishment     (b) ($    establishment (b)       ($      establishment   percent of   percent of
                                         millions)        (a)        millions)                       millions)        (c)         revenue       profit  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIC 1791, Structural Steel Erection...        $25.6      $5,733.6      $9,285.7       $2,080,606.0       $562.4    $126,024.2          0.28         4.55
SIC 1791, 1-99 Employees..............         17.6       4,038.6       6,369.2        1,465,541.8        395.8      91,074.8          0.28         4.43
SIC 1791, 1-9 Employees...............          6.2       2,010.4       2,260.8          729,530.4         95.8      30,898.0          0.28        6.51 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Based on Table 5 of this summary of the preliminary economic analysis and data on number of establishments from Dun & Bradstreet, National Profile  
  of Businesses, 1996. Compliance costs for size groups were derived by applying the percentage of revenue in the size groups to total costs for all of 
  SIC 1791.                                                                                                                                             
(b) Based on data from Dun & Bradstreet, National Profile of Businesses, 1996.                                                                          
(c) Based on data from Dun & Bradstreet, National Profile of Businesses, 1996; Dun & Bradstreet, Industry Norms and Key Business Ratios, 1995-96; and   
  OSHA profit calculations.                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                        
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, 1998.                                                                            

BILLING CODE 4510-26-M

    Under the alternate scenario of full-cost profit absorption (an 
extremely unlikely scenario) among steel erection contractors with 99 
or fewer employees, profit impacts would be 4.4 percent; for firms with 
one to nine employees, profit impacts would be 6.5 percent. Thus, costs 
as a percentage of profits and revenues for SIC 1791 are lower when a 
small entity is defined to include all firms within the SBA size 
standards (less than $7 million in revenue) than for small entities 
employing fewer than 10 workers. The difference in these projected 
profit impacts for the two smaller size categories of firms reflects a 
difference in the 1995-96 profit rates
for the two groups [D&B, 1996b] applied by OSHA in this impacts 
analysis: (1) an average 3.6 percent rate of net-profit-after-tax-to-
net-sales for establishments with fewer than ten employees (roughly 
defined as those with assets of less than $250,000) and (2) an average 
4.9 percent post-tax profit/sales ratio for establishments with one to 
ninety-nine employees (roughly defined as those with assets of $250,000 
to $1 million) (see Chapter VI in the preliminary economic analysis for 
further explanation).
    OSHA believes that most small erectors will, along with the rest of 
the industry, receive economic benefits from compliance with the 
proposed rule that will more than offset these direct cost impacts. As 
noted above, employer representatives on the committee commented on 
numerous occasions that the measures required by the proposed standard 
will, in fact, improve profitability and competitiveness [Exs. 6-3, 6-
8, and 6-10]. Therefore, OSHA anticipates that most small entities will 
experience minimal economic impacts as a result of implementation of 
the proposed standard if some or all compliance costs can be passed 
forward to final consumers and/or cost savings are realized. However, 
OSHA believes that, when compliance costs exceed 5 percent of profits 
in an industry earning reasonable profits, the standard's impact may be 
significant in the context of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Thus, 
OSHA has conducted a full Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, as 
required by that act.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended in 1996, requires that 
an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis contain the following 
elements:
    (1) A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being 
considered;
    (2) A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, 
the proposed rule;
    (3) A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number 
of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
    (4) A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and 
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an 
estimate of the classes of small entities that will be subject to the 
requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for 
preparation of the report or record;
    (5) An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant 
Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed 
rule; and
    (6) A description of any significant alternatives to the proposed 
rule that accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and 
minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small 
entities.
    In addition, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis must contain a 
description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule that, 
first, accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes (in this 
case the OSH Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act) and that, second, 
minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small 
entities.

Reasons for the Proposed Rule

    According to OSHA's analysis of accident data for an eleven-year 
period (1984-1994), 319 iron worker fatalities involved hazardous 
conditions that are addressed by OSHA's current and proposed steel 
erection standards. Based on a review of BLS injury census data for the 
period 1992-1993, OSHA estimates that an average of 28 fatalities and 
1,836 lost-workday injuries annually involve circumstances that would 
be addressed by provisions in the proposed OSHA steel erection 
standard. For an industry with an estimated workforce of only 38,980 
workers, these fatality and injury levels clearly demonstrate that the 
risk confronting these workers is significant. Therefore, OSHA has 
developed proposed regulatory text that is designed to address this 
risk.

Objectives of the Proposed Rule

    The objective of this proposal is to reduce the risk of 
occupational exposure to a variety of hazards on steel erection 
construction worksites, such as those involving falls, slips, trips, 
being struck by or crushed by objects or loads, and structural 
collapses. These occupational hazards will be reduced by this proposal 
through the use of engineering controls, work practice controls, 
inspections of worksite conditions, training, communication, and 
recordkeeping. Implementation of these measures has been shown to 
minimize or eliminate occupational exposure to these hazards during the 
erection of steel structures and thus to reduce the risk of injury or 
death among iron workers.

Description of the Number of Small Entities

    For this rulemaking, OSHA has identified the population at risk of 
injury in the construction workforce and the industry groups where 
steel erection is conducted, but cannot give a precise estimate of the 
number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply. In SIC 
1791, Structural Steel Erection, where the majority of iron workers are 
employed, there are roughly 4,346 establishments defined as small by 
the SBA, i.e., these entities earn less than $7 million in annual 
revenue. If all establishments in SIC 1791 were affected by the 
proposed standard, then small entities would comprise 97 percent of all 
affected entities using the SBA size standard. There are 3,724 very 
small establishments, i.e., those employing fewer than 20 employees, in 
SIC 1791; these very small establishments comprise 83 percent of all 
establishments in the industry.
    OSHA also examined the impact of the proposed standard on the 
Fabricated Structural Metal Industry (SIC 3441), which produces iron 
and steel for structural purposes such as the construction of bridges 
and buildings. This sector would need to bore holes in certain joists--
those that are connected to steel structures in bays spanning 40 feet 
or more--to enable them to be bolted rather than welded (proposed 
section 1926.757). OSHA's impact analysis assumes that this sector 
would bear all of the $13.9 million in annual costs associated with the 
provision of the proposed standard concerning open web joists. In fact, 
because of contractual arrangements among fabricators, steel erectors 
and building owners, most of the costs of this provision would be 
transmitted through steel erectors to building owners and would appear 
in the bid price of the project or would be incurred as onsite costs.
    For purposes of this analysis, OSHA has defined small firms in this 
industry using the SBA definition of small firms: firms with fewer than 
500 employees. Department of Commerce data show that there were 2,356 
small firms in this sector in 1993. (Small firms represented 97.5 
percent of all firms.) Department of Commerce data also show that these 
small firms had total revenues of over $6.6 billion, almost 73 percent 
of all industry revenues. Dun and Bradstreet data show that in fiscal 
year 1995, the median profits for firms in this sector were a healthy 
3.5 percent of sales. Small firms were assumed to bear costs in 
proportion to their revenues. Even if all of the costs of this 
provision of the standard are borne by the fabricated structural metal 
industry, these costs represent only 0.15 percent of revenues and 4.3 
percent of profits for small firms in this sector. Thus the costs of 
the standard would not cause a significant impact on small firms in 
this sector.
    The Steel Joist Institute has argued that some small firms may lack 
the equipment to prepare joists as required
by the standard, and that as a result such firms could be severely 
impacted. However, buildings requiring joists in bays spanning 40 feet 
or more represent only a portion of the total market. To the extent 
that there are small firms lacking suitable equipment, such firms could 
still produce fabricated steel for a variety of steel erection projects 
and for portions of other projects. As a result, OSHA does not 
anticipate a significant impact, if any, on those firms that lack the 
proper equipment to prepare certain joists for bolting. However, OSHA 
solicits comment on two issues: (1) whether there are small firms 
lacking suitable equipment to prepare joists in the manner prescribed 
by the regulation; and (2) the percentage of the steel framing market 
that requires the use of joists in bays spanning 40 feet or more.

Description of the Proposed Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other 
Compliance Requirements

    The proposed rule would require, in the following sections of the 
proposal, that employers establish and maintain records for the use of 
engineering controls, work practices, inspections, and training:
     Site layout, site-specific erection plan, and construction 
sequence;
     Hoisting and rigging;
     Structural steel assembly;
     Open web steel joists;
     Pre-engineered metal buildings; and
     Training
    Most steel erection employers would be affected by the reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements in these sections, with the exception of 
the requirements pertaining only to pre-engineered buildings. Of an 
estimated 17,587 steel erection projects constructed annually, 7,391 
pre-engineered metal buildings are erected each year.
    In estimating the cost of establishing and maintaining the records 
for each of these control areas, OSHA used the wage rate of the 
applicable professional personnel. To give two examples: (1) for the 
cost of certifying crane visual inspections, OSHA applied the wage rate 
for a crane operator; and (2) for the costs of documentation of 
alternative methods for joist erection, OSHA applied the wage rates of 
a project manager and a structural engineer. All recordkeeping 
requirements included in the proposed rule could be performed by the 
existing staff in any of the covered industries. A detailed description 
of the proposed requirements appears in Chapter II, INDUSTRY PROFILE 
and Chapter III, COSTS OF COMPLIANCE, in the preliminary economic 
analysis.

Relevant Federal Rules

    OSHA is proposing to revise the current safety standard for steel 
erection that has been in place with little change for over 25 years. 
OSHA believes that this thorough and comprehensive revision to existing 
subpart R will provide greater protection and eliminate ambiguity and 
confusion, thereby improving safety in this important segment of the 
construction industry.
    At present there are no other federal workplace rules or guidelines 
that overlap with the OSHA steel erection standard.

Significant Alternatives Considered

    OSHA is confident that the proposed steel erection standard has 
been written in such a way as to minimize impacts on small employers 
while still ensuring significant protection for affected employees. 
Through the efforts of key stakeholders participating in the negotiated 
rulemaking, the proposed standard features, wherever possible, 
performance language that permits maximum flexibility for achieving 
safety outcomes. For example, the proposal provides an opportunity to 
those employers, who select alternative means and methods for complying 
with certain sections of the standard, to incorporate these 
alternatives into a site-specific erection plan. The committee 
considered small contractors when it elected not to recommend that OSHA 
propose a universal requirement for a site-specific erection plan for 
all steel erection sites. Instead, the proposal provides guidelines for 
establishing a site-specific erection plan in a non-mandatory appendix 
to assist employers who choose to develop such a plan, as recommended 
by the committee.
    Other areas of the proposed standard that are particularly 
responsive to the concerns of small contractors include rules for the 
safe use of cranes and other lifting equipment and the proper assembly 
of metal buildings other than those constructed of heavy structural 
steel. In light of the number of small steel erectors potentially 
affected by the hoisting and rigging section of the proposed standard, 
OSHA has attempted to minimize the burden of the pre-shift visual crane 
inspections by having the inspection checklist apply only to the most 
essential safety elements, as recommended by SENRAC. Additionally, 
since there are a large number of small builders who erect pre-
engineered metal structures exclusively, OSHA determined that a 
separate section in the proposal dedicated to this type of steel 
erection would ease compliance for small erectors.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act emphasizes the importance of 
performance-based standards for small businesses. OSHA considers the 
proposed standard to be highly performance oriented and believes that 
smaller contractors will benefit especially from that orientation. For 
example, in proposed Sec. 1926.760, Fall Protection, employers are 
required to protect certain employees exposed to fall distances of 15 
feet or greater. Paragraph (a)(2) of Sec. 1926.760 lists the types of 
general safety systems--e.g., guardrail systems, safety net systems, or 
personal fall arrest systems--that must be used by employers to provide 
fall protection to their employees. However, the proposed standard does 
not mandate particular engineering solutions by structure type, site 
location, crew size, or other criteria. Employers are free to select 
any one system or combination of systems that is most compatible with 
company practice and employee protection so long as the performance 
measure--fall protection at 15 feet--is achieved. OSHA welcomes comment 
on other ways that the standard can be made more performance oriented.
    As another example of OSHA's sensitivity to the potential impacts 
on small businesses, the proposal minimizes paperwork burden where 
training, notifications, and other forms of communication are required, 
as recommended by SENRAC. Regarding training provisions, general 
instruction in fall hazards is mandated for all employees exposed to 
that risk, but the scope of additional special training is limited to 
three particularly hazardous activities: multiple lift rigging, 
connecting, and decking. Employers are to ensure that the training is 
provided but do not have to document or certify the program. Other 
requirements where communication will be necessary, including those 
involving field curing of concrete footings and modification of anchor 
bolts, were written in such a way as to limit the notifications to 
cover only the most essential information. Supplementary explanatory 
materials, presented in appendices to the proposed standard, are 
intended to assist employers in complying with the rule and otherwise 
providing a safer workplace.
    Another approach recommended by the Regulatory Flexibility Act is 
compliance date phase-ins for small businesses. Throughout their 
deliberations, SENRAC recognized the importance of effective outreach 
to the steel erection community prior to and following promulgation of 
the proposed standard. In fact, as stated recently by a committee 
member, many employers in
the industry are aware of, and have already begun to align their safety 
programs with, the proposed revisions to subpart R (Ex. 9-156). At 
present, the proposed standard contains no dates for implementation. 
Barring evidence in the record that would compel the Agency to delay 
the compliance dates, OSHA anticipates that the final standard will 
become effective for all employers within a few months after it is 
published. At this time, OSHA believes that any compliance extensions 
for affected employers, including small employers, would only 
marginally ease the economic burden, given the progress in occupational 
safety already underway throughout industry and the non-capital-
intensive nature of the rule, and would delay unnecessarily the 
protection of workers who would otherwise benefit from compliance with 
the proposed rule. OSHA welcomes comment on the appropriateness of 
compliance phase-in dates for the proposed standard.
    In sum, throughout the pre-proposal process of negotiated 
rulemaking for OSHA's steel erection standard, the needs and concerns 
of small employers have been considered and addressed on a regular 
basis. After considering a number of alternatives as candidates for the 
requirements in the proposed rule and adopting those that were 
consistent with the mandate imposed by the OSH Act, OSHA has developed 
a proposed rule that will minimize the burden on small employers, while 
maintaining the necessary level of worker protection.

Non-Regulatory Alternatives

    The primary objective of this proposed standard is to minimize the 
number of construction worker injuries and fatalities. To develop this 
proposed steel erection standard, OSHA employed negotiated rulemaking 
using an advisory committee composed of representatives from the 
construction industry (both labor and management and both small and 
larger firms), the insurance industry, the engineering field, and 
Federal and State government regulatory and research agencies. OSHA 
examined a number of non-regulatory approaches to enhancing workplace 
safety, including the operation of the classical free market, the tort 
liability insurance system and the workers' compensation insurance 
system.
    OSHA believes that these social and economic alternatives to a 
Federal workplace regulation fail to adequately protect workers from 
the hazards associated with structural steel erection in the 
construction industry. The private market offers economic signals that 
could have the potential to direct workers toward desirable 
combinations of risk and reward, but market imperfections and 
institutional rigidities prevent workplaces from achieving the most 
optimal safety outcomes, creating inefficient, inadequately compensated 
risks for workers. Tort liability laws and workers' compensation 
provide some protection, but fall far short of fully compensating 
injured employees for the loss of wages, the medical costs, and the 
legal and other costs resulting from workplace accidents. Furthermore, 
these approaches are inherently reactive, rather than proactive, and 
largely fail to introduce progressive safety programs at all levels of 
industry. Therefore, OSHA believes that this proposed revision to the 
steel erection standard provides the necessary remedy.

VIII. Environmental Assessment

    The proposed standard has been reviewed in accordance with the 
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the regulations of the Council on 
Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR Part 1500), and DOL NEPA Procedures 
(29 CFR Part 11). The provisions of the standard focus on the reduction 
and avoidance of accidents occurring during structural steel erection. 
Consequently, no major negative impact is foreseen on air, water or 
soil quality, plant or animal life, the use of land or other aspects of 
the environment.

IX. Federalism

    This proposed Rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive 
Order 12612 (52 FR 41685, October 30, 1987) regarding Federalism. The 
Order requires that agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from 
limiting state policy options, consult with States prior to taking any 
actions that would restrict State policy options, and take such actions 
only when there is clear constitutional authority and the presence of a 
problem of national scope. The Order provides for preemption of State 
law only if there is a clear Congressional intent for the agency to do 
so. Any such preemption is to be limited to the extent possible.
    Section 18 of the Act, expresses Congress' clear intent to preempt 
state laws relating to issues on which Federal OSHA has promulgated 
occupational safety and health standards. Under the OSH Act, a State 
can avoid preemption only if it submits, and obtains Federal approval 
of, a plan for the development of such standards and their enforcement. 
Occupational safety and health standards developed by such State Plan 
States must, among other things, be at least as effective in providing 
safe and healthful employment and places of employment as the Federal 
standards. Where such standards are applicable to products distributed 
or used in interstate commerce, they may not unduly burden commerce or 
must be justified by compelling local conditions (see Sect. 18(c)(2)).
    The Federal standard on steel erection addresses hazards which are 
not unique to any one state or region of the country. Nonetheless, 
states with occupational safety and health plans approved under Section 
18 of the OSH Act can develop their own State standards to deal with 
any special problems which might be encountered in a particular state. 
Moreover, because this standard is written in general, performance-
oriented terms, there is considerable flexibility for State plans to 
require, and for employers to use, methods of compliance which are 
appropriate to the working conditions covered by the standard.
    In brief, this proposed rule addresses a clear national problem 
related to occupational safety and health hazards of steel erection in 
the construction industry. Those States which have elected to 
participate under Section 18 of the OSH Act will not be preempted by 
this standard and will be able to address any special conditions within 
the framework of the Federal Act while ensuring that the State 
standards are at least as effective as that standard. State comments 
are invited on this proposal and will be fully considered prior to 
promulgation of a final rule.

X. Unfunded Mandates

    For the purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, as 
well as Executive Order 12875, this rule does not include any Federal 
mandate that may result in increased expenditures by State, local, and 
tribal governments, or increased expenditures by the private sector of 
more than $100 million in any year.

XI. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule contains collections of information as defined 
in OMB's regulations at 60 FR 44978 (August 29, 1995) in 
Sec. 1926.752(a)(1), Sec. 1926.752(a)(2), Sec. 1926.753(a)(1)(iv), 
Sec. 1926.753(a)(5), Sec. 1926.753(c)(2), Sec. 1926.754(c)(3), 
Sec. 1926.757(a)(3), Sec. 1926.757(a)(11), Sec. 1926.757(e)(4)(i), 
Sec. 1926.758(g), and Sec. 1926.761.
    The paperwork estimates contained in this section are based on 
OSHA's preliminary economic analysis (PEA). A more detailed discussion 
of project and
time estimates can be found in Chapter V, Costs of Compliance, of 
OSHA's PEA (Ex. 11).
    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, agencies are required to 
seek OMB approval for all collections of information. As a part of the 
approval process, agencies are required to solicit comment from 
affected parties with regard to the collection of information, 
including the financial and time burdens estimated by the agencies for 
the collection of information. OSHA believes it is necessary for 
employers to prepare certifications and or obtain required information 
for the above-mentioned requirements.
    Proposed Sec. 1926.752(a)(1) requires that the controlling 
contractor provide the steel erector with written notification that the 
concrete in the footings, piers and walls or the mortar in the masonry 
piers and walls has attained, on the basis of an appropriate ASTM 
standard test method of field cured samples, either 75 percent of the 
intended minimum compressive design strength or sufficient strength to 
support loads imposed during steel erection. OSHA believes it is 
necessary for employers to provide the written verification that the 
concrete in footings, piers and walls or the mortar in masonry piers 
has cured properly prior to beginning steel erection activities. To 
comply with this requirement, the controlling contractor must provide 
the steel erector with documentation to this effect. Since the concrete 
supports the steel structure, the steel erector must be assured that 
the concrete is adequate to support the structure to prevent the 
possibility of collapse from erecting steel on improperly cured 
concrete. OSHA estimates that 12,311 projects will require these tests 
to be performed. The number of tests will vary depending on the size of 
the project. The average is estimated to be three tests per project, 
and the time for the notification to be transferred is estimated at 
five minutes. The tests are already required to be performed in 
accordance with the American Concrete Institute (ACI) building code and 
OSHA's Concrete standard (subpart Q), and it is usual and customary 
that the testing facility provide a written certification to the 
controlling contractor. Therefore, the only burden taken is the 
transfer of the information from the controlling contractor to the 
steel erector. The total estimated annual respondent burden for steel 
erection worksites is $92,716 and 3,078 burden hours.
    Proposed Sec. 1926.752(a)(2) requires that the controlling 
contractor provide the steel erector with written notification that any 
repairs, replacements and modifications to anchor bolts have been 
conducted in accordance with Sec. 1926.755(b). As explained in the 
discussion for this proposed paragraph, without notification from the 
controlling contractor, the steel erector may not know that an anchor 
bolt has been damaged and subsequently repaired. Improper repair has in 
the past caused columns to collapse. This notification is intended to 
prevent those collapses. OSHA estimates that 5,862 projects have anchor 
bolts that need repair. Approximately half of those projects are not 
currently getting the approval of the structural engineer of record. 
For the projects that are already getting the engineer's approval, it 
is estimated that it will take the engineer five minutes to transfer a 
piece of paper to the controlling contractor. For the projects that are 
not currently obtaining engineer approval, it is estimated that the 
approval time for repairs to anchor bolts will take an average of three 
hours for the whole process. The total estimated annual respondent 
burden for steel erection worksites is $459,891 and 9,458 burden hours.
    Proposed Sec. 1926.753(a)(1)(iv) requires that the employer obtain 
and/or prepare a certification record of the pre-shift inspection 
required by paragraph Sec. 1926.753(a)(1)(i), which includes the date 
the crane items were inspected; the signature of the person who 
inspected the crane items; and a serial number, or other identifier, 
for the crane inspected. OSHA believes it is necessary for the employer 
to obtain and/or prepare the certification record required to verify 
that each crane operator has inspected the crane and determined that it 
is in the proper working condition to perform his/her duties safely. 
This requirement can be complied with by the simple use of a crane 
operator's log book. OSHA estimates that 17,586 projects will require 
the use of a crane (the number of projects differs from the total 
number of steel erection projects due to rounding calculations; see Ex. 
11). Each inspection is estimated to take ten minutes. The length of 
each project varies and one shift is estimated per day. The total 
estimated annual respondent burden for steel erection worksites is 
$2,336,390 and 56,848 burden hours.
    Proposed Sec. 1926.753(a)(5) prohibits safety latches on hooks from 
being deactivated or made inoperable except as determined by a 
qualified rigger during hoisting and placing of purlins and single 
joists or as included in a site-specific erection plan. In the 
situation where an employer elects to deactivate a safety latch and 
create a potential safety hazard, the employer must receive approval 
from a qualified rigger or include a means for safely performing the 
activity in a site-specific erection plan. OSHA estimates that 7,391 
projects will contain joist erection operations. Assuming that all of 
the employers will seek such an exemption and will elect to use a site-
specific erection plan, it is estimated to take five minutes to 
document a means of performing the alternative method of erection and 
it will occur an average of ten times per project. The total estimated 
annual respondent burden for steel erection worksites is $299,489 and 
6,159 burden hours.
    Proposed Sec. 1926.753(c)(2) requires that components of a multiple 
lift rigging assembly be specifically designed and assembled with a 
certified capacity for total assembly and for each individual 
attachment point and that the certification must be based on the 
manufacturer's specifications with a 5 to 1 safety factor for all 
components. OSHA believes it is necessary for employers to prepare this 
certification since multiple lifts are highly specialized operations 
and improperly designed assemblies could result in multiple steel 
members free falling. Special precautions must be taken when performing 
multiple lifts. Preparing this certification is essential to a safe 
multiple lift. OSHA estimates that employers will elect to perform 
multiple lifts on approximately 1,870 projects. The number of pieces of 
lifting equipment varies based on the project size. Assuming an average 
of two pieces of lifting equipment per project, one certificate per 
lifting assembly, and five minutes to prepare the certificate based on 
information already available from the manufacturer's specifications, 
the total estimated annual respondent burden for steel erection 
worksites is $17,422 and 312 burden hours.
    Proposed Sec. 1926.754(c)(3) prohibits workers from walking the top 
surface of any structural steel member which has been finish-coated 
with paint or similar material unless documentation or certification is 
provided that the finish paint or coating has not decreased the 
coefficient of friction (COF). The documentation or certification must 
be available at the site and to the steel erector. As explained in the 
summary and explanation section, coated steel can be an extremely 
dangerous hazard to steel erectors. OSHA believes it is necessary for 
the documentation to be prepared to assure the steel erector that the 
surface the employees are walking on is not any more slippery than 
uncoated steel. Without this documentation, slips and falls will
continue to occur due to slippery coated surfaces. OSHA estimates that 
17,587 projects will have coated or painted steel and that only one 
certification need be prepared for all of the surfaces coated with the 
particular coating being used on each project. Assuming that it will 
take the manufacturer five minutes to prepare the documentation and the 
employer five minutes to transfer the information to the steel erector, 
the total estimated annual respondent burden for steel erection 
worksites is $132,086 and 2,932 burden hours.
    Proposed Sec. 1926.757(a)(3) requires that, when steel joists at 
columns span more than 60 feet (18.3 m), the joists shall be set in 
tandem with all bridging installed unless an alternative method of 
erection, which provides stability to the steel joist, is designed by a 
qualified person and is included in a site-specific erection plan. OSHA 
believes that a site-specific erection plan is necessary because the 
employer is choosing an alternative erection method to the one required 
in the standard. It is necessary to document the alternative method to 
ensure that it provides equivalent safety to the method specified in 
the standard. OSHA estimates that 7,391 projects will contain joist 
erection. Approximately 5 percent of the joists used span more than 60 
feet. It is estimated that it will take the employer five minutes to 
include a description of the alternative erection method in the site-
specific erection plan for all occurrences on the project. The total 
estimated annual respondent burden for steel erection worksites is 
$1,497 and 31 burden hours.
    Proposed Sec. 1926.757(a)(11) prohibits modifications from being 
made to steel joists that affect the strength of the joist without 
approval of the project structural engineer of record. OSHA believes it 
is necessary for this approval to be obtained from the engineer since 
any deviation from the initial design of the joist could alter the 
performance of the joist and ultimately affect the strength of the 
joist. Committee members stated that the approval could simply be a 
phone call to the engineer to evaluate the effect of the modification. 
OSHA estimates that 7,391 projects will include joist erection. A 
modification to a joist is only expected to occur about 5 percent of 
the time. It is usual and customary that any modifications be approved 
by the project structural engineer of record, therefore, the only 
burden taken is for the transfer of information. When a modification 
occurs, the engineer would review the modification once, and it would 
take five minutes for the transfer of information. The total estimated 
annual respondent burden for steel erection worksites is $928 and 31 
burden hours.
    Proposed Sec. 1926.757(e)(4)(i) prohibits placing a bundle of 
decking on fewer than three steel joists unless the employer has 
determined from a qualified person and documented in a site-specific 
erection plan that the structure or portion of the structure is capable 
of supporting the load. OSHA believes it is necessary for employers to 
provide this documentation in a site-specific erection plan since it is 
the employer who has elected to deviate from the standard requirement. 
Landing decking bundles on joists has been determined by the Committee 
to be a dangerous activity. If an employer elects to perform this 
activity in a manner other than that described in the standard, it is 
essential that there be documentation that the alternative means is as 
safe as the requirement in the standard. This documentation would 
simply be an entry in the site-specific erection plan to describe the 
procedure to be used as approved by a qualified person. OSHA estimates 
that 7,391 projects will include joist erection. It is anticipated that 
only 2 percent of employers will elect to deviate from the standard. 
Only in very rare instances would an employer elect not to place deck 
bundles over at least three joists. For those who choose another means, 
it is expected that it will take an employer five minutes to describe 
the procedure in the site-specific erection plan covering all 
occurrences on the project. The total estimated annual respondent 
burden for steel erection worksites is $599 and 12 burden hours.
    Proposed Sec. 1926.758(g) prohibits purlins and girts from being 
used as an anchorage point for a fall arrest system unless written 
direction is obtained from a qualified person. OSHA believes that it is 
necessary to require written notification to verify that these 
lightweight members are capable of supporting the forces of a fall 
arrest system. Tying-off to purlins or girts can be extremely dangerous 
if the employer and employees do not know that these members have 
adequate strength for that use. OSHA estimates that 7,391 steel 
erection jobs will contain purlin and girt erection and approximately 
10 percent of employers will elect to use the members as anchorage 
points for a fall arrest system. One written record can be obtained for 
the entire job and it is estimated that it will take an employer 30 
minutes to prepare the written approval. The total estimated annual 
respondent burden for steel erection worksites is $11,133 and 370 
burden hours.
    Proposed Sec. 1926.761 requires the employer to provide training 
for employees exposed to fall hazards, to those who will be engaged in 
multiple lift activities, to those who will work in controlled decking 
zones and to workers performing ``connecting'' activities. Information 
currently available to OSHA indicates that many workers are already 
receiving training in the above mentioned activities either to comply 
with other requirements in the construction standards or as a normal 
business practice. It should be noted that employers would have to 
instruct employees on the safe way to rig materials for multiple lifts 
and to ``connect'' as a normal business activity to accomplish the work 
of erecting the structure. Nearly all workers covered by the proposed 
rule are now using some fall protection measure, either while 
connecting, while working in decking operations or performing other 
tasks. OSHA estimates that it will take 30 minutes for an instructor to 
prepare for each training session and 60 minutes to communicate (or 
deliver) information to workers as required by the proposed standard. 
OSHA estimates the 38,980 employees will be trained in groups of 7 
resulting in 5569 initial training sessions. To account for turnover, 
OSHA estimates 13% of the workforce (5067 employees) will receive 
turnover training annually thereafter and 2% of the workforce (780 
employees) will need remedial training annually. These employees will 
also be instructed in groups of 7 and the preparatory time and delivery 
time remain the same. There are no records or other record keeping 
activities associated with this collection of information. The total 
estimated first year respondent burden for training is $536,975 and 
9606 burden hours. For the second and subsequent years, only turnover 
and remedial training will be taken as a burden. Therefore, the total 
estimated respondent burden for the second and subsequent years is 
reduced to $70,043 and 1253 hours.
    The total estimated annual respondent burden for all of the 
information collection requirements in this proposal for steel erection 
worksites is $3,889,127 and 88,834 burden hours.
    OSHA believes that compliance with all of these requirements will 
help to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries in steel erection 
work.
    OSHA requests comment from the public on all aspects of this 
collection of information. Specifically, OSHA requests comment on 
whether each proposed collection of information:
     Ensures that the collection of information is necessary 
for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
     Estimates accurately the projected burden including the 
validity of the methodology and assumptions used accurately;
     Enhances the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected; and
     Minimizes the burden of the collection of information on 
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate 
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting 
electronic submissions of responses.
    Comments on the collections of information for the proposed 
provisions should be sent to the OMB Desk Officer for OSHA at Room 
10235, 726 Jackson Place, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503. Commenters are 
encouraged to send a copy of their comments on the collection of 
information to OSHA along with their other comments. The supporting 
statements for the collection of information requirements are available 
in both OSHA and OMB Docket Offices.
    The proposed collections of information have been submitted to OMB 
for review under 44 U.S.C. Sec. 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995. OMB is currently reviewing these OSHA proposed collections of 
information to determine their consistency with the Act. At this time 
OMB has not approved these collections of information.

XII. State Plan Standards

    The 25 States and territories with their own OSHA approved 
occupational safety and health plans must adopt a comparable standard 
within six months of the publication date of a final standard. These 25 
states and territories are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut 
(for state and local government employees only), Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, 
Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York 
(for state and local government employees only), North Carolina, 
Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, 
Virginia, Virgin Islands, Washington, and Wyoming. Until such time as a 
state standard is promulgated, Federal OSHA will provide interim 
enforcement assistance, as appropriate, in these states.

XIII. Public Participation

Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and 
arguments with respect to this proposal. These comments must be 
postmarked or e-mailed by November 12, 1998. Comments are to be 
submitted in quadruplicate or 1 original (hardcopy) and 1 disk (5\1/4\ 
or 3\1/2\) in WP 5.0, 5.1, 6.0, 6.1, 8.0 or ASCII to: the Docket 
Officer, Docket S-775, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety 
and Health Administration, Room N2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20210, (202) 219-7894. Written comments of 10 pages or 
less may be transmitted by facsimile (fax) to the Docket Office at 
(202) 219-5046, provided an original and three (3) copies are sent to 
the Docket Office thereafter. Comments may be submitted electronically 
by e-mail to steelerection@osha-no.osha.gov. If the e-mail contains 
attached electronic files, the files must be in WordPerfect 5.0, 5.1, 
6.0, 6.1, 8.0 or ASCII. When submitting a comment by e-mail, please 
include your name and address.
    Any information not contained on disk or in the e-mail (e.g., 
studies, articles) must be submitted in quadruplicate. Written 
submissions must clearly identify the issues or specific provisions of 
the proposal which are addressed and the position taken with respect to 
each issue or provision. The data, views and arguments that are 
submitted will be available for public inspection and copying at the 
above address. All timely submissions received will be made a part of 
the record of this proceeding. The preliminary economic analysis and 
the exhibits cited in this document will be available for public 
inspection and copying at the above address. OSHA invites comments 
concerning the conclusions reached in the preliminary economic 
analysis.

Public Hearing

    OSHA will hold an informal public hearing to begin at 10:00 a.m. on 
December 1, 1998. The hearing will be held in the Auditorium of the 
Frances Perkins Building, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 
Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20210.

Notice of Intention To Appear at the Informal Hearing

    Pursuant to section 6(b)(3) of the Occupational Safety and Health 
Act, OSHA will provide interested persons with an opportunity to submit 
oral testimony concerning the issues raised by the proposed standard, 
including economic and environmental impact, at the informal public 
hearing. The hearing is scheduled for December 1, 1998. If OSHA 
receives sufficient requests to participate in the hearing, the length 
of the hearing period may be extended. Conversely, the hearing may be 
shortened if there are few requests.
    All persons desiring to participate at the hearing, including 
exercising their right to question witnesses, must file, in 
quadruplicate, a notice of intention to appear. The notice of intention 
to appear must be postmarked on or before November 12, 1998. The notice 
of intention to appear, which will be available for inspection and 
copying at the OSHA Technical Data Center Docket Office (Room N2625), 
telephone (202) 219-7894, must contain the following information:
    1. The name, address, and telephone number of each person to 
appear;
    2. The capacity in which the person will appear;
    3. The approximate amount of time required for the presentation;
    4. The specific issues that will be addressed;
    5. A brief statement of the position that will be taken with 
respect to each issue addressed; and
    6. Whether the party intends to submit documentary evidence and, if 
so, a brief summary of it.
    The notice of intention to appear shall be mailed to: the Docket 
Officer, Docket S-775, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety 
and Health Administration, Room N2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20210, (202) 219-7894.
    A notice of intention to appear also may be transmitted by 
facsimile to (202) 219-5046 (Attention: Docket Officer), by the same 
date, provided the original and three copies are sent to the same 
address and postmarked no more than three days later.
    Individuals with disabilities wishing to attend the hearings should 
contact the Docket Officer to obtain appropriate accommodations at the 
hearing.

Filing of Testimony and Evidence Before the Hearing

    Any party requesting more than ten minutes for a presentation at 
the hearing or who will present documentary evidence, must provide in 
quadruplicate, the complete text of its testimony, including all 
documentary evidence to be presented at the hearing. One copy must be 
unstapled and unbound and suitable for copying. These materials must be 
postmarked no later than November 17, 1998 and sent
to the Docket Officer at the address given above.
    Each submission will be reviewed in light of the amount of time 
requested in the notice of intention to appear. In instances where the 
information contained in the submission does not justify the amount of 
time requested, a more appropriate amount of time will be allocated and 
the participant will be notified of that fact. Any party who has not 
substantially complied with the above requirements, may be limited to a 
ten minute presentation and may be requested to return for questioning 
at a later time. Any party who has not filed a notice of intention to 
appear may be allowed to testify, as time permits, at the discretion of 
the Administrative Law Judge who presides at the hearing.
    Notices of intention to appear, testimony and evidence will be 
available for inspection and copying at the Docket Office at the 
address above.

Conduct and Nature of the Hearing

    The hearing is scheduled to commence at 10:00 a.m. on December 1, 
1998. At that time, any procedural matters relating to the proceeding 
will be resolved. OSHA rulemaking hearings are informal, as established 
in the legislative history of section 6 of the Act and codified in 29 
CFR part 1911, OSHA's hearing regulations (cf. 29 CFR 1911.15(a)). 
Although the presiding officer is an Administrative Law Judge and 
questioning by interested persons is allowed on crucial issues, the 
proceeding will be essentially legislative in nature. The intent, in 
essence, is to provide an opportunity for effective oral presentation 
by interested persons which can be carried out expeditiously and in the 
absence of rigid procedures which might unduly impede or protract the 
rulemaking process.
    Additionally, since the hearing is primarily for information 
gathering and clarification, it is an informal administrative 
proceeding rather than an adjudicative one.
    The technical rules of evidence, for example, do not apply. The 
regulations that govern hearings and the pre-hearing guidelines to be 
issued for this hearing will ensure fairness and due process and also 
facilitate the development of a clear, accurate and complete record. 
Those rules and guidelines will be interpreted in a manner that 
furthers that development. Thus, questions of relevance, procedure and 
participation generally will be decided so as to favor development of 
the record.
    The hearing will be conducted in accordance with 29 CFR part 1911. 
It should be noted that Sec. 1911.4 specifies that the Assistant 
Secretary may, upon reasonable notice, issue alternative procedures to 
expedite proceedings or for other good cause.
    The hearing will be presided over by an Administrative Law Judge 
who makes no decision or recommendation on the merits of OSHA's 
Proposal. The responsibility of the Administrative Law Judge is to 
ensure that the hearing proceeds at a reasonable pace and in an orderly 
manner. The Administrative Law Judge, therefore, will have the powers 
necessary and appropriate to conduct a full and fair informal hearing 
as provided in 29 CFR 1911, including the powers:
    1. To regulate the course of the proceedings;
    2. To dispose of procedural requests, objections and comparable 
matters;
    3. To confine the presentation to the matters pertinent to the 
issues raised;
    4. To regulate the conduct of those present at the hearing by 
appropriate means;
    5. In the Judge's discretion, to question and permit the 
questioning of any witness, and to limit the time for questioning; and
    6. In the Judge's discretion, to keep the record open for a 
reasonable stated time to receive written information and additional 
data, views, and arguments from any person who has participated in the 
oral proceedings.
    Following the close of the hearing, the presiding Administrative 
Law Judge will certify the record of the hearing to the Assistant 
Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.

XIV. Authority

    This document was prepared under the direction of Charles N. 
Jeffress, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and 
Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20210.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1926

    Structural steel erection, Construction industry, Construction 
safety, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Occupational 
safety and health.

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

    Accordingly, pursuant to sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657); section 
107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 
333), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 6-96 (62 FR 111), and 29 CFR part 
1911, it is proposed to amend part 1926 of Title 29 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations as set forth below.

PART 1926--[AMENDED]

Subpart M--[Amended]

    1. The authority citation for subpart M of Part 1926 would be 
revised to read as follows:

    Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards 
Act (Construction Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 333); Sec. 4, 6, 8, 
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 
657); Secretary of Labor's Orders No. 1-90 (55 FR 9033) and No. 6-96 
(62 FR 111); and 29 CFR Part 1911.

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


Sec. 1926.500  Scope, application, and definitions applicable to this 
subpart.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) Fall protection requirements for employees performing steel 
erection work (except for towers and tanks) are provided in subpart R 
of this part.
* * * * *


Sec. 1926.500  [Amended]

    3. Paragraphs (a)(2)(iv), (a)(2)(v), and (a)(2)(vi) of 
Sec. 1926.500 would be redesignated as (a)(2)(v), (a)(2)(vi) and 
(a)(2)(vii) respectively.
    4. Paragraph (a)(2)(iv) Sec. 1926.500 would be added to be revised 
to read as follows:


Sec. 1926.500  Scope, application, and definitions applicable to this 
subpart.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) Requirements relating to fall protection for employees engaged 
in the erection of tanks and towers are provided in Sec. 1926.105.
* * * * *
    5. Paragraph (a)(3)(iv) of Sec. 1926.500 would be revised to read 
as follows:


Sec. 1926.500  Scope, application, and definitions applicable to this 
subpart.

    (a) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iv) Section 1926.502 does not apply to the erection of tanks and 
towers. (Note: Section 1926.104 sets the criteria for body belts, 
lanyards and lifelines used for fall protection during tank and tower 
erection. Paragraphs (b), (c) and (f) of Sec. 1926.107 provide 
definitions for the pertinent terms.)
* * * * *

Subpart R--[Amended]

    6. The authority citation for subpart R of Part 1926 would be 
revised to read as follows:

    Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards 
Act (Construction Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 333); Sec. 4, 6, and 8,
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 
657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 6-96 (62 FR 111), and 29 CFR 
part 1911.

    7. Subpart R of Part 1926 would be revised to read as follows:

Subpart R--Steel Erection

1926.750  Scope and application.
1926.751  Definitions.
1926.752  Site layout, site-specific erection plan and construction 
sequence.
1926.753  Hoisting and rigging.
1926.754  Structural steel assembly.
1926.755  Anchor bolts.
1926.756  Beams and columns.
1926.757  Open web steel joists.
1926.758  Pre-engineered metal buildings.
1926.759  Falling object protection.
1926.760  Fall protection.
1926.761  Training.

Appendix A to Subpart R--Guidelines for Establishing the Components of 
a Site-Specific Erection Plan: Non-Mandatory Guidelines for Complying 
With Sec. 1926.752(d)

Appendix B to Subpart R--Acceptable Test Methods for Testing Slip-
Resistance of Walking/Working Surfaces: Non-Mandatory Guidelines for 
Complying With Sec. 1926.754(c)(3)

Appendix C to Subpart R--Illustrations of Bridging Terminus Points: 
Non-Mandatory Guidelines for Complying With Sec. 1926.757(c)(3)

Appendix D to Subpart R--Illustration of the Use of Control Lines to 
Demarcate Controlled Decking Zones (CDZs): Non-Mandatory Guidelines for 
Complying With Sec. 1926.760(c)(3)

Appendix E to Subpart R--Training: Non-Mandatory Guidelines for 
Complying With Sec. 1926.761

Appendix F to Subpart R--Installation of Perimeter Safety Cables: Non-
Mandatory Guidelines for Complying With Sec. 1926.756(f) to Protect the 
Unprotected Side or Edge of a Walking/Working Surface

Subpart R--Steel Erection


Sec. 1926.750  Scope and Application.

    (a) Scope. This subpart sets forth requirements to protect 
employees from the hazards associated with steel erection activities 
involved in the construction, alteration, and/or repair of single and 
multi-story buildings, bridges, and other structures where steel 
erection occurs. The requirements of this subpart apply to employers 
engaged in steel erection unless otherwise specified. This subpart does 
not cover electrical transmission towers, communication and broadcast 
towers, or tanks.

    Note: Examples of structures where steel erection may occur 
include but are not limited to the following: single and multi-story 
buildings; pre-engineered metal buildings; lift slab/tilt-up 
structures; energy exploration structures; energy production, 
transfer and storage structures and facilities; auditoriums; malls; 
amphitheaters; stadiums; power plants; mills; chemical process 
structures; bridges; trestles; overpasses; underpasses; viaducts; 
aqueducts; aerospace facilities and structures; radar and 
communication structures; light towers; signage; billboards; 
scoreboards; conveyor systems, conveyor supports and related 
framing; stairways; stair towers; fire escapes; draft curtains; fire 
containment structures; monorails; aerialways; catwalks; curtain 
walls; window walls; store fronts; elevator fronts; entrances; 
skylights; metal roofs; industrial structures; hi-bay structures; 
rail, marine and other transportation structures; sound barriers; 
water process and water containment structures; air and cable 
supported structures; space frames; geodesic domes; canopies; racks 
and rack support structures and frames; platforms; walkways; 
balconies; atriums; penthouses; car dumpers; stackers/reclaimers; 
cranes and craneways; bins; hoppers; ovens; furnaces; stacks; 
amusement park structures and rides; and artistic and monumental 
structures.

    (b) Application. Steel erection activities include hoisting, 
connecting, welding, bolting, and rigging structural steel, steel 
joists and metal buildings; installing metal deck, siding systems, 
miscellaneous metals, ornamental iron and similar materials; and moving 
point-to-point while performing these activities.

    Note: Activities which could be considered covered by this 
subpart when they occur during the process of steel erection include 
but are not limited to the following: rigging, hoisting, laying out, 
placing, connecting, guying, bracing, dismantling, burning, welding, 
bolting, grinding, sealing, caulking, and all related activities for 
construction, alteration and/or repair of materials and assemblies 
such as structural steel; ferrous metals and alloys; non-ferrous 
metals and alloys; glass; plastics and synthetic composite 
materials; structural metal framing and related bracing and 
assemblies; anchoring devices; structural cabling; cable stays; 
permanent and temporary bents and towers; falsework for temporary 
supports of permanent steel members; architectural precast concrete, 
stone and other architectural materials mounted on steel frames; 
safety systems for steel erection; steel and metal joists; metal 
decking and raceway systems and accessories; metal roofing and 
accessories; metal siding; bridge flooring; cold formed steel 
framing; elevator beams; grillage; shelf racks; multi-purpose 
supports; crane rails and accessories; miscellaneous, architectural 
and ornamental metals and metal work; ladders; railings; handrails; 
fences and gates; gratings; trench covers; floor plates; castings; 
sheet metal fabrications; metal panels and panel wall systems; 
louvers; column covers; enclosures and pockets; stairs; perforated 
metals; ornamental iron work; expansion control including bridge 
expansion joint assemblies; slide bearings; hydraulic structures; 
fascias; soffit panels; penthouse enclosures; skylights; joint 
fillers; gaskets; sealants and seals; doors; windows; hardware, 
detention/security equipment and doors, windows and hardware; 
curtain walls/sloped glazing systems/structural glass curtain walls; 
translucent wall systems; conveying systems; building specialties; 
building equipment; machinery and plant equipment, furnishings and 
special construction.


Sec. 1926.751  Definitions.

    Anchored bridging means that the steel joist bridging is connected 
to a bridging terminus point.
    Bolted diagonal bridging means diagonal bridging which is bolted to 
a steel joist or joists.
    Bridging clip means a device that is attached to the steel joist to 
allow the bolting of the bridging to the steel joist.
    Bridging terminus point means a wall, beam, tandem joists (with all 
bridging installed and a horizontal truss in the plane of the top 
chord) or other element at an end or intermediate point(s) of a line of 
bridging that provides an anchor point for the steel joist bridging.
    Choker means a wire rope or synthetic fiber rigging assembly that 
is used to attach a load to a hoisting device.
    Clipped connection means the connection material on the end of a 
structural member intended for use in a double connection which has a 
notch at the bottom and/or top to allow the bolt(s) of the first member 
placed on the opposite side of the central member to remain in place. 
The notch(es) fits around the nut or bolt head of the opposing member 
to allow the second member to be bolted up without removing the bolt(s) 
holding the first member.
    Cold formed joist means an open web joist fabricated with cold 
formed steel components.
    Cold forming means the process of using press brakes, rolls, or 
other methods to shape steel into desired cross sections at room 
temperature.
    Competent person (also defined in Sec. 1926.32) means one who is 
capable of identifying existing and predictable hazards in the 
surroundings or working conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous, or 
dangerous to employees, and who has authorization to take prompt 
corrective measures to eliminate them.
    Composite joists means steel joists designed to act in composite 
action with concrete floor and/or concrete roof slabs. Typically, a 
portion of the top chord of the joist (or a lug or similar device 
attached to the top chord of the joist) is embedded in the concrete 
slab.
    Connector means an employee who, working with hoisting equipment, 
is placing and connecting structural members and/or components.
    Construction load for joist erection means any load other than the 
weight of the employee(s), the joists and the bridging bundle.
    Controlled Decking Zone (CDZ) means an area in which certain work 
(e.g., initial installation and placement of metal deck) may take place 
without the use of guardrail systems, personal fall arrest systems or 
safety net systems and where access to the zone is controlled.
    Controlled load lowering means lowering a load by means of a 
mechanical hoist drum device that allows a hoisted load to be lowered 
with maximum control using the gear train or hydraulic components of 
the hoist mechanism. Controlled load lowering requires the use of the 
hoist drive motor, rather than the load hoist brake, to lower the load.
    Controlling contractor means a prime contractor, general 
contractor, construction manager or any other legal entity at the site 
who has, by contract with other parties, the overall responsibility for 
the project, its planning, quality and completion.
    Critical lift means a lift that exceeds 75 percent of the rated 
capacity of the crane or derrick, or requires the use of more than one 
crane or derrick.
    Decking hole means a gap or void more than 2 inches (5.1 cm) in its 
least dimension and less than 12 inches (30.5 cm) in its greatest 
dimension in a floor, roof or other walking/working surface. Pre-
engineered holes in cellular decking are not included in this 
definition.
    Derrick floor means an elevated floor of a building or structure 
that has been designated to receive hoisted pieces of steel prior to 
final placement.
    Double connection means an attachment method where the connection 
point is intended for two pieces of steel which share common bolts on 
either side of a central piece.
    Erection bridging means the bolted diagonal bridging that is 
required to be installed prior to releasing the hoisting cables from 
the steel joists.
    Fall restraint (Positioning device) system means a body belt or 
body harness used to prevent an employee from free falling more than 24 
inches (61 cm) and where self rescue can be assured. It consists of an 
anchorage, connectors, a body belt or harness and may include a 
lanyard, deceleration device, lifeline, or suitable combination of 
these.
    Girt (in pre-engineered metal buildings) means a ``Z'' or ``C'' 
shaped member formed from sheet steel spanning between primary framing 
and supporting wall material.
    Headache ball means a weighted hook that is used to attach loads to 
the hoist load line of the crane.
    Hoisting equipment means commercially manufactured lifting 
equipment designed to lift and position a load of known weight to an 
erection location at some known elevation and horizontal distance from 
the equipment's center of rotation. ``Hoisting equipment'' includes but 
is not limited to cranes, derricks, tower cranes, barge-mounted 
derricks or cranes, gin poles and gantry hoist systems. A ``come-a-
long'' (a mechanical device, usually consisting of a chain or cable 
attached at each end, that is used to facilitate movement of materials 
through leverage) is not considered ``hoisting equipment.''
    Leading edge means the unprotected side and edge of a floor, roof, 
or formwork for a floor or other walking/working surface (such as deck) 
which changes location as additional floor, roof, decking or formwork 
sections are placed, formed or constructed.
    Metal deck means a commercially manufactured, structural grade, 
cold rolled metal panel formed into a series of parallel ribs; for this 
subpart, this includes metal floor and roof decks, standing seam metal 
roofs, other metal roof systems and other products such as bar 
gratings, checker plate, expanded metal panels, and similar products. 
After installation and proper fastening, these decking materials serve 
a combination of functions including, but not limited to: a structural 
element designed in combination with the structure to resist, 
distribute and transfer loads, stiffen the structure and provide a 
diaphragm action; a walking/working surface; a form for concrete slabs; 
a support for roofing systems; and a finished floor or roof.
    Multiple lift rigging means a rigging assembly manufactured by wire 
rope rigging suppliers that facilitates the attachment of up to five 
independent loads to the hoist rigging of a crane.
    Opening means a gap or void 12 inches (30.5 cm) or more in its 
least dimension in a floor, roof or other walking/working surface. For 
the purposes of this subpart, skylights and smoke domes that do not 
meet the strength requirements of Sec. 1926.760(d)(1) shall be regarded 
as openings.
    Permanent floor means a structurally completed floor at any level 
or elevation (including slab on grade).
    Personal fall arrest system means a system used to arrest an 
employee in a fall from a working level. A personal fall arrest system 
consists of an anchorage, connectors, a body belt or body harness and 
may include a lanyard, deceleration device, lifeline, or suitable 
combination of these. (As of January 1, 1998, the use of a body belt 
for fall arrest is prohibited by subpart M of this part.)
    Pre-engineered metal building means a field-assembled building 
system consisting of framing, roof and wall coverings, and generally 
made of steel. Typically, in a pre-engineered metal building, many of 
these components are cold-formed shapes. These individual parts are 
fabricated in one or more manufacturing facilities and shipped to the 
job site for assembly into the final structure. Engineering design of 
the system is normally the responsibility of the pre-engineered metal 
building manufacturer.
    Project structural engineer of record means the registered, 
licensed professional responsible for the design of structural steel 
framing and whose seal appears on the structural contract documents.
    Purlin (in pre-engineered metal buildings) means a ``Z'' or ``C'' 
shaped member formed from sheet steel spanning between primary framing 
and supporting roof material.
    Qualified person (also defined in Sec. 1926.32) means one who, by 
possession of a recognized degree, certificate, or professional 
standing, or who by extensive knowledge, training, and experience, has 
successfully demonstrated the ability to solve or resolve problems 
relating to the subject matter, the work, or the project.
    Safety deck attachment means an initial attachment that is used to 
secure an initially placed sheet of decking to keep proper alignment 
and bearing with structural support members.
    Seat means a structural attachment mounted to a structural member 
beneath a connection point, designed to support an incoming member that 
is to be connected to the first member.
    Shear connector means headed steel studs, steel bars, steel lugs, 
and similar devices which are attached to a structural member for the 
purpose of achieving composite action with concrete.
    Steel erection means the erection of steel buildings, bridges and 
other structures, including the installation of steel flooring and 
roofing members and all planking and decking used during the process of 
erection.
    Steel joist means an open web, secondary load-carrying member of 
144 feet (43.9 m) or less suitable for the support of floors and roofs. 
This does not include structural steel trusses or cold-formed joists.
    Steel joist girder means an open web, primary load-carrying member,
designed by the manufacturer, suitable for the support of floors and 
roofs. This does not include structural steel trusses.
    Steel truss means an open web member designed of structural steel 
components by the project structural engineer of record. For the 
purposes of this subpart, a steel truss is considered equivalent to a 
solid web structural member.
    Unprotected sides and edges means any side or edge (except at 
entrances to points of access) of a walking/working surface, e.g., 
floor, roof, ramp or runway, where there is no wall or guardrail system 
at least 39 inches (1.0 m) high.


Sec. 1926.752  Site layout, site-specific erection plan and 
construction sequence.

    (a) Approval to begin steel erection. Before authorizing the 
commencement of steel erection, the controlling contractor must provide 
the steel erector with the following written notifications:
    (1) The concrete in the footings, piers and walls or the mortar in 
the masonry piers and walls has attained, on the basis of an 
appropriate ASTM standard test method of field-cured samples, either 75 
percent of the intended minimum compressive design strength or 
sufficient strength to support loads imposed during steel erection.
    (2) Any repairs, replacements and modifications to the anchor bolts 
were conducted in accordance with Sec. 1926.755(b).
    (b) Site layout. The controlling contractor shall provide and 
maintain the site layout as follows:
    (1) Adequate access roads into and through the site for the safe 
delivery and movement of derricks, cranes, trucks, other necessary 
equipment, and the material to be erected and means and methods for 
pedestrian and vehicular control; and
    (2) A firm, properly graded, drained area, readily accessible to 
the work with adequate space for the safe storage of materials and the 
safe operation of the erector's equipment.
    (c) Overhead protection. All hoisting operations in steel erection 
shall be pre-planned in accordance with Secs. 1926.753(b) and 1926.759 
to ensure that no employee is required to be exposed to overhead 
hazards.
    (d) Site-specific erection plan. Where employers elect, due to 
conditions specific to the site, to develop alternate means and methods 
that provide employee protection in accordance with 
Sec. 1926.753(a)(5), Sec. 1926.757(a)(3) or Sec. 1926.757(e)(4)(i), a 
site-specific erection plan shall be developed by a qualified person 
and be available at the work site. Guidelines for establishing a site-
specific erection plan are contained in appendix A to this subpart.


Sec. 1926.753  Hoisting and rigging.

    The following provisions supplement the requirements of 
Sec. 1926.550 regarding the hazards associated with hoisting and 
rigging.
    (a) General. (1) Pre-shift visual inspection of cranes.
    (i) Cranes being used in steel erection activities shall be 
visually inspected prior to each shift by a competent person; the 
inspection shall include observation for deficiencies during operation. 
At a minimum, this inspection shall include the following:
    (A) All control mechanisms for maladjustments;
    (B) Control and drive mechanisms for excessive wear of components 
and contamination by lubricants, water or other foreign matter;
    (C) Safety devices, including but not limited to, boom angle 
indicators, boom stops, boom kick-out devices, anti-two block devices, 
and load moment indicators where required;
    (D) Air, hydraulic, and other pressurized lines for deterioration 
or leakage, particularly those which flex in normal operation;
    (E) Hooks and latches for deformation, chemical damage, cracks, or 
wear;
    (F) Wire rope reeving for compliance with hoisting equipment 
manufacturer's specifications;
    (G) Electrical apparatus for malfunctioning, signs of excessive 
deterioration, dirt, or moisture accumulation;
    (H) Hydraulic system for proper fluid level;
    (I) Tires for proper inflation and condition;
    (J) Ground conditions around the hoisting equipment for proper 
support, including ground settling under and around outriggers, ground 
water accumulation, or other similar conditions;
    (K) The hoisting equipment for level position; and
    (L) The hoisting equipment for level position after each move and 
setup.
    (ii) If any deficiencies are identified, an immediate determination 
shall be made by the competent person as to whether the deficiency 
constitutes a hazard.
    (iii) If the deficiency is determined to constitute a hazard, the 
hoisting equipment shall be removed from service until the deficiency 
has been corrected.
    (iv) The employer shall obtain and/or prepare a certification 
record of the pre-shift inspection required by paragraph (a)(1)(i) of 
this section which includes the date the hoisting equipment items were 
inspected; the signature of the person who inspected the hoisting 
equipment items; and a serial number, or other identifier, for the 
hoisting equipment inspected.
    (v) The operator shall be responsible for those operations under 
the operator's direct control. Whenever there is any doubt as to 
safety, the operator shall have the authority to stop and refuse to 
handle loads until safety has been assured.
    (2) A qualified rigger (i.e., a rigger who is also a qualified 
person) shall inspect the rigging prior to each shift in accordance 
with Sec. 1926.251.
    (3) The headache ball, hook or load shall not be used to transport 
personnel except as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(v)(4) of this section.
    (4) Paragraph (g)(2) of Sec. 1926.550 notwithstanding, cranes or 
derricks may be used to hoist employees on a personnel platform when 
work under this subpart is being conducted, provided that all other 
provisions of Sec. 1926.550(g) are met.
    (5) Safety latches on hooks shall not be deactivated or made 
inoperable except:
    (i) When a qualified rigger has determined that the hoisting and 
placing of purlins and single joists can be performed more safely by 
doing so; or
    (ii) When equivalent protection is provided in a site-specific 
erection plan.
    (b) Working under loads. (1) Routes for suspended loads shall be 
pre-planned to ensure that no employee is required to work directly 
below a suspended load, except for:
    (i) Employees engaged in the initial connection of steel; or
    (ii) Employees necessary for the hooking or unhooking of the load.
    (2) When working under suspended loads, the following criteria 
shall be met:
    (i) Materials being hoisted shall be rigged to prevent 
unintentional displacement;
    (ii) Hooks with self-closing safety latches or their equivalent 
shall be used to prevent components from slipping out of the hook; and
    (iii) All loads shall be rigged by a qualified rigger.
    (c) Multiple lift rigging procedure. (1) A multiple lift shall only 
be performed if the following criteria are met:
    (i) A multiple lift rigging assembly is used;
    (ii) A maximum of five (5) members is hoisted per lift;
    (iii) Only structural members are lifted; and
    (iv) All employees engaged in the multiple lift have been trained 
in these
procedures in accordance with Sec. 1926.761(c)(1).
    (2) Components of the multiple lift rigging assembly shall be 
specifically designed and assembled with a maximum capacity for total 
assembly and for each individual attachment point. This capacity, 
certified by the manufacturer or a qualified rigger, shall be based on 
the manufacturer's specifications with a 5 to 1 safety factor for all 
components.
    (3) The total load shall not exceed:
    (i) The rated capacity of the hoisting equipment specified in the 
hoisting equipment load charts; or
    (ii) The rigging capacity specified in the rigging rating chart.
    (4) The multiple lift rigging assembly shall be rigged with the 
members:
    (i) Attached at their center of gravity and maintained reasonably 
level;
    (ii) Rigged from the top down; and
    (iii) Rigged at least 7 feet (2.1 m) apart.
    (5) The members on the multiple lift rigging assembly shall be set 
from the bottom up.
    (6) Controlled load lowering shall be used whenever the load is 
over the connectors.


Sec. 1926.754  Structural steel assembly.

    (a) Structural stability shall be maintained at all times during 
the erection process.
    (b) The following additional requirements shall apply for multi-
story structures:
    (1) The permanent floors shall be installed as the erection of 
structural members progresses, and there shall be not more than eight 
stories between the erection floor and the upper-most permanent floor, 
except where the structural integrity is maintained as a result of the 
design.
    (2) At no time shall there be more than four floors or 48 feet 
(14.6 m), whichever is less, of unfinished bolting or welding above the 
foundation or uppermost permanently secured floor, except where the 
structural integrity is maintained as a result of the design.
    (3) A fully planked or decked floor or nets shall be maintained 
within 2 stories or 30 feet (9.1 m), whichever is less, directly under 
any erection work being performed.
    (c) Walking/working surfaces--(1) Shear connectors and other 
similar devices--(i) Tripping hazards. Shear connectors (such as headed 
steel studs, steel bars or steel lugs), reinforcing bars, deformed 
anchors or threaded studs shall not be attached to the top flanges of 
beams, joists or beam attachments so that they project vertically from 
or horizontally across the top flange of the member until after the 
decking, or other walking/working surface, has been installed.
    (ii) Installation of shear connectors on composite floors, roofs 
and bridge decks. When shear connectors are utilized in construction of 
composite floors, roofs and bridge decks, employees shall lay out and 
install the shear connectors after the decking has been installed, 
using the deck as a working platform. Shear connectors shall not be 
installed from within a controlled decking zone (CDZ), as specified in 
Sec. 1926.760(c)(8).
    (2) Metal decking. [Reserved]
    (3) Skeletal structural steel. Workers shall not be permitted to 
walk the top surface of any structural steel member installed after 
[effective date of final rule] which has been finish-coated with paint 
or similar material unless documentation or certification, based on an 
appropriate ASTM standard test method, is provided that the finished 
coat has not decreased the coefficient of friction (COF) from that of 
the original steel before it was finish-coated. Such documentation or 
certification shall be available at the site and to the steel erector 
(see appendix B of this subpart).
    (d) Plumbing-up. (1) Connections of the equipment used in plumbing-
up shall be properly secured.
    (2) Plumbing-up equipment shall be removed only with the approval 
of a competent person.
    (e) Decking--(1) Hoisting, landing and placing of deck bundles. (i) 
Bundle packaging and strapping shall not be used for hoisting unless 
specifically designed for that purpose.
    (ii) If loose items such as dunnage, flashing, or other materials 
are placed on the top of deck bundles to be hoisted, such items shall 
be secured to the bundles.
    (iii) Bundles of decking on joists shall be landed in accordance 
with Sec. 1926.757(e)(4).
    (iv) Bundles shall be landed on framing members so that enough 
support is provided to allow the bundles to be unbanded without 
dislodging the bundles from the supports.
    (v) At the end of the shift or when environmental or jobsite 
conditions require, decking shall be secured against displacement.
    (2) Roof and floor openings. Metal deck at roof and floor openings 
shall be installed as follows:
    (i) Where structural design and constructability allow, framed deck 
openings shall have structural members turned down to allow continuous 
deck installation.
    (ii) Roof and floor openings shall be covered during the decking 
process. Where structural design does not allow openings to be covered, 
they shall be protected in accordance with Sec. 1926.760(a)(2).
    (iii) Decking holes and openings shall not be cut until essential 
to the construction process, and openings shall be protected 
immediately in accordance with Sec. 1926.760(d) or be otherwise 
permanently filled.
    (3) Space around columns. Wire mesh, exterior plywood, or 
equivalent, shall be used around columns where planks or decking do not 
fit tightly.
    (4) Floor decking. Floor decking shall be laid tightly and secured 
to prevent accidental movement or displacement.
    (5) Derrick floors. (i) A derrick floor shall be fully decked and/
or planked and the steel member connections completed to support the 
intended floor loading.
    (ii) Temporary loads placed on a derrick floor shall be distributed 
over the underlying support members so as to prevent local overloading 
of the deck material.


Sec. 1926.755  Anchor bolts.

    (a) General requirements for erection stability. (1) All columns 
shall be anchored by a minimum of 4 anchor bolts. Each column anchor 
bolt assembly, including the welding of the column to the base plate, 
shall be designed to resist a 300 pound (136.2 kg) eccentric load 
located 18 inches (.46 m) from the column face in each direction at the 
top of the column shaft.
    (2) Columns shall be set on level finished floors, pre-grouted 
leveling plates, leveling nuts, or shim packs which are adequate to 
transfer the construction loads.
    (3) Unstable columns shall be evaluated by a competent person and 
be guyed or braced where deemed necessary.
    (b) Repair, replacement or field modification.
    (1) Anchor bolts shall not be repaired, replaced or field-modified 
without the approval of the project structural engineer of record.
    (2) Such approval under paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall 
state whether the repair, replacement or modification has made guying 
or bracing of the column necessary.
    (3) Prior to the erection of a column, the controlling contractor 
shall provide written notification to the steel erector if there has 
been any repair, replacement or modification of the anchor bolts of 
that column.
Sec. 1926.756  Beams and columns.

    (a) General. During the final placing of solid web structural 
members, the load shall not be released from the hoisting line until 
the members are secured with at least two bolts per connection drawn up 
wrench-tight or the equivalent as specified by the project structural 
engineer of record, except as specified in paragraph (b) of this 
section.
    (b) Diagonal bracing. Solid web structural members used as diagonal 
bracing shall be secured by at least one bolt per connection drawn up 
wrench-tight or the equivalent as specified by the project structural 
engineer of record.
    (c) Double connections at columns and/or at beam webs over a 
column. When two structural members on opposite sides of a column web, 
or a beam web over a column, share common connection holes, at least 
one bolt with its wrench-tight nut shall remain connected to the first 
member unless a shop-attached or field-bolted seat or similar 
connection device is present to secure the second member and prevent 
the column from being displaced. When seats are provided, the 
connection between the seat and the structural member that it supports 
shall be bolted together before the nuts are removed for the double 
connection.
    (d) Column splices. Each column splice shall be designed to resist 
a 300 pound (136.2 kg) eccentric load located 18 inches (.46 m) from 
the column face in each direction at the top of the column shaft.
    (e) Perimeter columns. Perimeter columns shall extend a minimum of 
48 inches (1.2 m) above the finished floor to permit installation of 
perimeter safety cables prior to erection of the next tier except where 
structural design and constructibility do not allow. (See appendix F to 
this subpart.)
    (f) Perimeter safety cables. (1) Perimeter safety cables shall be 
installed at the perimeter during the structural steel assembly of 
multi-story structures.
    (2) Perimeter safety cables shall consist of \1/2\-inch wire rope 
or equivalent installed at 42-45 inches above the finished floor and at 
the midpoint between the finished floor and the top cable.
    (3) Holes or other devices shall be provided by the fabricator/
supplier and shall be in or attached to perimeter columns at 42-45 
inches above the finished floor and the midpoint between the finished 
floor and the top cable to permit installation of perimeter safety 
cables except where structural design and constructibility allow. (See 
appendix F to this subpart.)


Sec. 1926.757  Open web steel joists.

    (a) General. (1) In steel framing, where steel joists or steel 
joist girders are utilized and columns are not framed in at least two 
directions with solid web structural steel members, the steel joist or 
steel joist girder shall be field-bolted at or near columns to provide 
lateral stability to the column during erection.
    (2) Where steel joists at or near columns span 60 feet (18.3 m) or 
less, the joist shall be designed with sufficient strength to allow one 
employee to release the hoisting cable without the need for erection 
bridging.
    (3) Where steel joists at columns span more than 60 feet (18.3 m), 
the joists shall be set in tandem with all bridging installed unless an 
alternative method of erection, which provides equivalent stability to 
the steel joist, is designed by a qualified person and is included in 
the site-specific erection plan.
    (4) A stabilizer plate shall be provided on each column for steel 
joists and steel joist girders and shall extend at least 3 inches (76 
mm) below the bottom chord of the joist with a 13/16 inch (21 mm) hole 
to provide an attachment point for guying or plumbing cables.
    (5) Bottom chords of steel joist girders and steel joists required 
by paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be stabilized to prevent 
rotation during erection.
    (6) A steel joist shall not be placed on any support structure 
unless such structure is stabilized.
    (7) When steel joist(s) are landed on a structure, they shall be 
secured to prevent unintentional displacement prior to installation.
    (8) Except for steel joists that have been pre-assembled into 
panels, connections of individual steel joists to steel structures in 
bays of 40 feet (12.2 m) or more shall be fabricated to allow for field 
bolting during erection.
    (9) A bridging terminus point shall be established before bridging 
is installed. (See appendix C to this subpart.)
    (10) Steel joists and steel joist girders shall not be used as 
anchorage points for a fall arrest system unless written direction to 
do so is obtained from a qualified person.
    (11) No modification that affects the strength of a steel joist 
shall be made without the approval of the project structural engineer 
of record.
    (b) Attachment of steel joists and steel joist girders. (1) Each 
end of ``K'' series steel joists shall be attached to the support 
structure with a minimum of two \1/8\-inch (3 mm) fillet welds 1 inch 
(25 mm) long or with two \1/2\-inch (13 mm) bolts, or the equivalent.
    (2) Each end of ``LH'' and ``DLH'' series steel joists and steel 
joist girders shall be attached to the support structure with a minimum 
of two \1/4\-inch (6 mm) fillet welds 2 inches (51 mm) long, or with 
two \3/4\-inch (19 mm) bolts, or the equivalent.
    (3) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, each 
steel joist shall be attached to the support structure, at least at one 
end, immediately upon placement in the final erection position and 
before additional joists are placed.
    (4) Steel joists that have been pre-assembled into panels through 
the installation of bridging shall be attached to the structure at each 
corner before the hoisting cables are released.
    (c) Erection of steel joists. (1) One end of each steel joist shall 
be attached to the support structure before an employee is allowed on 
the steel joist.
    (2) On steel joists that span 40 feet (12.2 m) or less and that do 
not require erection bridging per Tables A and B, only one employee 
shall be allowed on the joist until all bridging is installed and 
anchored.
    (3) Employees shall not be allowed on steel joists that span more 
than 40 feet except in accordance with Sec. 1926.757(d).
    (4) When permanent bridging terminus points cannot be used during 
erection, additional temporary bridging terminus points are required to 
provide stability. (See appendix C of this subpart.)
    (d) Erection bridging. (1) Where the span of the steel joist is 
equal to or greater than the span shown in Tables A and B, or in bays 
of 40 feet (12.2 m) through 60 feet (18.3 m), the following shall 
apply:
    (i) The row of erection bridging nearest the midspan of the steel 
joist shall be bolted diagonal bridging;
    (ii) Hoisting cables shall not be released until this bolted 
diagonal erection bridging is installed; and
    (iii) No more than one employee shall be allowed on these spans 
until all other bridging is installed and anchored.
    (2) Where the span of the steel joist is over 60 feet (18.3 m) 
through 100 feet (30.5 m), the following shall apply:
    (i) The two rows of erection bridging nearest the third points of 
the steel joist shall be bolted diagonal bridging;
    (ii) Hoisting cables shall not be released until this bolted 
diagonal erection bridging is installed; and
    (iii) No more than two employees shall be allowed on these spans 
until all other bridging is installed and anchored.
    (3) Where the span of the steel joist is over 100 feet (30.5 m) 
through 144 feet (43.9 m), the following shall apply:
    (i) All rows of bridging shall be bolted diagonal bridging;
    (ii) Hoisting cables shall not be released until all bridging is 
installed; and
    (iii) No more than two employees shall be allowed on these spans 
until all bridging is installed.
    (4) For steel members spanning over 144 feet (43.9 m), the erection 
methods used shall be in accordance with Sec. 1926.756.
    (5) Where any steel joist specified in paragraphs (c)(2) and 
(d)(1), (d)(2), and (d)(3) of this section is a bottom chord bearing 
joist, a row of bolted diagonal bridging shall be provided near the 
support(s). This bridging shall be installed before the hoisting 
cable(s) is released.
    (6) When bolted diagonal erection bridging is required by this 
section, the following shall apply:
    (i) The bridging shall be indicated on the erection drawing;
    (ii) The erection drawing shall be the exclusive indicator of the 
proper placement of this bridging;
    (iii) Shop-installed bridging clips, or functional equivalents, 
shall be provided where the bridging bolts to the steel joists;
    (iv) When two pieces of bridging are attached to the steel joist by 
a common bolt, the nut that secures the first piece of bridging shall 
not be removed from the bolt for the attachment of the second; and
    (v) Bridging attachments shall not protrude above the top chord of 
the steel joist.

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

            Table A.--Erection Bridging for Short Span Joists           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Joist                                 Span           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8K1........................................  NM                         
10K1.......................................  NM                         
12K1.......................................  23-0                       
12K3.......................................  NM                         
12K5.......................................  NM                         
14K1.......................................  27-0                       
14K3.......................................  NM                         
14K4.......................................  NM                         
14K6.......................................  NM                         
16K2.......................................  29-0                       
16K3.......................................  30-0                       
16K4.......................................  32-0                       
16K5.......................................  32-0                       
16K6.......................................  NM                         
16K7.......................................  NM                         
16K9.......................................  NM                         
18K3.......................................  31-0                       
18K4.......................................  32-0                       
18K5.......................................  33-0                       
18K6.......................................  35-0                       
18K7.......................................  NM                         
18K9.......................................  NM                         
18K10......................................  NM                         
20K3.......................................  32-0                       
20K4.......................................  34-0                       
20K5.......................................  34-0                       
20K6.......................................  36-0                       
20K7.......................................  39-0                       
20K9.......................................  39-0                       
20K10......................................  NM                         
22K4.......................................  34-0                       
22K5.......................................  35-0                       
22K6.......................................  36-0                       
22K7.......................................  40-0                       
22K9.......................................  40-0                       
22K10......................................  40-0                       
22K11......................................  40-0                       
24K4.......................................  36-0                       
24K5.......................................  38-0                       
24K6.......................................  39-0                       
24K7.......................................  40-0                       
24K8.......................................  40-0                       
24K9.......................................  40-0                       
24K10......................................  40-0                       
24K12......................................  40-0                       
26K5.......................................  38-0                       
26K6.......................................  39-0                       
26K7.......................................  40-0                       
26K8.......................................  40-0                       
26K9.......................................  40-0                       
26K10......................................  40-0                       
26K12......................................  40-0                       
28K6.......................................  40-0                       
28K7.......................................  40-0                       
28K8.......................................  40-0                       
28K9.......................................  40-0                       
28K10......................................  40-0                       
28K12......................................  40-0                       
30K7.......................................  40-0                       
30K8.......................................  40-0                       
30K9.......................................  40-0                       
30K10......................................  40-0                       
30K11......................................  40-0                       
30K12......................................  40-0                       
10KCS1.....................................  NM                         
10KCS2.....................................  NM                         
10KCS3.....................................  NM                         
12KCS1.....................................  NM                         
12KCS2.....................................  NM                         
12KCS3.....................................  NM                         
14KCS1.....................................  NM                         
14KCS2.....................................  NM                         
14KCS3.....................................  NM                         
16KCS2.....................................  NM                         
16KCS3.....................................  NM                         
16KCS4.....................................  NM                         
16KCS5.....................................  NM                         
18KCS2.....................................  35-0                       
18KCS3.....................................  NM                         
18KCS4.....................................  NM                         
18KCS5.....................................  NM                         
20KCS2.....................................  36-0                       
20KCS3.....................................  39-0                       
20KCS4.....................................  NM                         
20KCS5.....................................  NM                         
22KCS2.....................................  36-0                       
22KCS3.....................................  40-0                       
22KCS4.....................................  40-0                       
22KCS5.....................................  40-0                       
24KCS2.....................................  39-0                       
24KCS3.....................................  40-0                       
24KCS4.....................................  40-0                       
24KCS5.....................................  40-0                       
26KCS2.....................................  39-0                       
26KCS3.....................................  40-0                       
26KCS4.....................................  40-0                       
26KCS5.....................................  40-0                       
28KCS2.....................................  40-0                       
28KCS3.....................................  40-0                       
28KCS4.....................................  40-0                       
28KCS5.....................................  40-0                       
30KC53.....................................  40-0                       
30KCS4.....................................  40-0                       
30KCS5.....................................  40-0                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NM=diagonal bolted bridging not mandatory for joists under 40 feet.     


            Table B.--Erection Bridging for Long Span Joists            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Joist                                Span               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
18LH02..............................  33-0.                             
18LH03..............................  NM.                               
18LH04..............................  NM.                               
18LH05..............................  NM.                               
18LH06..............................  NM.                               
18LH07..............................  NM.                               
18LH08..............................  NM.                               
18LH09..............................  NM.                               
20LH02..............................  33-0.                             
20LH03..............................  38-0.                             
20LH04..............................  NM.                               
20LH05..............................  NM.                               
20LH06..............................  NM.                               
20LH07..............................  NM.                                
20LH08..............................  NM.                               
20LH09..............................  NM.                               
20LH10..............................  NM.                               
24LH03..............................  35-0.                             
24LH04..............................  39-0.                             
24LH05..............................  40-0.                             
24LH06..............................  40-0.                             
24LH07..............................  40-0.                             
24LH08..............................  40-0.                             
24LH09..............................  40-0.                             
24LH10..............................  40-0.                             
24LH11..............................  40-0.                             
28LH05..............................  40-0.                             
28LH06..............................  40-0.                             
28LH07..............................  40-0.                             
28LH08..............................  40-0.                             
28LH09..............................  40-0.                             
28LH10..............................  40-0.                             
28LH11..............................  40-0.                             
28LH12..............................  40-0.                             
28LH13..............................  40-0.                             
32LH06..............................  40-0 through 60-0.                
32LH07..............................  40-0 through 60-0.                
32LH08..............................  40-0 through 60-0.                
32LH09..............................  40-0 through 60-0.                
32LH10..............................  40-0 through 60-0.                
32LH11..............................  40-0 through 60-0.                
32LH12..............................  40-0 through 60-0.                
32LH13..............................  40-0 through 60-0.                
32LH14..............................  40-0 through 60-0.                
32LH15..............................  40-0 through 60-0.                
36LH07..............................  40-0 through 60-0.                
36LH08..............................  40-0 through 60-0.                
36LH09..............................  40-0 through 60-0.                
36LH10..............................  40-0 through 60-0.                
36LH11..............................  40-0 through 60-0.                
36LH12..............................  40-0 through 60-0.                
36LH13..............................  40-0 through 60-0.                
36LH14..............................  40-0 through 60-0.                
36LH15..............................  40-0 through 60-0.                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NM = diagonal bolted bridging not mandatory for joists under 40 feet.   


BILLING CODE 4510-26-M

    (e) Landing and placing loads. (1) During the construction period, 
the employer placing a load on steel joists shall ensure that the load 
is distributed so as not to exceed the carrying capacity of any steel 
joist.
    (2) Except for paragraph (e)(4) of this section, no construction 
loads are allowed on the steel joists until all bridging is installed 
and anchored and all joist-bearing ends are attached.
    (3) The weight of a bundle of joist bridging shall not exceed a 
total of 1000 pounds (454 kg). A bundle of joist bridging shall be 
placed on a minimum of 3 steel joists that are secured at one end. The 
edge of the bridging bundle shall be positioned within 1 foot (.30 m) 
of the secured end.
    (4) No bundle of decking may be placed on steel joists until all 
bridging has been installed and anchored and all joist bearing ends 
attached, unless all of the following conditions are met:
    (i) The employer has first determined from a qualified person and 
documented in a site-specific erection plan that the structure or 
portion of the structure is capable of supporting the load;
    (ii) The bundle of decking is placed on a minimum of 3 steel 
joists;
    (iii) The joists supporting the bundle of decking are attached at 
both ends;
    (iv) At least one row of bridging is installed and anchored;
    (v) The total weight of the decking does not exceed 4000 pounds 
(1816 kg); and
    (vi) The edge of the bundle of decking is placed within 1 foot (.30 
m) of the bearing surface of the joist end.
    (5) The edge of the construction load shall be placed within 1 foot 
(.30 m) of the bearing surface of the joist end.


Sec. 1926.758  Pre-engineered metal buildings.

    (a) Erection of pre-engineered metal buildings shall not begin 
until the site layout has been completed in accordance with 
Sec. 1926.752(b).
    (b) Each column shall be anchored by a minimum of 4 anchor bolts.
    (c) Rigid frames shall have 50 percent of their bolts or the number 
of bolts specified by the manufacturer (whichever is greater) installed 
and tightened on both sides of the web adjacent to each flange before 
the hoisting equipment is released.
    (d) Construction loads shall not be placed on any structural steel 
framework unless such framework is safely bolted, welded or otherwise 
adequately secured.
    (e) In girt and eave strut to frame connections, when girts or eave 
struts share common connection holes the following shall apply:
    (1) At least one bolt with its wrench-tight nut shall remain 
connected to the second member unless a field-attached seat or similar 
connection device is present to secure the first member so
that the girt or eave strut is always secured against displacement; and
    (2) The seat or similar connection device shall be provided by the 
manufacturer of the girt or eave strut.
    (f) Both ends of all steel joists or cold-formed joists shall be 
fully bolted and/or welded to the support structure before:
    (1) Releasing the hoisting cables;
    (2) Allowing an employee on the joists; or
    (3) Allowing any construction loads on the joists.
    (g) Purlins and girts shall not be used as an anchorage point for a 
fall arrest system unless written direction to do so is obtained from a 
qualified person.
    (h) Purlins may only be used as a walking/working surface when 
installing safety systems, after all permanent bridging has been 
installed and fall protection is provided.
    (i) Construction loads may be placed only within a zone that is 
within 8 feet (2.5 m) of the centerline of the primary support member.


Sec. 1926.759  Falling object protection.

    (a) Securing loose items aloft. All materials, equipment, and 
tools, which are not in use while aloft, shall be secured against 
accidental displacement.
    (b) Overhead protection. The controlling contractor shall ensure 
that no other construction processes take place below steel erection 
unless adequate overhead protection for the employees below is 
provided.


Sec. 1926.760  Fall protection.

    (a) General requirements. (1) Except as provided by paragraph 
(a)(3) of this section, each employee covered by this subpart who is on 
a walking/working surface with an unprotected side or edge more than 15 
feet (4.6 m) above a lower level shall be protected from fall hazards.
    (2) Protection from fall hazards required by this subpart shall 
consist of perimeter safety cable systems, guardrail systems, safety 
net systems, or personal fall arrest or fall restraint (positioning 
device) systems. Guardrail systems, safety net systems, personal fall 
arrest systems and fall restraint (positioning device) systems shall 
conform to the criteria set forth in Sec. 1926.502.
    (3) Connectors and employees working in controlled decking zones 
shall be protected from fall hazards as provided in paragraphs (b) and 
(c) of this section, respectively.
    (b) Connectors. Each connector shall:
    (1) Be protected from fall hazards of more than two stories or 30 
feet (9.1 m) above a lower level, whichever is less;
    (2) Have completed connector training in accordance with 
Sec. 1926.761; and
    (3) Be provided, at heights over 15 and up to 30 feet above a lower 
level, with a personal fall arrest or fall restraint (positioning 
device) system and wear the equipment necessary to be able to be tied 
off; or be provided with other means of protection from fall hazards in 
accordance with paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
    (c) Controlled decking zone (CDZ). A controlled decking zone may be 
established in that area of the structure over 15 and up to 30 feet 
above a lower level where metal deck is initially being installed and 
forms the leading edge of a work area. In each CDZ, the following shall 
apply:
    (1) Each employee working at the leading edge in a CDZ shall be 
protected from fall hazards of more than two stories or 30 feet (9.1 
m), whichever is less.
    (2) Access to a CDZ shall be limited exclusively to those employees 
engaged in leading edge work.
    (3) The boundaries of a CDZ shall be designated and clearly marked. 
The CDZ shall not be more than 90 feet (27.4 m) wide and 90 feet (27.4 
m) deep from any leading edge. The CDZ shall be marked by the use of 
control lines or the equivalent. Examples of acceptable procedures for 
demarcating CDZ's can be found in Appendix D to this subpart.
    (4) Each employee working in a CDZ shall have completed CDZ 
training in accordance with Sec. 1926.761.
    (5) During initial placement, deck panels shall be placed to ensure 
full support by structural members.
    (6) Unsecured decking in a CDZ shall not exceed 3000 square feet 
(914.4 m \2\).
    (7) Safety deck attachments shall be performed in the CDZ from the 
leading edge back to the control line and shall have at least two 
attachments per deck panel.
    (8) Final deck attachments and installation of shear connectors 
shall not be performed in the CDZ.
    (d) Covering roof and floor openings. (1) Covers for roof and floor 
openings required by Sec. 1926.754 (e)(2)(ii) and (e)(2)(iii) shall be 
capable of supporting, without failure, the greater of either:
    (i) 30 psf for roofs and 50 psf for floors; or
    (ii) twice the weight of the employees, equipment and materials 
that may be imposed on the cover at any one time.
    (2) All covers shall be secured when installed to prevent 
accidental displacement by the wind, equipment or employees.
    (3) All covers shall be painted with high-visibility paint or shall 
be marked with the word ``HOLE'' or ``COVER'' to provide warning of the 
hazard.
    (4) Smoke dome or skylight fixtures, which have been installed, are 
not considered covers for the purpose of this section unless they meet 
the strength requirements of paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
    (e) Custody of fall protection. Fall protection provided by the 
steel erector shall remain in an area to be used by other trades after 
the steel erection activity has been completed only if the controlling 
contractor or its authorized representative:
    (1) Has directed the steel erector to leave the fall protection in 
place; and
    (2) Has inspected and accepted control and responsibility of the 
fall protection prior to authorizing persons other than steel erectors 
to work in the area.


Sec. 1926.761  Training.

    The following provisions supplement the requirements of 
Sec. 1926.21 regarding the hazards addressed in this subpart.
    (a) Training personnel. Training required by this section shall be 
provided by a qualified person(s).
    (b) Fall hazard training. The employer shall provide a training 
program for all employees exposed to fall hazards. The program shall 
include training and instruction in the following areas:
    (1) The recognition and identification of fall hazards in the work 
area;
    (2) The use and operation of perimeter safety cable systems, 
personal fall arrest systems, fall restraint (positioning device) 
systems, safety net systems, controlled decking zones and other 
protection to be used;
    (3) The correct procedures for erecting, maintaining, 
disassembling, and inspecting the fall protection systems to be used;
    (4) The procedures to be followed to prevent falls to lower levels 
and through or into holes and openings in walking/working surfaces and 
walls; and
    (5) The fall protection requirements of Sec. 1926.760.
    (c) Special training programs. In addition to the training required 
in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the employer shall provide 
special training to employees engaged in the following activities.
    (1) Multiple lift rigging procedure. The employer shall ensure that 
each employee who performs multiple lift rigging has been provided 
training in the following areas:
    (i) The nature of the hazards associated with multiple lifts; and
    (ii) The proper procedures and equipment to perform multiple lifts 
required by Sec. 1926.753(c).
    (2) Connector procedures. The employer shall ensure that each 
connector has been provided training in the following areas:
    (i) The nature of the hazards associated with connecting; and
    (ii) The establishment, access, proper connecting techniques and 
work practices required by Secs. 1926.760(b) and 1926.756(c).
    (3) Controlled decking zone procedures. Where CDZs are being used, 
the employer shall ensure that each employee has been provided training 
in the following areas:
    (i) The nature of the hazards associated with work within a 
controlled decking zone; and
    (ii) The establishment, access, proper installation techniques and 
work practices required by Secs. 1926.760(c) and 1926.754(e).

    Note to Appendices to Subpart R: The following appendices to 
subpart R of this part serve as non-mandatory guidelines to assist 
employers in complying with the appropriate requirements of subpart 
R of this part.

Appendix A to Subpart R--Guidelines for Establishing the Components 
of a Site-Specific Erection Plan: Non-Mandatory Guidelines for 
Complying With Sec. 1926.752(d)

    (a) General. This appendix serves as a guideline to assist 
employers who elect to develop a site-specific erection plan in 
accordance with Sec. 1926.752(d) with alternate means and methods to 
provide employee protection in accordance with Secs. 1926.752(d), 
1926.753(a)(5), 1926.757(a)(3) and 1926.757(e)(4)(i).
    (b) Development of a site-specific erection plan. Pre-
construction conference(s) and site inspection(s) are held between 
the erector and the controlling contractor, and others such as the 
project engineer and fabricator before the start of steel erection. 
The purpose of such conference(s) is to develop and review the site-
specific erection plan that will meet the requirements of this 
section.
    (c) Components of a site-specific erection plan. In developing a 
site-specific erection plan, a steel erector considers the following 
elements:
    (1) The sequence of erection activity, developed in coordination 
with the controlling contractor, that includes the following:
    (i) Material deliveries:
    (ii) Material staging and storage; and
    (iii) Coordination with other trades and construction 
activities.
    (2) A description of the crane and derrick selection and 
placement procedures, including the following:
    (i) Site preparation;
    (ii) Path for overhead loads; and
    (iii) Critical lifts, including rigging supplies and equipment.
    (3) A description of steel erection activities and procedures, 
including the following:
    (i) Stability considerations requiring temporary bracing and 
guying;
    (ii) Erection bridging terminus point;
    (iii) Anchor bolt notifications regarding repair, replacement 
and modifications;
    (iv) Columns and beams (including joists and purlins);
    (v) Connections;
    (vi) Decking; and
    (vii) Ornamental and miscellaneous iron.
    (4) A description of the fall protection procedures that will be 
used to comply with Sec. 1926.760.
    (5) A description of the procedures that will be used to comply 
with Sec. 1926.759.
    (6) A description of the special procedures required for 
hazardous non-routine tasks.
    (7) A certification for each employee who has received training 
for performing steel erection operations as required by 
Sec. 1926.761.
    (8) A list of the qualified and competent persons.
    (9) A description of the procedures that will be utilized in the 
event of rescue or emergency response.
    (d) Other plan information. The plan:
    (1) Includes the identification of the site and project; and
    (2) Is signed and dated by the qualified person(s) responsible 
for its preparation and modification.

Appendix B TO Subpart R--Acceptable Test Methods for Testing Slip-
Resistance of Walking/Working Surfaces (Sec. 1926.754(c)(3)) Non-
mandatory Guidelines for Complying With Sec. 1926.754(c)(3).

    The following references provide acceptable test methods for 
complying with the requirements of Sec. 1926.754(c)(3).
     Standard Test Method for Using a Portable Articulated 
Strut Slip Tester (PAST) (ASTM F1678-96)
     Standard Test Method for Using a Variable Incidence 
Tribometer (VIT) (ASTM F1679-96)

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
Appendix C to Subpart R--Illustrations of Bridging Terminus Points: 
Non-Mandatory Guidelines for Complying With Sec. 1926.757(c)(3)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13AU98.000

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13AU98.001


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13AU98.002



BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
Appendix D to Subpart R--Illustration of the use of Control Lines 
to Demarcate Controlled Decking Zones (CDZs): Non-Mandatory 
Guidelines for Complying With Sec. 1926.760(c)(3)

    (1) When used to control access to areas where leading edge and 
initial securement of metal deck and other operations connected with 
leading edge work are taking place, the controlled decking zone (CDZ) 
is defined by a control line or by any other means that restricts 
access.
    (i) A control line for a CDZ is erected not less than 6 feet (1.8 
m) nor more than 90 feet (27.4 m) from the leading edge.
    (ii) Control lines extend along the entire length of the 
unprotected or leading edge and are approximately parallel to the 
unprotected or leading edge.
    (iii) Control lines are connected on each side to a guardrail 
system, wall, stanchion or other suitable anchorage.
    (2) Control lines consist of ropes, wires, tapes, or equivalent 
materials, and supporting stanchions as follows:
    (i) Each line is rigged and supported in such a way that its lowest 
point (including sag) is not less than 39 inches (1.0 m) from the 
walking/working surface and its highest point is not more than 45 
inches (1.3 m) from the walking/working surface.
    (ii) Each line has a minimum breaking strength of 200 pounds (90.8 
kg).

Appendix E to Subpart R--Training: Non-Mandatory Guidelines for 
Complying With Sec. 1926.761

    The training requirements of Sec. 1926.761 will be deemed to have 
been met if employees have completed a training course on steel 
erection, including instruction in the provisions of this standard, 
that has been approved by the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of 
Apprenticeship.

Appendix F to Subpart R--Installation of Perimeter Safety Cables: 
Non-Mandatory Guidelines for Complying with Sec. 1926.756(f) To 
Protect the Unprotected Side or Edge of a Walking/Working Surface.

    In multi-story structures, the project structural engineer of 
record (SER) may facilitate the ease of erecting perimeter safety 
cables, where structural design allows, by placing column splices 
sufficiently high so as to accommodate perimeter safety cables located 
at 42-45 inches above the finished floor. The SER may also consider 
allowing holes to be placed in the column web, when the column is 
oriented with the web perpendicular to the structural perimeter, at 42-
45 inches above the finished floor and at the midpoint between the 
finished floor and the top cable. When holes in the column web are 
allowed for perimeter safety cables, the column splice must be placed 
sufficiently high so as not to interfere with any attachments to the 
column necessary for the column splice. Column splices are recommended 
to be placed at every other or fourth levels as design allows. Column 
splices at third levels are detrimental to the erection process and 
should be avoided if possible.

[FR Doc. 98-21112 Filed 8-12-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P