Construction Accident Newsroom

The PCI Submissions Described Some Characteristic Precast Concrete Construction Situations

The informal public hearings were conducted on March 22-23, 1988, with Administrative Law Judge Joel Williams presiding. At the close of the hearings, Judge Williams set a period, ending May 9, 1988, for hearing participants to submit additional comments and information. OSHA received 15 submissions, including testimony and documentary evidence, at the hearing. On August 11, 1989, Judge Williams certified the rulemaking record, including the hearing transcript and all written submissions to the docket, there by closing the record for this proceeding.

On August 5, 1992, OSHA reopened the rulemaking record (57 FR 34656) to consider new information submitted by the Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) regarding the fall protection needs of employees engaged in precast concrete construction. The PCI submissions (Exs. 25-4 and 25-6) described some characteristic precast concrete construction situations and alternative measures PCI believed employers could take to provide fall protection for their employees in those situations. The Agency solicited input on whether OSHA should allow precast concrete construction employers to protect employees from fall hazards by means other than guardrail systems, personal fall arrest systems or safety net systems. The Agency also sought comments regarding what criteria OSHA should set to determine the appropriateness of using alternative measures and to determine if the alternative measures are effectively minimizing fall hazards. The comment period, which ended November 3, 1992, elicited 14 comments.

On March 29, 1993, the Agency again reopened the rulemaking record (58 FR 16515) to provide additional time for the precast concrete construction industry to comment on the issues raised in the August 5, 1992, notice. The March 29 notice also discussed the fall protection needs of employees involved in residential construction, focusing on the feasibility of protecting employees erecting roof trusses and exterior wall panels with guardrails, personal fall arrest systems or safety net systems. OSHA requested information regarding alternative measures, or safe work practices, residential construction employers can use to minimize fall hazards. The limited comment period, which ended on May 28, 1993, elicited 28 comments.

A wide range of employees, businesses, trade associations, state governments, and other interested parties contributed to the development of this record. The Agency appreciates these efforts to help OSHA develop a rulemaking record that provides a sound basis for the promulgation of this final rule.

The Agency believes that, while the means of providing fall protection are continually improving, there may be circumstances where employers can demonstrate that compliance with certain fall protection requirements would be infeasible; i.e., it would be impossible to accomplish the work using conventional fall protection systems or it is technologically impossible to use conventional fall protection systems, or that those systems would create a greater hazard to employees. OSHA has determined that revised subpart M is needed to address those circumstances, encourage greater compliance by employers and employees, and maximize employee protection from fall hazards. OSHA believes that the clarified and revised language of the final rule will help employers to understand and implement the requirements of subpart M, resulting in improved employee protection. In addition, much of the final rule has been written in more performance-oriented language. This will make it easier for employers to provide the necessary protection for their employees, since they will be able to select fall protection measures which are compatible with the type of work being performed.

This project has been coordinated with other ongoing projects for the revision of related general industry standards in 29 CFR Part 1910, subpart D -- Walking/Working Surfaces, [proposed rule published at 55 FR 13360, April 10, 1990] and 29 CFR Part 1910 subpart I -- Personal Protective Equipment (Fall Protection Systems), [proposed rule published at 55 FR 13423, April 10, 1990] and with the proposed rulemaking for the Shipyard Industry in 29 CFR 1915 subpart M -- Fall Protection [proposed rule published at 53 FR 48168, November 29, 1988]. Where appropriate, the 1910, 1915, and 1926 requirements will use the same language to address similar hazards so employers will have clear and consistent direction as to what is necessary to protect employees from fall hazards