August 1, 2000 Mark Troxell, Director of Safety The Graham Company 107 Ponderosa Drive Blandon, PA 19510 Re: 29 CFR 1926.501(b)(10) Roofing work and other trades working on low slope roofs Dear Mr. Troxell: This responds to your July 19, 1999 letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requesting clarification on the use of fall protection for employees, other than roofers, working on low slope roofs. We apologize for the long delay in providing this response. In your letter you state that other trades (for example, electricians and mechanical trades), when working on roofs, tie-off only when they go outside the warning line system. You specifically ask if that type of procedure is acceptable to OSHA. OSHA's fall protection standard for construction, 29 CFR 1926 Subpart M (beginning at §1926.500), generally requires fall protection when there is a fall distance of 6 feet or more. In a few, very specific situations (low-slope roof work, some leading edge work, precast concrete erection and residential construction), because of feasibility limitations, the standard permits the use of a warning line, in combination with other measures, instead of conventional fall protection (guardrail systems, personal fall arrest systems or safety net systems) to keep employees away from an edge. Section 1926.501(b)(10) allows roofers working on low-sloped roofs to have several fall protection options. Under that section an employer may use a combination of warning lines 6 feet (and in some cases 10 feet) back from the edge in combination with monitors in place of personal fall protection equipment or guardrails. OSHA recognized that guardrail systems, safety net systems and personal fall arrest systems could pose feasibility problems during roofing work; therefore, the rule allows other choices of fall protection methods. Under paragraph 1926.501(b)(2), 1926.501(b)(12), and 1926.501(b)(13), employers engaged in other specified work, such as leading edge work, precast concrete erection, and residential construction may develop and implement a site specific fall protection plan that uses alternative fall protection methods if they can demonstrate infeasibility of conventional fall protection. In some cases warning lines may be used under these provisions. The terms of the standard do not otherwise provide that warning lines may be used in place of conventional fall protection. However, we have now had six years of experience with the application of Subpart M since it was published in 1994. As we explained in a letter to Mr. Barry Cole last year, we have determined that in the areas further back from the distances specified for the warning lines permitted under the standard, there is a point that is sufficiently far from the edge to warrant the application of a de minimis policy regarding non-conforming guardrails. Your letter states that the warning line system is "around the perimeter of the roof." At 15 feet from the edge, a warning line, combined with effective work rules, can be expected to prevent workers from going past the line and approaching the edge. Also, at that distance, the failure of a barrier to restrain a worker from unintentionally crossing it would not place the worker in immediate risk of falling off the edge. Therefore, we will apply a de minimis policy for non- conforming guardrails 15 or more feet from the edge under certain circumstances. Specifically, we will consider the use of certain physical barriers that fail to meet the criteria for a guardrail a de minimis violation of the guardrail criteria in §1926.502(b) where all of the following are met:
Transcript
August 1 2000 Mark Troxell Director of Safety The Graham Company 107 Ponderosa Drive
Blandon PA 19510 Re 29 CFR 1926501(b)(10) Roofing work and other trades working on low slope roofs Dear Mr Troxell This responds to your July 19 1999 letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requesting clarification on the use of fall protection for employees other than roofers working on low slope roofs We apologize for the long delay in providing this response
In your letter you state that other trades (for example electricians and mechanical trades) when working on roofs tie-off only when they go outside the warning line system You specifically ask if that type of procedure is acceptable to OSHA OSHAs fall protection standard for construction 29 CFR 1926 Subpart M (beginning at sect1926500) generally requires fall protection when there is a fall distance of 6 feet or more In a few very specific situations (low-slope roof work some leading edge work precast concrete erection and residential construction) because of feasibility limitations the standard permits the use of a warning line in combination with other measures instead of conventional fall protection
(guardrail systems personal fall arrest systems or safety net systems) to keep employees away from an edge Section 1926501(b)(10) allows roofers working on low-sloped roofs to have several fall protection options Under that section an employer may use a combination of warning lines 6 feet (and in some cases 10 feet) back from the edge in combination with monitors in place of personal fall protection equipment or guardrails OSHA recognized that guardrail systems safety net systems and personal fall arrest systems could pose feasibility problems during roofing work therefore the rule allows other choices of fall protection methods
Under paragraph 1926501(b)(2) 1926501(b)(12) and 1926501(b)(13) employers engaged in other specified work such as leading edge work precast concrete erection and residential construction may develop and implement a site specific fall protection plan that uses alternative fall protection methods if they can demonstrate infeasibility of conventional fall protection In some cases warning lines may be used under these provisions The terms of the standard do not otherwise provide that warning lines may be used in place of conventional fall protection However we have now had six years of experience with the application of Subpart M since it was published in 1994 As we explained in a letter to Mr Barry
Cole last year we have determined that in the areas further back from the distances specified for the warning lines permitted under the standard there is a point that is sufficiently far from the edge to warrant the application of a de minimis policy regarding non-conforming guardrails Your letter states that the warning line system is around the perimeter of the roof At 15 feet from the edge a warning line combined with effective work rules can be expected to prevent workers from going past the line and approaching the edge Also at that distance the failure of a barrier to restrain a worker from unintentionally crossing it would not place the worker in immediate risk of falling off the edge Therefore we will apply a de minimis policy for non-
conforming guardrails 15 or more feet from the edge under certain circumstances Specifically we will consider the use of certain physical barriers that fail to meet the criteria for a guardrail a de minimis violation of the guardrail criteria in sect1926502(b) where all of the following are met
1 A warning line is used 15 feet or more from the edge
2 The warning line meets or exceeds the requirements in sect1926502(f)(2)
3 No work or work-related activity is to take place in the area between the warning line and the edge and
4 The employer effectively implements a work rule prohibiting the employees from going
past the warning line
In sum the use of warning lines closer than 15 feet from the edge is not permitted as a substitute for conventional fall protection for these other trades Furthermore when these other trades use a warning line system in accordance with the policy described above the workers must use conventional fall protection when they are outside the protection of the warning line system If you need additional information please contact us by fax at US Department of Labor OSHA Directorate of Construction Office of Construction Standards and Guidance fax 202-693-1689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution
Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
May 12 2000 Mr Barry A Cole Executive Vice-President Steel Erectors Safety Association
of Colorado 5750 Pecos Street Suite 6 Denver Colorado 80221 Re Fall ProtectionUse of barricades 1926500 Subpart M Dear Mr Cole This is in response to your letter dated July 24 1998 addressed to OSHAs Directorate of Construction In the letter you ask a series of questions regarding 29 CFR 1926500 Subpart M
We apologize for the long delay in responding Issue In viewing your questions together we understand them to amount to the following issue Subpart M generally requires fall protection (personal fall protection guardrails covers) when there is a fall distance of 6 feet or more In a few very specific situations the standard permits the use of control lines instead of guardrails to keep employees away from a hole or edge Apart from those situations if an employee is far enough from a hole or edge may control lines be used instead of the specified fall protection devices If so how far is that distance
Background The type of fall protection required by the standard depends to some extent on the work activity Generally sect1926501(b)(2)(ii) requires that employees on a walkingworking surface 6 feet or more above a lower level shall be protected from falling by a guardrail system safety net system or personal fall arrest system Section 1926501(b)(4)(i) requires that employees on walkingworking surfaces be protected from falling through holes (including skylights) more than 6 feet above lower levels by personal fall arrest systems covers or guardrail systems around such holes Sections 1926501(b)(4) (ii) and (iii) require that employees on a walkingworking surface be protected from tripping or stepping into or through holes (including skylights) or from objects falling through holes by covers
In the rulemaking for Subpart M OSHA determined that in certain very limited situations warning lines are an appropriate means of protection Section 1926501(b)(10) sets out the fall protection requirement for roofing work on low slope roofs Under that section an employer may use a combination of warning lines 6 feet (and in some cases 10 feet) back from the edge in combination with monitors in place of personal fall protection equipment or guardrails Under sect1926501(b)(2) employers engaged in other specified work such as leading edge work precast concrete erection work and residential construction may develop and implement a site-specific fall protection plan that uses alternative fall protection methods if they can demonstrate the infeasibility of conventional fall protection As can be seen in the examples given in Appendix
E to Subpart M warning lines 6 feet back from the edge can be used as part of such a plan Answer The standard requires workers exposed to falls of 6 feet or more to lower levels to be protected from falls As discussed in the Preamble to Subpart M in volume 59 of the Federal Register (page 40683) OSHA determined in the rulemaking that there is no safe distance from an unprotected side or edge of a walkingworking surface that would render protection unnecessary The Agency also identified in the rulemaking the specific situations where warning lines 6 and 10 feet back from a hole or edge were appropriate substitutes for guardrails personal fall protection and covers It would be inappropriate for us to revisit those
determinations and allow warning lines to be used in other circumstances at 6 and 10 feet back outside of the rulemaking process Consequently it would be inappropriate to apply a de minimis policy that would have the effect of extending the provisions for warning lines at 6 and 10 feet to situations other than the limited ones identified in the standard
In contrast a question remains about whether a de minimis policy on the use of warning lines in areas farther back from those specifically addressed in the rule would be appropriate Our finding in the Preamble that there is no safe distance from an unprotected side or edge referred to an issue raised in the rulemaking of whether distance alone is ever sufficient protection from an
unprotected edge When OSHA proposed in 1986 to revise the fall protection requirements we asked the public if fall protection was necessary for employees working 10 20 or 30 feet from an unprotected edge In response some commenters stated that distance alone was not enough They stated that employees may wander and the fact that the area where the work is taking place is far from the edge is by itself ineffective to ensure that workers will not approach the edge (59 FR 40682) We have now had 5 years of experience with the application of the rule since it was published in 1994 We continue to believe that distance alone is ineffective to protect workers from unprotected sides or edges However we have determined that in the area farther back from
the distances specified for the warning lines permitted under the standard there is a point that is sufficiently far from the edge or hole to warrant the application of a de minimis policy regarding non-conforming guardrails At 15 feet from the edge or hole (in the case of a hole measured from the nearest edge of the hole) a warning line combined with effective work rules can be expected to prevent workers from going past the line and approaching the edge Also at that distance the failure of a barrier to restrain a worker from unintentionally crossing it would not place the worker in immediate risk of falling off the edge Therefore we will apply a de minimis policy for non-conforming guardrails
15 or more feet from the edge under certain circumstances Specifically we will consider the use of certain physical barriers that fail to meet the criteria for a guardrail a de minimis violation of the guardrail criteria in sect1926502(b) where all of the following are met
1 A warning line is used 15 feet or more from the edge (or nearest edge of a hole) 2 The warning line meets or exceeds the requirements in sect1926502(f)(2) 3 No work or work-related activity is to take place in the area between the warning line and
the hole or edge and 4 The employer effectively implements a work rule prohibiting the employees from going
past the warning line
If you need additional information please contact us by fax (202-693-1689) at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance You can also contact us by mail at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance Room
N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
December 18 2003 Mr Michael Wright PE Managing Principal LJB Inc
3100 Research Boulevard PO Box 20246 Dayton OH 45420-0246 Re Inspection of personal fall arrest systems competent person fall protection plans sect1926501(b)(2) (12) and (13) sect1926502(c)(4) and (d)(20) and (21) and sect1926503(a)(2) Dear Mr Wright This is in response to your letter dated August 4 2003 faxed to the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) asking for clarification on a number of issues regarding OSHAs construction industry standards for fall protection My staff discussed and resolved some of your questions with you over the telephone We have paraphrased the remainder of your questions as follows Question (1) How often must a construction employer inspect hisher employees personal fall arrest systems (PFAS) Would formal inspections performed once annually be the maximum amount of time permitted between inspections
Answer Paragraph (d)(21) of sect1926502 addresses the inspection of personal fall arrest systems (PFAS) as follows sect1926502 Fall protection systems criteria and practices (d) Personal fall arrest systems (21) Personal fall arrest systems shall be inspected prior to each use for wear damage and other deterioration and defective components shall be removed from service
Note that in the preamble to the final rule (at volume 59 of the Federal Register pages 40709-40710 August 9 1994 excerpted below) OSHA stated that weekly inspections would not be sufficient to guard against the use of defective equipment Leading to promulgation of final rule sect1926502(d)(21) the Agency specifically sought comments on the frequency of inspection for fall protection equipment in separate issues [9 and 17] as part of the proposed rule Based on the rulemaking record OSHA did not amend the language in the proposed rule regarding the frequency of inspections of PFAS to set out a time frame Some pertinent portions of that preamble discussion are as follows Paragraph (d)(21) (proposed as paragraph (d)(20)) requires that personal fall arrest systems be
inspected prior to each use for damage and deterioration and that defective components be removed from service This provision is essentially identical to the proposed provision in sect1926502(d)(20) OSHA raised Issues 9 and 17 in the proposal to request public comment regarding the frequency of inspection and whether or not more definitive inspection criteria were needed for determining when personal fall arrest systems (or positioning device systems as regulated in paragraph (e)(5) below) are no longer suitable for use OSHA also asked commenters what inspection criteria should be specified
The majority of the commenters thought the criteria provided in the standard were sufficient as proposed (Exs 2-12 2-19 2-23 2-43 and 2-45)hellip The GLFEA and the BCMALU (Exs 2-19 and 2-46) thought inspection should be weekly rather
than prior to each use The GLFEA supported its position with the statement that A more frequent schedule does not enhance the safety of the employees Essentially there was no objection to the substance of the rule only disagreement on the frequency of inspection OSHA believes it is critical to inspect equipment before each use otherwise employees may use defective equipment which could result in loss of life in the event of a fall Therefore OSHA has
not reduced the frequency of inspection and has determined that the provision as proposed is appropriate Further information on inspection criteria has been provided in paragraph (g) Inspection considerations in Part II of Appendix C relating to sect1926502(d) -- Personal Fall Arrest Systems OSHA also notes that this provision is consistent with the inspection requirements for personal fall arrest systems in the powered platforms standard sect191066 Therefore annual inspections instead of inspections prior to each use would violate sect1926502(d)(21) Question (2) Does Part 1926 Subpart M require that personal fall arrest systems be inspected
by a competent person Answer The inspection of personal fall arrest systems required in sect1926502(d)(21) does not have to be performed by a competent person1 However sect1926503(a)(2) states The employer shall assure that each employee has been trained as necessary by a competent person qualified in the following areas
(ii) The correct procedures for inspecting the fall protection systems to be used Therefore under sectsect1926502(d)(21) and 1926503(a)(2)(ii) the equipment must be inspected prior to each use by an employee who has been trained by a competent person to do the inspection Also under sect1926502(d)(19) a competent person must inspect personal fall arrest equipment to determine that personal fall arrest systems and components subjected to impact loading are undamaged and suitable for reuse2
Personal fall arrest systems and components subjected to impact loading shall be immediately removed from service and shall not be used again for employee protection until inspected and determined by a competent person to be undamaged and suitable for reuse Question (3) Before any employee is permitted to work at heights that would require the use of a written fall protection plan must a preplanning meeting be conducted to prepare a written rescue plan Answer Under sect1926501(b) employees doing construction work at a height of 6 feet or more above lower levels must be protected from falls However Subpart M does not require a fall protection
plan unless the employer is using alternative fall protection methods to protect employees performing leading-edge work precast concrete erection or residential construction (sect1926501(b)(2)(i) (12) and (13) respectively) Those three provisions allow employers engaged in the work specified to develop and implement a fall protection plan that uses alternative fall protection methods if they can demonstrate the infeasibility of conventional fall protection3 The three provisions [sect1926501(b)(2)(i) (12) and (13)] read as follows sect1926501 Duty to have fall protection (b)(1)
(2) Leading edges (i) Each employee who is constructing a leading edge 6 feet (18 m) or more above lower levels shall be protected from falling by guardrail systems safety net systems or personal fall arrest systems Exception When the employer can demonstrate that it is infeasible or creates a greater hazard to use these systems the employer shall develop and implement a
fall protection plan which meets the requirements of paragraph (k) of sect1926502 Note There is a presumption that it is feasible and will not create a greater hazard to implement at least one of the above-listed fall protection systems Accordingly the employer has the burden of establishing that it is appropriate to implement a fall protection plan which complies with sect1926502(k) for a particular workplace situation in lieu of implementing any of those
systems (12) Precast concrete erection Each employee engaged in the erection of precast concrete members (including but not limited to the erection of wall panels columns beams and floor and roof tees) and related operations such as grouting of precast concrete members who is 6 feet (18 m) or more above lower levels shall be protected from falling by guardrail systems safety net systems or personal fall arrest systems unless another provision in paragraph (b) of this section provides for an alternative fall protection measure Exception When the employer can demonstrate that it is infeasible or creates a greater hazard to use these systems the employer shall develop and implement a fall protection plan which meets the requirements of
paragraph (k) of sect1926502 (13) Residential construction Each employee engaged in residential construction activities 6 feet (18 m) or more above lower levels shall be protected by guardrail systems safety net system or personal fall arrest system unless another provision in paragraph (b) of this section provides for an alternative fall protection measure Exception When the employer can demonstrate that it is infeasible or creates a greater hazard to use these systems the employer shall develop and implement a fall protection plan which meets the requirements of paragraph (k) of sect1926502 As stated in the three provisions above sect1926502(k) sets out specific requirements for fall protection plans however sect1926502(k) does not require preplanning meetings4 Question (4) Does OSHAs provision for prompt rescue from personal fall arrest systems in the event of a fall require the use of a written plan What constitutes prompt
Answer With regard to rescuing employees from personal fall arrest systems the provision in Subpart M that addresses this is sect1926502(d)(20) which states sect1926502 Fall protection systems criteria and practices (d) Personal fall arrest systems (20) The employer shall provide for prompt rescue of employees in the event of a fall or shall assure that employees are able to rescue themselves As explained in interpretation letters to J Nigel Ellis (May 11 1999) and Charles Hill (August 14 2000) the particular hazard that sect1926502(d)(20) addresses is being suspended by the fall arrest system after an arrested fall In the Hill letter we stated Prompt rescue as required under sect1926502(d)(20) is not defined in the standard The particular hazard that sect1926502(d)(20) addresses is being suspended by the fall arrest system after a fall While an employee may be safely suspended in a body harness for a longer period than from a body belt the word prompt requires that rescue be performed quickly -- in time to prevent serious injury to the worker
You note that electrical utility and telecommunications workers sometimes work alone and that the employees status is maintained through normal work rules and operating procedures We recognize that there are a wide range of variables and circumstances between worksites The standard requires that to the extent feasible a reliable system be in place to ensure that rescue will be prompt Precisely what is required to comply with this provision in a remote location will depend on what is feasible under the particular circumstances The range of feasible options available in remote locations may be more limited than in more populated areas
Note that sect1926502(d)(20) does not require that a written rescue plan be prepared or that a preplanning event be held If you need additional information please contact us by fax at US Department of Labor OSHA [Directorate of Construction Office of Construction Standards and Guidance] fax 202-693-
1689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
November 15 2002 Mr Keith Harkins Safety Manager LinbeckKennedy amp Rossi
One Maguire Road Lexington Ma 02421 Re Whether a warning line at 6 feet used to protect roofing workers may also be used to meet fall protection requirements for HVAC construction workers sect1926502(b) Dear Mr Harkins This is in response to your letter dated June 10 2002 to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requesting clarification on the use of fall protection systems for
employees other than roofers working on low slope roofs I apologize for the delay in answering your inquiry We have paraphrased your questions 1 as follows Question (1) Scenario multiple trades - roofers as well as mechanical trades - are working on a low slope roof Under sect1926501(b)(10) the roofers can comply with fall protection requirements by using a warning line 6 feet from the edge In accordance with OSHAs August 1 2000 letter to Mr Mark Troxell the mechanical trades who are installing HVAC equipment can work without personal fall protection as long as they stay inside a warning line 15 feet from the edge Since both roofers and mechanical trades are working on the roof at the same time is it
permissible in this situation for the mechanical trades to use the roofers warning line that is 6 feet from the edge We would require the mechanical trades to be trained and required to use fall protection if they were to work between the warning line and the edge Also the warning line would comply with the criteria requirements in sect1926502(f) Is this acceptable Answer As explained below the answer is no Background
OSHAs fall protection standard for construction 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart M (beginning at sect1926500) generally requires fall protection when there is a fall distance of 6 feet or more In a few very specific situations (low-slope roof work some leading-edge work precast concrete erection and residential construction see sect1926501(b)(2) (12) and (13)) because of feasibility limitations the standard permits the use of a warning line in combination with other measures instead of conventional fall protection (guardrail systems personal fall arrest systems or safety net systems) to keep employees away from an edge Installation of HVAC equipment does not fall within the categories listed ie leading-edge work precast concrete erection or residential construction Therefore the warning line at the 6-foot
option does not apply As explained in the August 1 2000 Troxell letter where certain conditions are met the use of a warning line 15 feet back from the edge will be considered a de minimis violation of the guardrail criteria in sect1926502(b) The conditions that must be met for the application of this policy are as follows
1 A warning line is used 15 feet or more from the edge
2 The warning line meets or exceeds the requirements in sect1926502(f)(2) 3 No work or work-related activity is to take place in the area between the warning line and
the edge and
4 The employer effectively implements a work rule prohibiting the employees from going past the warning line
Therefore where these conditions are met you may use a warning line 15 feet back from the edge to protect the HVAC workers Applying the policy to your mixed-trades scenario The fact that the HVAC workers are working on the roof at the same time as the roofing workers does not alter the fact that the standard does not permit the HVAC workers to rely on a warning line at 6 feet from the edge for fall protection If you believe that use of two warning lines - one at 6 feet and one at 15 feet -- would be confusing or otherwise unworkable you can protect the
HVAC workers with conventional fall protection equipment and dispense with the 15-feet warning line If you need further clarification on this subject please contact us by fax at US Department of Labor Directorate of Construction [Office of Construction Standards and Guidance] 202-6931689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue N W Washington DC 20210 although due to continuing anthrax decontamination procedures there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence Sincerely
Russell B Swanson Directorate of Construction Enclosure
August 28 2000 Mr Mark Troxell Construction Team Leader The PMA Insurance Group
107 Ponderosa Drive Blandon PA 19510 Re 1926501(b)(3) and 1926502(b) Dear Mr Troxell This responds to your June 1 1999 letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requesting information on wire rope and Crosby clips used around the perimeter of buildings as a guardrail You also requested clarification on when employees must tie-off when a
guardrail system is removed to facilitate hoisting operations We apologize for the long delay in providing this response Question 1 How many Crosby clips are required to be used when setting up a wire rope guardrail Is it permissible to splice two wire ropes by overlapping or must the connections be turned back into eyelets and properly secured Answer For construction work covered by 29 CFR 1926 Subpart M sect1926502(b) sets forth the criteria that must be met when using wire rope as a guardrail The standard requires guardrails
to meet several specific criteria For example 1926502(b)(3) states that the guardrail shall be capable of withstanding without failure a force of at least 200 pounds applied within 2 inches of the top edge in any outward or downward direction at any point along the top edge Section 1926502(b)(4) states that when the 200 pound test load noted in sect1926502(b)(3) is applied in a downward direction the top edge of the guardrail shall not deflect to a height less than 39 inches above the walkingworking level Section 1926502(b)(9) states that the top rail and mid-rails shall be at least frac14-inch nominal diameter or thickness to prevent cuts and lacerations These and other criteria must be met when using wire rope as a guardrail around the perimeter of a building
The OSHA standard does not specify a minimum number of clips when using wire rope as a guardrail However as a practical matter it is unlikely you could meet the specific requirements under sect1926502(b) unless you follow the manufacturers recommendations for the number of clips to be used on wire ropes of different diameters (for example the Crosby Group Inc general catalog 2000 edition has tables showing their recommendations for their clips) Also note that OSHAs standard for rigging equipment used for material handling 29 CFR sect1926251 has a table for the number of clips required for wire rope frac12-inch and greater Although that standard does not apply to wire rope used for guardrails when you design a rope system to meet the sect1926502 requirements following those tables will normally ensure that you have enough clips
Question 2 What are the requirements for tying-off employees when a guardrail system is removed to facilitate hoisting operations 29 CFR sect1926501(b)(3) states that when guardrails are removed to facilitate hoisting operations employees who have to lean out over the edge must be tied off What about other employees who do not have to lean outmdashdo they have to be tied-off also Answer Section 1926501(b)(3) states that each employee in a hoist area shall be protected from falls of 6 feet or more by guardrail systems or personal fall arrest systems It also states
that If guardrail systems are removed to facilitate the hoisting operation (eg during landing of materials) and an employee must lean through the access opening or out over the edge of the access opening (to receive or guide equipment and materials for example) that employee shall be protected from fall hazards by a personal fall arrest system (59 FR 40710)
You ask if this means that the only employees who must use fall protection when the guardrails are removed are those who must lean out The answer is no the first sentence of sect1926501(d)(3) requires that all employees in the hoist area be protected by either a guardrail or personal fall arrest system So when all or part of a guardrail has been removed all
employees must be protected by a personal fall arrest system The last sentence of sect1926501(d)(3) which states that employees who must lean out must be protected with personal fall arrest equipment did not create an exception for employees with no need to lean out The requirement that these employees also be protected is reflected in sect1926502(d)(24) It specifically provides that fall arrest systems in hoist areas be rigged to prevent employees from leaning past the edge when a personal fall arrest system is used at hoist areas it shall be rigged to allow the movement of the employee only as far as the edge of the walkingworking surface The Agency explained in the preamble to subpart M that this provision was promulgated to eliminate the tendency for employees to lean out over the edge at
hoist areas (see volume 59 No152 of the Federal Register page 40685 August 9 1994) Although inartfully drafted the purpose of the last sentence of sect1926501(b)(3) is to require that personal fall arrest equipment be used even when the necessity of leaning out makes compliance with sect1926502(d)(24) infeasible If you need additional information please contact us by fax at US Department of Labor OSHA Directorate of Construction Office of Construction Standards and Guidance fax 202-693-1689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving
correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
August 28 2000
MEMORANDUM FOR Ed Kassak
David Herstedt Region VIII
FROM Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
This memorandum responds to your fax dated May 7 1999 in which you ask for assistance in
responding to the Concrete Frame Association(CFA)s letter of May 4 1999 We apologize for the long delay in responding CFA asked whether the fall protection requirements of 29 CFR 1926 Subpart L apply when employees are working from a concrete formwork platform in two scenarios CFA believes that during the erection of individual formwork components of an integrated floor system such as beams drop panels joists and slab panels Subpart L should apply (see scenario submitted by CFA below) At that point workers stand and walk on the individual formwork components In its view Subpart M applies only once the components are tied together and become a continuous
integrated floor system (not pictured) CFA states that in the pictured scenario general contractors are requiring employees to tie-off with personal fall arrest systems They assert that their shoring platform is only about 85 feet above the ground level and that if a fall were to occur it would not be arrested prior to the employee contacting the level below
Which standard applies Subpart M or Subpart L
Classification of the formworkshoring as a walkingworking surface under Subpart M or as a work platform under Subpart L is significant because these standards have different thresholds for requiring fall protection As you know Subpart M requires employees to be protected from falls of 6 feet or more (29 CFR 1926501(b)(1)) It defines a walkingworking surface to mean in part any surface whether horizontal or vertical on which an employee walks or works including but not limited to floors roofs ramps bridges runways formwork and concrete reinforcing steel [emphasis added]
Section 501(b)(1) requires that employees on a walkingworking surface (horizontal and vertical surface) with an unprotected side or edge must be protected Therefore where that walkingworking surface is formwork the employee must be protected Section 1926501(b)(2) requires fall protection for employees constructing leading edges That term is defined in sect500(b) as the edge of a floor roof or formwork for a floor or other walkingworking surface
(such as the deck) which changes location as additional floor roof decking or formwork sections are placed formed or constructed [emphasis added] Therefore under sect501(b)(2) employees constructing formwork leading edges must be protected in accordance with that section Finally sect501(b)(5) requires that employees on the face of formwork must be protected under Subpart M as well OSHAs scaffold standard 29 CFR 1926 Subpart L does not require fall protection for employees until they are exposed to falls in excess of 10 feet as specified in sect1926451(g) Subpart L defines a scaffold to mean any temporary elevated platform (supported or suspended) and its supporting
structure (including points of anchorage) used for supporting employees or materials or both Subpart L addresses formwork in sect1926450(b) under the definition of form scaffold which is defined as a supported scaffold consisting of a platform supported by brackets attached to formwork In the preamble to Subpart L the Agency stated that this type of scaffold is similar to a carpenters bracket scaffold and a top plate bracket scaffold (volume 61 of the Federal Register No 170 page 46033 August 30 1996) Therefore when an employee is supported by a device that attaches to the formwork the scaffold standard applies The scaffold standard would also apply where the formwork is not erected for use as formwork but instead is being
used only as a substitute for scaffold components Otherwise Subpart M applies when an employee stands on the face or the top of the formwork In the two situations described by CFA -- where employees are walking and working on individual formwork sections and on sections joined together Subpart M is the most specifically applicable standard It specifically covers formwork in its definition of walkingworking surfaces and the employees in the submitted scenario are not working on form scaffolds Therefore the requirements of Subpart M apply irrespective of whether the formwork sections stand alone or are joined into an integrated system1 Fall Arrest Distances CFA asserts that the personal fall arrest systems being used by workers on the formwork would not arrest falls at heights of about 8 feet We note that the fall arrest distance is determined by many factors and that there are often ways to rig systems to limit falls to very short distances
For the narrow walkingworking surface pictured above (see right side of illustration) guardrails may be the most useful approach Please feel free to contact us if you need further clarification on this issue
May 21 2003 Ms Deborah Caldwell 5071 Butler Rd Caldwell Electrical Contractors
Gainesville Georgia 30506 Re Ladders fall protection working on top of equipment Dear Ms Caldwell This is in response to your letter of November 22 2002 in which you ask for guidance regarding OSHAs fall protection requirements for construction work We apologize for the delay in providing this response
We have paraphrased your question as follows Question Scenario to complete a construction project a worker places a portable ladder on top of a piece of equipment or on the roof of a structure that is inside a large building The top of the equipment or structure is at least 10 x 10 and at least 10 above the ground It is stable level and sufficiently strong to support the loads imposed by the worker materials and tools needed for the job The worker will then do the construction task while on the ladder Is fall protection required for this worker
Answer We will answer your question in two parts first with respect to whether fall protection is required for a worker while on the surfaces you describe second with respect to whether fall protection is required while the worker is on the ladder 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart M (Fall protection) contains fall protection requirements for protecting an employee working on walkingworking surface (sect1926501(b)(1)) A walkingworking surface is defined in sect1926500(b) as follows Any surface whether horizontal or vertical on which an employee walks or works including but
not limited to floors roofs ramps bridges runways formwork and concrete reinforcing steel but not ladders vehicles or trailers on which employees must be located in order to perform their duties The 10 x 10 top surface of the equipment and the roof the structure that is inside the large building both meet this definition and would be considered a walkingworking surface The requirements of Subpart M would apply to a worker who is on those surfaces Section 1926501(b)(1) states Unprotected sides and edges Each employee on a walkingworking surface (horizontal and vertical surface) with an unprotected side or edge which is 6 feet or more above a lower level
shall be protected from falling by the use of guardrail systems safety net systems or personal fall arrest systems Since these surfaces are at or over 6 feet above the next lowest level fall protection is required while the worker is on those surfaces Fall protection can be accomplished by using guardrails a personal fall arrest system a fall restraint device or safety net system However with respect to fall protection requirements for a worker on the ladder sect1926500(a)(2)(vii) states Requirements relating to fall protection for employees working on stairways and ladders are
provided in Subpart X Subpart X (29 CFR 19261050 et seq) does not require fall protection for a worker on a portable ladder Therefore no additional fall protection is required while the worker is on the ladder The fact that the ladder is on either of the surfaces you describe rather than on the ground does not
alter this conclusion Recommendation Although not an OSHA requirement we recommend the use of a scaffold scissor lift or aerial device instead of a ladder in the scenario you describe where practicable
If you have further concerns or questions please feel free to contact us again by fax at US Department of Labor OSHA Directorate of Construction [Office of Construction Standards and Guidance] fax 202-693-1689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely
Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
March 12 2004 Mr Randy Stahl Safety Manager Korellis Roofing Inc
1333 169th Street Hammond IN 46324-2008 Re Is fall protection required during small roofing repairs that take minimal time to complete Dear Mr Stahl This is in response to your letter dated December 16 2003 to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) We have paraphrased your question as follows
Question 1 Scenario We do roofing inspections in order to identify where repairs are needed on pre-existing roofing systems Often the repairs needed are small in scale and worker exposure to a fall hazard is minimal in terms of time The fall hazard exposure time for the installation and removal of fall protection systems from the roof exceeds the exposure time for completing these roofing repair jobs In this circumstance in non-residential roofing work is fall protection required by 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart M
Answer First Part 1926 Subpart M does not require fall protection for those conducting the initial inspection of the roof to determine what work needs to be done Section 1926500(a) states This subpart sets forth requirements and criteria for fall protection in construction workplaces covered under 29 CFR Part 1926 Exception The provisions of this subpart do not apply when employees are making an inspection investigation or assessment of workplace conditions prior to the actual start of construction work or after all construction work has been completed [Emphasis added] With regard to fall protection requirements applicable to the construction work itself
sect1926501(b)(10) (low slope roofs) requires conventional fall protection a combination of a monitoring system and warning line or on roofs of 50 feet or less in width a monitoring system alone (ie without a warning line) be used Under the standard the requirement for fall protection for this work does not depend on the duration of the fall hazard exposure In contrast the Agency found in the rulemaking that the short duration of hazard exposure was part of the basis for creating the exception for the inspection-only activity But another basis for the exception was the concept that in inspections before and after the work is done there is no on-going construction work to divert the inspectors attention from the fall hazard Once there is construction activity the risk goes up by virtue of that diversion of attention Consequently in
the preamble to the rule OSHA stated that the exception does not apply if the inspection activity takes place at the same time the construction work is on-going [I]f inspections are made while construction operations are underway all employees who are exposed to fall hazards while performing inspections must be protected as required by Subpart M1 Therefore apart from inspections the Agency in the rulemaking rejected short duration of the exposure as an exception to the fall protection requirement for construction work Note though that the use of warning lines without a monitor is acceptable where the warning
lines are at least 15 feet back from the edge and all of the following are met (1) A warning line is used 15 feet or more from the edge (or nearest edge of a hole) (2) The warning line meets or exceeds the requirements in sect1926502(f)(2) (3) No work or work-related activity is to take place in the area between the warning line and the
hole or edge and (4) The employer effectively implements a work rule prohibiting the employees from going past the warning line2 If you need additional information please contact us by fax (202-693-1689) at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance You can also contact us by mail
at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
April 17 2006
MEMORANDUM FOR Kenneth Gereke
Regional Administrator Region III
ATTN John McFee Construction Coordinator Region III
FROM Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
SUBJECT Guardrail height requirements for construction activities in General Industry Facilities
This is in response to your e-mail submitted April 7 2005 You ask for compliance guidance with regard to the application of Subpart M Fall Protection requirements for construction activities in a General Industry facility We apologize for the long delay in providing this response
We have paraphrased your question as follows Question Scenario Employees are engaged in construction activities on a walkingworking surface at a General Industry worksite The guardrails on that site have a top rail that is 36 inches from the walkingworking surface Under OSHA Directive STD 01-01-010 and subsequent proposed rulemaking the use of such a guardrail by General Industry employees is only a technical violation of the General Industry standard 29 CFR 191023(e)(1) which otherwise requires a nominal vertical height of 42 inches
Would the construction employer be in violation of sect1926502(b)(1) (Subpart M) of the construction standards which requires the use of guardrails with a top rail that is 39 to 45 inches above the walkingworking surface level Answer Yes it would be a violation of Subpart M if construction work were performed on an elevated walkingworking surface that is guarded by a permanent guardrail system with a 36-inch top rail even though that top rail height is permitted for General Industry work under STD 01-01-010
Background Section 191023(e)(1) (Subpart D mdash Walking-Working Surfaces) of the General Industry standards states Railing toe boards and cover specifications (1) A standard railing shall consist of top rail intermediate rail and posts and shall have a vertical height of 42 inches nominal from upper surface of top rail to floor platform runway or ramp level [Emphasis added] However OSHA Directive STD-01-01-010 mdash Height of Guardrails in General Industry Applications notes
C Action OSHA Regional AdministratorsArea Directors shall classify technical violations of 29 CFR 191023(e)(1) as de minimis violations where the employer has provided guardrails which meet the following specifications (1) Existing guardrailing shall consist of a top rail intermediate rail and posts or equivalent and shall have a minimum vertical height of 36 inches to 44 inches from the upper surface of the top rail to the floor platform runway or ramp level [Emphasis added] E Background A Field Information Memorandum was previously issued regarding the
height of guardrails The intended revision [of Subpart D of 29 CFR 1910] is not yet available therefore to provide equitable enforcement which does not place unnecessary cost burdens upon employers or have a direct or immediate effect upon the safety or health of employees this instruction reissues the previous policy 1 In addition under General Industrys proposed rule on Walking and Working Surfaces (55
Federal Register 13360) guardrail systems with top rails that are 36 inches in height would similarly be grandfathered2 In support of that provision OSHA noted in the preamble that continuing to tolerate the use of guardrails as low as 36 inches (91 cm) would not unacceptably reduce employee protection and that the hazard to which to which employees would be exposed in replacing those guardrails would be greater than that from allowing the existing guardrails to remain in place (55 Federal Register 13374) [Emphasis added] The applicable construction provision sect1926502(b)(1) (Subpart M-Fall Protection) provides in part Guardrail systems Guardrail systems and their use shall comply with the following provisions
(1) Top edge height of top rails or equivalent guardrail system members shall be 42 inches (11 m) plus or minus 3 inches (8 cm) above the walkingworking level [Emphasis added] AnalysisConclusion The General Industry directive permits the use of existing permanently-installed guardrails that have a 36-inch top rail The rationale for that policy as reflected in the preamble for General Industrys proposed rule on Walking and Working Surfaces is that employee safety is not compromised by the use of such existing permanent guardrails and employee exposure to fall hazards would be increased by requiring the replacement of these guardrails
In contrast construction activities often include carrying tools and materials that are heavy awkward to handle and in the case of large materials can sometimes block the employees view In addition unlike the general industry employer a construction employer is not faced with the choice of leaving the permanent guardrails in place or replacing them Instead because construction work is by its nature temporary construction employers typically install temporary guardrails These guardrail systems are designed for temporary use under varied worksite conditions
For example some of these systems would allow a construction employer to erect a temporary guardrail system adjacent to the permanent guardrail system or to attach a temporary top rail to the permanent guardrail system to meet the applicable requirements in Subpart M In addition unlike the permanent guardrail systems in and on structures addressed in STD 01-01-010 these temporary guardrail systems are designed to facilitate repeated installation and removal Consequently the concerns regarding unjustified additional hazard exposure involved in replacing permanent guardrails is not applicable to the construction employees in your scenario In sum when a construction employer protects its employees from falls with a guardrail system that guardrail system must meet the requirements in sect1926502(b) including the top rail height
requirement in sect1926501(b)(1) even where there is a permanent guardrail with a 36-inch top rail that pursuant to STD 01-01-010 is acceptable for General Industry work If you need additional assistance please contact us by fax or e-mail
1 It is our understanding that STD-01-01-010 was adopted in light of pre-OSHA General Industry practices Specifically in the Preamble of a proposed rulemaking for General Industrys Walking and Working Surfaces standard (Volume 55 of the Federal Register page 13373 (Apr 10 1999)) OSHA offered the following explanation OSHA issued the directive because it recognized that employers with guardrails as low as 36 inches (91 cm) might have installed their systems in compliance with pre-OSHA
building codes The Agency was also concerned that employers would be unreasonably burdened by the cost of replacing their guardrail systems with new guardrail systems that were a nominal 42 inches (11 m) high
1 A warning line is used 15 feet or more from the edge
2 The warning line meets or exceeds the requirements in sect1926502(f)(2)
3 No work or work-related activity is to take place in the area between the warning line and the edge and
4 The employer effectively implements a work rule prohibiting the employees from going
past the warning line
In sum the use of warning lines closer than 15 feet from the edge is not permitted as a substitute for conventional fall protection for these other trades Furthermore when these other trades use a warning line system in accordance with the policy described above the workers must use conventional fall protection when they are outside the protection of the warning line system If you need additional information please contact us by fax at US Department of Labor OSHA Directorate of Construction Office of Construction Standards and Guidance fax 202-693-1689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution
Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
May 12 2000 Mr Barry A Cole Executive Vice-President Steel Erectors Safety Association
of Colorado 5750 Pecos Street Suite 6 Denver Colorado 80221 Re Fall ProtectionUse of barricades 1926500 Subpart M Dear Mr Cole This is in response to your letter dated July 24 1998 addressed to OSHAs Directorate of Construction In the letter you ask a series of questions regarding 29 CFR 1926500 Subpart M
We apologize for the long delay in responding Issue In viewing your questions together we understand them to amount to the following issue Subpart M generally requires fall protection (personal fall protection guardrails covers) when there is a fall distance of 6 feet or more In a few very specific situations the standard permits the use of control lines instead of guardrails to keep employees away from a hole or edge Apart from those situations if an employee is far enough from a hole or edge may control lines be used instead of the specified fall protection devices If so how far is that distance
Background The type of fall protection required by the standard depends to some extent on the work activity Generally sect1926501(b)(2)(ii) requires that employees on a walkingworking surface 6 feet or more above a lower level shall be protected from falling by a guardrail system safety net system or personal fall arrest system Section 1926501(b)(4)(i) requires that employees on walkingworking surfaces be protected from falling through holes (including skylights) more than 6 feet above lower levels by personal fall arrest systems covers or guardrail systems around such holes Sections 1926501(b)(4) (ii) and (iii) require that employees on a walkingworking surface be protected from tripping or stepping into or through holes (including skylights) or from objects falling through holes by covers
In the rulemaking for Subpart M OSHA determined that in certain very limited situations warning lines are an appropriate means of protection Section 1926501(b)(10) sets out the fall protection requirement for roofing work on low slope roofs Under that section an employer may use a combination of warning lines 6 feet (and in some cases 10 feet) back from the edge in combination with monitors in place of personal fall protection equipment or guardrails Under sect1926501(b)(2) employers engaged in other specified work such as leading edge work precast concrete erection work and residential construction may develop and implement a site-specific fall protection plan that uses alternative fall protection methods if they can demonstrate the infeasibility of conventional fall protection As can be seen in the examples given in Appendix
E to Subpart M warning lines 6 feet back from the edge can be used as part of such a plan Answer The standard requires workers exposed to falls of 6 feet or more to lower levels to be protected from falls As discussed in the Preamble to Subpart M in volume 59 of the Federal Register (page 40683) OSHA determined in the rulemaking that there is no safe distance from an unprotected side or edge of a walkingworking surface that would render protection unnecessary The Agency also identified in the rulemaking the specific situations where warning lines 6 and 10 feet back from a hole or edge were appropriate substitutes for guardrails personal fall protection and covers It would be inappropriate for us to revisit those
determinations and allow warning lines to be used in other circumstances at 6 and 10 feet back outside of the rulemaking process Consequently it would be inappropriate to apply a de minimis policy that would have the effect of extending the provisions for warning lines at 6 and 10 feet to situations other than the limited ones identified in the standard
In contrast a question remains about whether a de minimis policy on the use of warning lines in areas farther back from those specifically addressed in the rule would be appropriate Our finding in the Preamble that there is no safe distance from an unprotected side or edge referred to an issue raised in the rulemaking of whether distance alone is ever sufficient protection from an
unprotected edge When OSHA proposed in 1986 to revise the fall protection requirements we asked the public if fall protection was necessary for employees working 10 20 or 30 feet from an unprotected edge In response some commenters stated that distance alone was not enough They stated that employees may wander and the fact that the area where the work is taking place is far from the edge is by itself ineffective to ensure that workers will not approach the edge (59 FR 40682) We have now had 5 years of experience with the application of the rule since it was published in 1994 We continue to believe that distance alone is ineffective to protect workers from unprotected sides or edges However we have determined that in the area farther back from
the distances specified for the warning lines permitted under the standard there is a point that is sufficiently far from the edge or hole to warrant the application of a de minimis policy regarding non-conforming guardrails At 15 feet from the edge or hole (in the case of a hole measured from the nearest edge of the hole) a warning line combined with effective work rules can be expected to prevent workers from going past the line and approaching the edge Also at that distance the failure of a barrier to restrain a worker from unintentionally crossing it would not place the worker in immediate risk of falling off the edge Therefore we will apply a de minimis policy for non-conforming guardrails
15 or more feet from the edge under certain circumstances Specifically we will consider the use of certain physical barriers that fail to meet the criteria for a guardrail a de minimis violation of the guardrail criteria in sect1926502(b) where all of the following are met
1 A warning line is used 15 feet or more from the edge (or nearest edge of a hole) 2 The warning line meets or exceeds the requirements in sect1926502(f)(2) 3 No work or work-related activity is to take place in the area between the warning line and
the hole or edge and 4 The employer effectively implements a work rule prohibiting the employees from going
past the warning line
If you need additional information please contact us by fax (202-693-1689) at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance You can also contact us by mail at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance Room
N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
December 18 2003 Mr Michael Wright PE Managing Principal LJB Inc
3100 Research Boulevard PO Box 20246 Dayton OH 45420-0246 Re Inspection of personal fall arrest systems competent person fall protection plans sect1926501(b)(2) (12) and (13) sect1926502(c)(4) and (d)(20) and (21) and sect1926503(a)(2) Dear Mr Wright This is in response to your letter dated August 4 2003 faxed to the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) asking for clarification on a number of issues regarding OSHAs construction industry standards for fall protection My staff discussed and resolved some of your questions with you over the telephone We have paraphrased the remainder of your questions as follows Question (1) How often must a construction employer inspect hisher employees personal fall arrest systems (PFAS) Would formal inspections performed once annually be the maximum amount of time permitted between inspections
Answer Paragraph (d)(21) of sect1926502 addresses the inspection of personal fall arrest systems (PFAS) as follows sect1926502 Fall protection systems criteria and practices (d) Personal fall arrest systems (21) Personal fall arrest systems shall be inspected prior to each use for wear damage and other deterioration and defective components shall be removed from service
Note that in the preamble to the final rule (at volume 59 of the Federal Register pages 40709-40710 August 9 1994 excerpted below) OSHA stated that weekly inspections would not be sufficient to guard against the use of defective equipment Leading to promulgation of final rule sect1926502(d)(21) the Agency specifically sought comments on the frequency of inspection for fall protection equipment in separate issues [9 and 17] as part of the proposed rule Based on the rulemaking record OSHA did not amend the language in the proposed rule regarding the frequency of inspections of PFAS to set out a time frame Some pertinent portions of that preamble discussion are as follows Paragraph (d)(21) (proposed as paragraph (d)(20)) requires that personal fall arrest systems be
inspected prior to each use for damage and deterioration and that defective components be removed from service This provision is essentially identical to the proposed provision in sect1926502(d)(20) OSHA raised Issues 9 and 17 in the proposal to request public comment regarding the frequency of inspection and whether or not more definitive inspection criteria were needed for determining when personal fall arrest systems (or positioning device systems as regulated in paragraph (e)(5) below) are no longer suitable for use OSHA also asked commenters what inspection criteria should be specified
The majority of the commenters thought the criteria provided in the standard were sufficient as proposed (Exs 2-12 2-19 2-23 2-43 and 2-45)hellip The GLFEA and the BCMALU (Exs 2-19 and 2-46) thought inspection should be weekly rather
than prior to each use The GLFEA supported its position with the statement that A more frequent schedule does not enhance the safety of the employees Essentially there was no objection to the substance of the rule only disagreement on the frequency of inspection OSHA believes it is critical to inspect equipment before each use otherwise employees may use defective equipment which could result in loss of life in the event of a fall Therefore OSHA has
not reduced the frequency of inspection and has determined that the provision as proposed is appropriate Further information on inspection criteria has been provided in paragraph (g) Inspection considerations in Part II of Appendix C relating to sect1926502(d) -- Personal Fall Arrest Systems OSHA also notes that this provision is consistent with the inspection requirements for personal fall arrest systems in the powered platforms standard sect191066 Therefore annual inspections instead of inspections prior to each use would violate sect1926502(d)(21) Question (2) Does Part 1926 Subpart M require that personal fall arrest systems be inspected
by a competent person Answer The inspection of personal fall arrest systems required in sect1926502(d)(21) does not have to be performed by a competent person1 However sect1926503(a)(2) states The employer shall assure that each employee has been trained as necessary by a competent person qualified in the following areas
(ii) The correct procedures for inspecting the fall protection systems to be used Therefore under sectsect1926502(d)(21) and 1926503(a)(2)(ii) the equipment must be inspected prior to each use by an employee who has been trained by a competent person to do the inspection Also under sect1926502(d)(19) a competent person must inspect personal fall arrest equipment to determine that personal fall arrest systems and components subjected to impact loading are undamaged and suitable for reuse2
Personal fall arrest systems and components subjected to impact loading shall be immediately removed from service and shall not be used again for employee protection until inspected and determined by a competent person to be undamaged and suitable for reuse Question (3) Before any employee is permitted to work at heights that would require the use of a written fall protection plan must a preplanning meeting be conducted to prepare a written rescue plan Answer Under sect1926501(b) employees doing construction work at a height of 6 feet or more above lower levels must be protected from falls However Subpart M does not require a fall protection
plan unless the employer is using alternative fall protection methods to protect employees performing leading-edge work precast concrete erection or residential construction (sect1926501(b)(2)(i) (12) and (13) respectively) Those three provisions allow employers engaged in the work specified to develop and implement a fall protection plan that uses alternative fall protection methods if they can demonstrate the infeasibility of conventional fall protection3 The three provisions [sect1926501(b)(2)(i) (12) and (13)] read as follows sect1926501 Duty to have fall protection (b)(1)
(2) Leading edges (i) Each employee who is constructing a leading edge 6 feet (18 m) or more above lower levels shall be protected from falling by guardrail systems safety net systems or personal fall arrest systems Exception When the employer can demonstrate that it is infeasible or creates a greater hazard to use these systems the employer shall develop and implement a
fall protection plan which meets the requirements of paragraph (k) of sect1926502 Note There is a presumption that it is feasible and will not create a greater hazard to implement at least one of the above-listed fall protection systems Accordingly the employer has the burden of establishing that it is appropriate to implement a fall protection plan which complies with sect1926502(k) for a particular workplace situation in lieu of implementing any of those
systems (12) Precast concrete erection Each employee engaged in the erection of precast concrete members (including but not limited to the erection of wall panels columns beams and floor and roof tees) and related operations such as grouting of precast concrete members who is 6 feet (18 m) or more above lower levels shall be protected from falling by guardrail systems safety net systems or personal fall arrest systems unless another provision in paragraph (b) of this section provides for an alternative fall protection measure Exception When the employer can demonstrate that it is infeasible or creates a greater hazard to use these systems the employer shall develop and implement a fall protection plan which meets the requirements of
paragraph (k) of sect1926502 (13) Residential construction Each employee engaged in residential construction activities 6 feet (18 m) or more above lower levels shall be protected by guardrail systems safety net system or personal fall arrest system unless another provision in paragraph (b) of this section provides for an alternative fall protection measure Exception When the employer can demonstrate that it is infeasible or creates a greater hazard to use these systems the employer shall develop and implement a fall protection plan which meets the requirements of paragraph (k) of sect1926502 As stated in the three provisions above sect1926502(k) sets out specific requirements for fall protection plans however sect1926502(k) does not require preplanning meetings4 Question (4) Does OSHAs provision for prompt rescue from personal fall arrest systems in the event of a fall require the use of a written plan What constitutes prompt
Answer With regard to rescuing employees from personal fall arrest systems the provision in Subpart M that addresses this is sect1926502(d)(20) which states sect1926502 Fall protection systems criteria and practices (d) Personal fall arrest systems (20) The employer shall provide for prompt rescue of employees in the event of a fall or shall assure that employees are able to rescue themselves As explained in interpretation letters to J Nigel Ellis (May 11 1999) and Charles Hill (August 14 2000) the particular hazard that sect1926502(d)(20) addresses is being suspended by the fall arrest system after an arrested fall In the Hill letter we stated Prompt rescue as required under sect1926502(d)(20) is not defined in the standard The particular hazard that sect1926502(d)(20) addresses is being suspended by the fall arrest system after a fall While an employee may be safely suspended in a body harness for a longer period than from a body belt the word prompt requires that rescue be performed quickly -- in time to prevent serious injury to the worker
You note that electrical utility and telecommunications workers sometimes work alone and that the employees status is maintained through normal work rules and operating procedures We recognize that there are a wide range of variables and circumstances between worksites The standard requires that to the extent feasible a reliable system be in place to ensure that rescue will be prompt Precisely what is required to comply with this provision in a remote location will depend on what is feasible under the particular circumstances The range of feasible options available in remote locations may be more limited than in more populated areas
Note that sect1926502(d)(20) does not require that a written rescue plan be prepared or that a preplanning event be held If you need additional information please contact us by fax at US Department of Labor OSHA [Directorate of Construction Office of Construction Standards and Guidance] fax 202-693-
1689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
November 15 2002 Mr Keith Harkins Safety Manager LinbeckKennedy amp Rossi
One Maguire Road Lexington Ma 02421 Re Whether a warning line at 6 feet used to protect roofing workers may also be used to meet fall protection requirements for HVAC construction workers sect1926502(b) Dear Mr Harkins This is in response to your letter dated June 10 2002 to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requesting clarification on the use of fall protection systems for
employees other than roofers working on low slope roofs I apologize for the delay in answering your inquiry We have paraphrased your questions 1 as follows Question (1) Scenario multiple trades - roofers as well as mechanical trades - are working on a low slope roof Under sect1926501(b)(10) the roofers can comply with fall protection requirements by using a warning line 6 feet from the edge In accordance with OSHAs August 1 2000 letter to Mr Mark Troxell the mechanical trades who are installing HVAC equipment can work without personal fall protection as long as they stay inside a warning line 15 feet from the edge Since both roofers and mechanical trades are working on the roof at the same time is it
permissible in this situation for the mechanical trades to use the roofers warning line that is 6 feet from the edge We would require the mechanical trades to be trained and required to use fall protection if they were to work between the warning line and the edge Also the warning line would comply with the criteria requirements in sect1926502(f) Is this acceptable Answer As explained below the answer is no Background
OSHAs fall protection standard for construction 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart M (beginning at sect1926500) generally requires fall protection when there is a fall distance of 6 feet or more In a few very specific situations (low-slope roof work some leading-edge work precast concrete erection and residential construction see sect1926501(b)(2) (12) and (13)) because of feasibility limitations the standard permits the use of a warning line in combination with other measures instead of conventional fall protection (guardrail systems personal fall arrest systems or safety net systems) to keep employees away from an edge Installation of HVAC equipment does not fall within the categories listed ie leading-edge work precast concrete erection or residential construction Therefore the warning line at the 6-foot
option does not apply As explained in the August 1 2000 Troxell letter where certain conditions are met the use of a warning line 15 feet back from the edge will be considered a de minimis violation of the guardrail criteria in sect1926502(b) The conditions that must be met for the application of this policy are as follows
1 A warning line is used 15 feet or more from the edge
2 The warning line meets or exceeds the requirements in sect1926502(f)(2) 3 No work or work-related activity is to take place in the area between the warning line and
the edge and
4 The employer effectively implements a work rule prohibiting the employees from going past the warning line
Therefore where these conditions are met you may use a warning line 15 feet back from the edge to protect the HVAC workers Applying the policy to your mixed-trades scenario The fact that the HVAC workers are working on the roof at the same time as the roofing workers does not alter the fact that the standard does not permit the HVAC workers to rely on a warning line at 6 feet from the edge for fall protection If you believe that use of two warning lines - one at 6 feet and one at 15 feet -- would be confusing or otherwise unworkable you can protect the
HVAC workers with conventional fall protection equipment and dispense with the 15-feet warning line If you need further clarification on this subject please contact us by fax at US Department of Labor Directorate of Construction [Office of Construction Standards and Guidance] 202-6931689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue N W Washington DC 20210 although due to continuing anthrax decontamination procedures there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence Sincerely
Russell B Swanson Directorate of Construction Enclosure
August 28 2000 Mr Mark Troxell Construction Team Leader The PMA Insurance Group
107 Ponderosa Drive Blandon PA 19510 Re 1926501(b)(3) and 1926502(b) Dear Mr Troxell This responds to your June 1 1999 letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requesting information on wire rope and Crosby clips used around the perimeter of buildings as a guardrail You also requested clarification on when employees must tie-off when a
guardrail system is removed to facilitate hoisting operations We apologize for the long delay in providing this response Question 1 How many Crosby clips are required to be used when setting up a wire rope guardrail Is it permissible to splice two wire ropes by overlapping or must the connections be turned back into eyelets and properly secured Answer For construction work covered by 29 CFR 1926 Subpart M sect1926502(b) sets forth the criteria that must be met when using wire rope as a guardrail The standard requires guardrails
to meet several specific criteria For example 1926502(b)(3) states that the guardrail shall be capable of withstanding without failure a force of at least 200 pounds applied within 2 inches of the top edge in any outward or downward direction at any point along the top edge Section 1926502(b)(4) states that when the 200 pound test load noted in sect1926502(b)(3) is applied in a downward direction the top edge of the guardrail shall not deflect to a height less than 39 inches above the walkingworking level Section 1926502(b)(9) states that the top rail and mid-rails shall be at least frac14-inch nominal diameter or thickness to prevent cuts and lacerations These and other criteria must be met when using wire rope as a guardrail around the perimeter of a building
The OSHA standard does not specify a minimum number of clips when using wire rope as a guardrail However as a practical matter it is unlikely you could meet the specific requirements under sect1926502(b) unless you follow the manufacturers recommendations for the number of clips to be used on wire ropes of different diameters (for example the Crosby Group Inc general catalog 2000 edition has tables showing their recommendations for their clips) Also note that OSHAs standard for rigging equipment used for material handling 29 CFR sect1926251 has a table for the number of clips required for wire rope frac12-inch and greater Although that standard does not apply to wire rope used for guardrails when you design a rope system to meet the sect1926502 requirements following those tables will normally ensure that you have enough clips
Question 2 What are the requirements for tying-off employees when a guardrail system is removed to facilitate hoisting operations 29 CFR sect1926501(b)(3) states that when guardrails are removed to facilitate hoisting operations employees who have to lean out over the edge must be tied off What about other employees who do not have to lean outmdashdo they have to be tied-off also Answer Section 1926501(b)(3) states that each employee in a hoist area shall be protected from falls of 6 feet or more by guardrail systems or personal fall arrest systems It also states
that If guardrail systems are removed to facilitate the hoisting operation (eg during landing of materials) and an employee must lean through the access opening or out over the edge of the access opening (to receive or guide equipment and materials for example) that employee shall be protected from fall hazards by a personal fall arrest system (59 FR 40710)
You ask if this means that the only employees who must use fall protection when the guardrails are removed are those who must lean out The answer is no the first sentence of sect1926501(d)(3) requires that all employees in the hoist area be protected by either a guardrail or personal fall arrest system So when all or part of a guardrail has been removed all
employees must be protected by a personal fall arrest system The last sentence of sect1926501(d)(3) which states that employees who must lean out must be protected with personal fall arrest equipment did not create an exception for employees with no need to lean out The requirement that these employees also be protected is reflected in sect1926502(d)(24) It specifically provides that fall arrest systems in hoist areas be rigged to prevent employees from leaning past the edge when a personal fall arrest system is used at hoist areas it shall be rigged to allow the movement of the employee only as far as the edge of the walkingworking surface The Agency explained in the preamble to subpart M that this provision was promulgated to eliminate the tendency for employees to lean out over the edge at
hoist areas (see volume 59 No152 of the Federal Register page 40685 August 9 1994) Although inartfully drafted the purpose of the last sentence of sect1926501(b)(3) is to require that personal fall arrest equipment be used even when the necessity of leaning out makes compliance with sect1926502(d)(24) infeasible If you need additional information please contact us by fax at US Department of Labor OSHA Directorate of Construction Office of Construction Standards and Guidance fax 202-693-1689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving
correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
August 28 2000
MEMORANDUM FOR Ed Kassak
David Herstedt Region VIII
FROM Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
This memorandum responds to your fax dated May 7 1999 in which you ask for assistance in
responding to the Concrete Frame Association(CFA)s letter of May 4 1999 We apologize for the long delay in responding CFA asked whether the fall protection requirements of 29 CFR 1926 Subpart L apply when employees are working from a concrete formwork platform in two scenarios CFA believes that during the erection of individual formwork components of an integrated floor system such as beams drop panels joists and slab panels Subpart L should apply (see scenario submitted by CFA below) At that point workers stand and walk on the individual formwork components In its view Subpart M applies only once the components are tied together and become a continuous
integrated floor system (not pictured) CFA states that in the pictured scenario general contractors are requiring employees to tie-off with personal fall arrest systems They assert that their shoring platform is only about 85 feet above the ground level and that if a fall were to occur it would not be arrested prior to the employee contacting the level below
Which standard applies Subpart M or Subpart L
Classification of the formworkshoring as a walkingworking surface under Subpart M or as a work platform under Subpart L is significant because these standards have different thresholds for requiring fall protection As you know Subpart M requires employees to be protected from falls of 6 feet or more (29 CFR 1926501(b)(1)) It defines a walkingworking surface to mean in part any surface whether horizontal or vertical on which an employee walks or works including but not limited to floors roofs ramps bridges runways formwork and concrete reinforcing steel [emphasis added]
Section 501(b)(1) requires that employees on a walkingworking surface (horizontal and vertical surface) with an unprotected side or edge must be protected Therefore where that walkingworking surface is formwork the employee must be protected Section 1926501(b)(2) requires fall protection for employees constructing leading edges That term is defined in sect500(b) as the edge of a floor roof or formwork for a floor or other walkingworking surface
(such as the deck) which changes location as additional floor roof decking or formwork sections are placed formed or constructed [emphasis added] Therefore under sect501(b)(2) employees constructing formwork leading edges must be protected in accordance with that section Finally sect501(b)(5) requires that employees on the face of formwork must be protected under Subpart M as well OSHAs scaffold standard 29 CFR 1926 Subpart L does not require fall protection for employees until they are exposed to falls in excess of 10 feet as specified in sect1926451(g) Subpart L defines a scaffold to mean any temporary elevated platform (supported or suspended) and its supporting
structure (including points of anchorage) used for supporting employees or materials or both Subpart L addresses formwork in sect1926450(b) under the definition of form scaffold which is defined as a supported scaffold consisting of a platform supported by brackets attached to formwork In the preamble to Subpart L the Agency stated that this type of scaffold is similar to a carpenters bracket scaffold and a top plate bracket scaffold (volume 61 of the Federal Register No 170 page 46033 August 30 1996) Therefore when an employee is supported by a device that attaches to the formwork the scaffold standard applies The scaffold standard would also apply where the formwork is not erected for use as formwork but instead is being
used only as a substitute for scaffold components Otherwise Subpart M applies when an employee stands on the face or the top of the formwork In the two situations described by CFA -- where employees are walking and working on individual formwork sections and on sections joined together Subpart M is the most specifically applicable standard It specifically covers formwork in its definition of walkingworking surfaces and the employees in the submitted scenario are not working on form scaffolds Therefore the requirements of Subpart M apply irrespective of whether the formwork sections stand alone or are joined into an integrated system1 Fall Arrest Distances CFA asserts that the personal fall arrest systems being used by workers on the formwork would not arrest falls at heights of about 8 feet We note that the fall arrest distance is determined by many factors and that there are often ways to rig systems to limit falls to very short distances
For the narrow walkingworking surface pictured above (see right side of illustration) guardrails may be the most useful approach Please feel free to contact us if you need further clarification on this issue
May 21 2003 Ms Deborah Caldwell 5071 Butler Rd Caldwell Electrical Contractors
Gainesville Georgia 30506 Re Ladders fall protection working on top of equipment Dear Ms Caldwell This is in response to your letter of November 22 2002 in which you ask for guidance regarding OSHAs fall protection requirements for construction work We apologize for the delay in providing this response
We have paraphrased your question as follows Question Scenario to complete a construction project a worker places a portable ladder on top of a piece of equipment or on the roof of a structure that is inside a large building The top of the equipment or structure is at least 10 x 10 and at least 10 above the ground It is stable level and sufficiently strong to support the loads imposed by the worker materials and tools needed for the job The worker will then do the construction task while on the ladder Is fall protection required for this worker
Answer We will answer your question in two parts first with respect to whether fall protection is required for a worker while on the surfaces you describe second with respect to whether fall protection is required while the worker is on the ladder 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart M (Fall protection) contains fall protection requirements for protecting an employee working on walkingworking surface (sect1926501(b)(1)) A walkingworking surface is defined in sect1926500(b) as follows Any surface whether horizontal or vertical on which an employee walks or works including but
not limited to floors roofs ramps bridges runways formwork and concrete reinforcing steel but not ladders vehicles or trailers on which employees must be located in order to perform their duties The 10 x 10 top surface of the equipment and the roof the structure that is inside the large building both meet this definition and would be considered a walkingworking surface The requirements of Subpart M would apply to a worker who is on those surfaces Section 1926501(b)(1) states Unprotected sides and edges Each employee on a walkingworking surface (horizontal and vertical surface) with an unprotected side or edge which is 6 feet or more above a lower level
shall be protected from falling by the use of guardrail systems safety net systems or personal fall arrest systems Since these surfaces are at or over 6 feet above the next lowest level fall protection is required while the worker is on those surfaces Fall protection can be accomplished by using guardrails a personal fall arrest system a fall restraint device or safety net system However with respect to fall protection requirements for a worker on the ladder sect1926500(a)(2)(vii) states Requirements relating to fall protection for employees working on stairways and ladders are
provided in Subpart X Subpart X (29 CFR 19261050 et seq) does not require fall protection for a worker on a portable ladder Therefore no additional fall protection is required while the worker is on the ladder The fact that the ladder is on either of the surfaces you describe rather than on the ground does not
alter this conclusion Recommendation Although not an OSHA requirement we recommend the use of a scaffold scissor lift or aerial device instead of a ladder in the scenario you describe where practicable
If you have further concerns or questions please feel free to contact us again by fax at US Department of Labor OSHA Directorate of Construction [Office of Construction Standards and Guidance] fax 202-693-1689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely
Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
March 12 2004 Mr Randy Stahl Safety Manager Korellis Roofing Inc
1333 169th Street Hammond IN 46324-2008 Re Is fall protection required during small roofing repairs that take minimal time to complete Dear Mr Stahl This is in response to your letter dated December 16 2003 to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) We have paraphrased your question as follows
Question 1 Scenario We do roofing inspections in order to identify where repairs are needed on pre-existing roofing systems Often the repairs needed are small in scale and worker exposure to a fall hazard is minimal in terms of time The fall hazard exposure time for the installation and removal of fall protection systems from the roof exceeds the exposure time for completing these roofing repair jobs In this circumstance in non-residential roofing work is fall protection required by 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart M
Answer First Part 1926 Subpart M does not require fall protection for those conducting the initial inspection of the roof to determine what work needs to be done Section 1926500(a) states This subpart sets forth requirements and criteria for fall protection in construction workplaces covered under 29 CFR Part 1926 Exception The provisions of this subpart do not apply when employees are making an inspection investigation or assessment of workplace conditions prior to the actual start of construction work or after all construction work has been completed [Emphasis added] With regard to fall protection requirements applicable to the construction work itself
sect1926501(b)(10) (low slope roofs) requires conventional fall protection a combination of a monitoring system and warning line or on roofs of 50 feet or less in width a monitoring system alone (ie without a warning line) be used Under the standard the requirement for fall protection for this work does not depend on the duration of the fall hazard exposure In contrast the Agency found in the rulemaking that the short duration of hazard exposure was part of the basis for creating the exception for the inspection-only activity But another basis for the exception was the concept that in inspections before and after the work is done there is no on-going construction work to divert the inspectors attention from the fall hazard Once there is construction activity the risk goes up by virtue of that diversion of attention Consequently in
the preamble to the rule OSHA stated that the exception does not apply if the inspection activity takes place at the same time the construction work is on-going [I]f inspections are made while construction operations are underway all employees who are exposed to fall hazards while performing inspections must be protected as required by Subpart M1 Therefore apart from inspections the Agency in the rulemaking rejected short duration of the exposure as an exception to the fall protection requirement for construction work Note though that the use of warning lines without a monitor is acceptable where the warning
lines are at least 15 feet back from the edge and all of the following are met (1) A warning line is used 15 feet or more from the edge (or nearest edge of a hole) (2) The warning line meets or exceeds the requirements in sect1926502(f)(2) (3) No work or work-related activity is to take place in the area between the warning line and the
hole or edge and (4) The employer effectively implements a work rule prohibiting the employees from going past the warning line2 If you need additional information please contact us by fax (202-693-1689) at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance You can also contact us by mail
at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
April 17 2006
MEMORANDUM FOR Kenneth Gereke
Regional Administrator Region III
ATTN John McFee Construction Coordinator Region III
FROM Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
SUBJECT Guardrail height requirements for construction activities in General Industry Facilities
This is in response to your e-mail submitted April 7 2005 You ask for compliance guidance with regard to the application of Subpart M Fall Protection requirements for construction activities in a General Industry facility We apologize for the long delay in providing this response
We have paraphrased your question as follows Question Scenario Employees are engaged in construction activities on a walkingworking surface at a General Industry worksite The guardrails on that site have a top rail that is 36 inches from the walkingworking surface Under OSHA Directive STD 01-01-010 and subsequent proposed rulemaking the use of such a guardrail by General Industry employees is only a technical violation of the General Industry standard 29 CFR 191023(e)(1) which otherwise requires a nominal vertical height of 42 inches
Would the construction employer be in violation of sect1926502(b)(1) (Subpart M) of the construction standards which requires the use of guardrails with a top rail that is 39 to 45 inches above the walkingworking surface level Answer Yes it would be a violation of Subpart M if construction work were performed on an elevated walkingworking surface that is guarded by a permanent guardrail system with a 36-inch top rail even though that top rail height is permitted for General Industry work under STD 01-01-010
Background Section 191023(e)(1) (Subpart D mdash Walking-Working Surfaces) of the General Industry standards states Railing toe boards and cover specifications (1) A standard railing shall consist of top rail intermediate rail and posts and shall have a vertical height of 42 inches nominal from upper surface of top rail to floor platform runway or ramp level [Emphasis added] However OSHA Directive STD-01-01-010 mdash Height of Guardrails in General Industry Applications notes
C Action OSHA Regional AdministratorsArea Directors shall classify technical violations of 29 CFR 191023(e)(1) as de minimis violations where the employer has provided guardrails which meet the following specifications (1) Existing guardrailing shall consist of a top rail intermediate rail and posts or equivalent and shall have a minimum vertical height of 36 inches to 44 inches from the upper surface of the top rail to the floor platform runway or ramp level [Emphasis added] E Background A Field Information Memorandum was previously issued regarding the
height of guardrails The intended revision [of Subpart D of 29 CFR 1910] is not yet available therefore to provide equitable enforcement which does not place unnecessary cost burdens upon employers or have a direct or immediate effect upon the safety or health of employees this instruction reissues the previous policy 1 In addition under General Industrys proposed rule on Walking and Working Surfaces (55
Federal Register 13360) guardrail systems with top rails that are 36 inches in height would similarly be grandfathered2 In support of that provision OSHA noted in the preamble that continuing to tolerate the use of guardrails as low as 36 inches (91 cm) would not unacceptably reduce employee protection and that the hazard to which to which employees would be exposed in replacing those guardrails would be greater than that from allowing the existing guardrails to remain in place (55 Federal Register 13374) [Emphasis added] The applicable construction provision sect1926502(b)(1) (Subpart M-Fall Protection) provides in part Guardrail systems Guardrail systems and their use shall comply with the following provisions
(1) Top edge height of top rails or equivalent guardrail system members shall be 42 inches (11 m) plus or minus 3 inches (8 cm) above the walkingworking level [Emphasis added] AnalysisConclusion The General Industry directive permits the use of existing permanently-installed guardrails that have a 36-inch top rail The rationale for that policy as reflected in the preamble for General Industrys proposed rule on Walking and Working Surfaces is that employee safety is not compromised by the use of such existing permanent guardrails and employee exposure to fall hazards would be increased by requiring the replacement of these guardrails
In contrast construction activities often include carrying tools and materials that are heavy awkward to handle and in the case of large materials can sometimes block the employees view In addition unlike the general industry employer a construction employer is not faced with the choice of leaving the permanent guardrails in place or replacing them Instead because construction work is by its nature temporary construction employers typically install temporary guardrails These guardrail systems are designed for temporary use under varied worksite conditions
For example some of these systems would allow a construction employer to erect a temporary guardrail system adjacent to the permanent guardrail system or to attach a temporary top rail to the permanent guardrail system to meet the applicable requirements in Subpart M In addition unlike the permanent guardrail systems in and on structures addressed in STD 01-01-010 these temporary guardrail systems are designed to facilitate repeated installation and removal Consequently the concerns regarding unjustified additional hazard exposure involved in replacing permanent guardrails is not applicable to the construction employees in your scenario In sum when a construction employer protects its employees from falls with a guardrail system that guardrail system must meet the requirements in sect1926502(b) including the top rail height
requirement in sect1926501(b)(1) even where there is a permanent guardrail with a 36-inch top rail that pursuant to STD 01-01-010 is acceptable for General Industry work If you need additional assistance please contact us by fax or e-mail
1 It is our understanding that STD-01-01-010 was adopted in light of pre-OSHA General Industry practices Specifically in the Preamble of a proposed rulemaking for General Industrys Walking and Working Surfaces standard (Volume 55 of the Federal Register page 13373 (Apr 10 1999)) OSHA offered the following explanation OSHA issued the directive because it recognized that employers with guardrails as low as 36 inches (91 cm) might have installed their systems in compliance with pre-OSHA
building codes The Agency was also concerned that employers would be unreasonably burdened by the cost of replacing their guardrail systems with new guardrail systems that were a nominal 42 inches (11 m) high
May 12 2000 Mr Barry A Cole Executive Vice-President Steel Erectors Safety Association
of Colorado 5750 Pecos Street Suite 6 Denver Colorado 80221 Re Fall ProtectionUse of barricades 1926500 Subpart M Dear Mr Cole This is in response to your letter dated July 24 1998 addressed to OSHAs Directorate of Construction In the letter you ask a series of questions regarding 29 CFR 1926500 Subpart M
We apologize for the long delay in responding Issue In viewing your questions together we understand them to amount to the following issue Subpart M generally requires fall protection (personal fall protection guardrails covers) when there is a fall distance of 6 feet or more In a few very specific situations the standard permits the use of control lines instead of guardrails to keep employees away from a hole or edge Apart from those situations if an employee is far enough from a hole or edge may control lines be used instead of the specified fall protection devices If so how far is that distance
Background The type of fall protection required by the standard depends to some extent on the work activity Generally sect1926501(b)(2)(ii) requires that employees on a walkingworking surface 6 feet or more above a lower level shall be protected from falling by a guardrail system safety net system or personal fall arrest system Section 1926501(b)(4)(i) requires that employees on walkingworking surfaces be protected from falling through holes (including skylights) more than 6 feet above lower levels by personal fall arrest systems covers or guardrail systems around such holes Sections 1926501(b)(4) (ii) and (iii) require that employees on a walkingworking surface be protected from tripping or stepping into or through holes (including skylights) or from objects falling through holes by covers
In the rulemaking for Subpart M OSHA determined that in certain very limited situations warning lines are an appropriate means of protection Section 1926501(b)(10) sets out the fall protection requirement for roofing work on low slope roofs Under that section an employer may use a combination of warning lines 6 feet (and in some cases 10 feet) back from the edge in combination with monitors in place of personal fall protection equipment or guardrails Under sect1926501(b)(2) employers engaged in other specified work such as leading edge work precast concrete erection work and residential construction may develop and implement a site-specific fall protection plan that uses alternative fall protection methods if they can demonstrate the infeasibility of conventional fall protection As can be seen in the examples given in Appendix
E to Subpart M warning lines 6 feet back from the edge can be used as part of such a plan Answer The standard requires workers exposed to falls of 6 feet or more to lower levels to be protected from falls As discussed in the Preamble to Subpart M in volume 59 of the Federal Register (page 40683) OSHA determined in the rulemaking that there is no safe distance from an unprotected side or edge of a walkingworking surface that would render protection unnecessary The Agency also identified in the rulemaking the specific situations where warning lines 6 and 10 feet back from a hole or edge were appropriate substitutes for guardrails personal fall protection and covers It would be inappropriate for us to revisit those
determinations and allow warning lines to be used in other circumstances at 6 and 10 feet back outside of the rulemaking process Consequently it would be inappropriate to apply a de minimis policy that would have the effect of extending the provisions for warning lines at 6 and 10 feet to situations other than the limited ones identified in the standard
In contrast a question remains about whether a de minimis policy on the use of warning lines in areas farther back from those specifically addressed in the rule would be appropriate Our finding in the Preamble that there is no safe distance from an unprotected side or edge referred to an issue raised in the rulemaking of whether distance alone is ever sufficient protection from an
unprotected edge When OSHA proposed in 1986 to revise the fall protection requirements we asked the public if fall protection was necessary for employees working 10 20 or 30 feet from an unprotected edge In response some commenters stated that distance alone was not enough They stated that employees may wander and the fact that the area where the work is taking place is far from the edge is by itself ineffective to ensure that workers will not approach the edge (59 FR 40682) We have now had 5 years of experience with the application of the rule since it was published in 1994 We continue to believe that distance alone is ineffective to protect workers from unprotected sides or edges However we have determined that in the area farther back from
the distances specified for the warning lines permitted under the standard there is a point that is sufficiently far from the edge or hole to warrant the application of a de minimis policy regarding non-conforming guardrails At 15 feet from the edge or hole (in the case of a hole measured from the nearest edge of the hole) a warning line combined with effective work rules can be expected to prevent workers from going past the line and approaching the edge Also at that distance the failure of a barrier to restrain a worker from unintentionally crossing it would not place the worker in immediate risk of falling off the edge Therefore we will apply a de minimis policy for non-conforming guardrails
15 or more feet from the edge under certain circumstances Specifically we will consider the use of certain physical barriers that fail to meet the criteria for a guardrail a de minimis violation of the guardrail criteria in sect1926502(b) where all of the following are met
1 A warning line is used 15 feet or more from the edge (or nearest edge of a hole) 2 The warning line meets or exceeds the requirements in sect1926502(f)(2) 3 No work or work-related activity is to take place in the area between the warning line and
the hole or edge and 4 The employer effectively implements a work rule prohibiting the employees from going
past the warning line
If you need additional information please contact us by fax (202-693-1689) at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance You can also contact us by mail at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance Room
N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
December 18 2003 Mr Michael Wright PE Managing Principal LJB Inc
3100 Research Boulevard PO Box 20246 Dayton OH 45420-0246 Re Inspection of personal fall arrest systems competent person fall protection plans sect1926501(b)(2) (12) and (13) sect1926502(c)(4) and (d)(20) and (21) and sect1926503(a)(2) Dear Mr Wright This is in response to your letter dated August 4 2003 faxed to the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) asking for clarification on a number of issues regarding OSHAs construction industry standards for fall protection My staff discussed and resolved some of your questions with you over the telephone We have paraphrased the remainder of your questions as follows Question (1) How often must a construction employer inspect hisher employees personal fall arrest systems (PFAS) Would formal inspections performed once annually be the maximum amount of time permitted between inspections
Answer Paragraph (d)(21) of sect1926502 addresses the inspection of personal fall arrest systems (PFAS) as follows sect1926502 Fall protection systems criteria and practices (d) Personal fall arrest systems (21) Personal fall arrest systems shall be inspected prior to each use for wear damage and other deterioration and defective components shall be removed from service
Note that in the preamble to the final rule (at volume 59 of the Federal Register pages 40709-40710 August 9 1994 excerpted below) OSHA stated that weekly inspections would not be sufficient to guard against the use of defective equipment Leading to promulgation of final rule sect1926502(d)(21) the Agency specifically sought comments on the frequency of inspection for fall protection equipment in separate issues [9 and 17] as part of the proposed rule Based on the rulemaking record OSHA did not amend the language in the proposed rule regarding the frequency of inspections of PFAS to set out a time frame Some pertinent portions of that preamble discussion are as follows Paragraph (d)(21) (proposed as paragraph (d)(20)) requires that personal fall arrest systems be
inspected prior to each use for damage and deterioration and that defective components be removed from service This provision is essentially identical to the proposed provision in sect1926502(d)(20) OSHA raised Issues 9 and 17 in the proposal to request public comment regarding the frequency of inspection and whether or not more definitive inspection criteria were needed for determining when personal fall arrest systems (or positioning device systems as regulated in paragraph (e)(5) below) are no longer suitable for use OSHA also asked commenters what inspection criteria should be specified
The majority of the commenters thought the criteria provided in the standard were sufficient as proposed (Exs 2-12 2-19 2-23 2-43 and 2-45)hellip The GLFEA and the BCMALU (Exs 2-19 and 2-46) thought inspection should be weekly rather
than prior to each use The GLFEA supported its position with the statement that A more frequent schedule does not enhance the safety of the employees Essentially there was no objection to the substance of the rule only disagreement on the frequency of inspection OSHA believes it is critical to inspect equipment before each use otherwise employees may use defective equipment which could result in loss of life in the event of a fall Therefore OSHA has
not reduced the frequency of inspection and has determined that the provision as proposed is appropriate Further information on inspection criteria has been provided in paragraph (g) Inspection considerations in Part II of Appendix C relating to sect1926502(d) -- Personal Fall Arrest Systems OSHA also notes that this provision is consistent with the inspection requirements for personal fall arrest systems in the powered platforms standard sect191066 Therefore annual inspections instead of inspections prior to each use would violate sect1926502(d)(21) Question (2) Does Part 1926 Subpart M require that personal fall arrest systems be inspected
by a competent person Answer The inspection of personal fall arrest systems required in sect1926502(d)(21) does not have to be performed by a competent person1 However sect1926503(a)(2) states The employer shall assure that each employee has been trained as necessary by a competent person qualified in the following areas
(ii) The correct procedures for inspecting the fall protection systems to be used Therefore under sectsect1926502(d)(21) and 1926503(a)(2)(ii) the equipment must be inspected prior to each use by an employee who has been trained by a competent person to do the inspection Also under sect1926502(d)(19) a competent person must inspect personal fall arrest equipment to determine that personal fall arrest systems and components subjected to impact loading are undamaged and suitable for reuse2
Personal fall arrest systems and components subjected to impact loading shall be immediately removed from service and shall not be used again for employee protection until inspected and determined by a competent person to be undamaged and suitable for reuse Question (3) Before any employee is permitted to work at heights that would require the use of a written fall protection plan must a preplanning meeting be conducted to prepare a written rescue plan Answer Under sect1926501(b) employees doing construction work at a height of 6 feet or more above lower levels must be protected from falls However Subpart M does not require a fall protection
plan unless the employer is using alternative fall protection methods to protect employees performing leading-edge work precast concrete erection or residential construction (sect1926501(b)(2)(i) (12) and (13) respectively) Those three provisions allow employers engaged in the work specified to develop and implement a fall protection plan that uses alternative fall protection methods if they can demonstrate the infeasibility of conventional fall protection3 The three provisions [sect1926501(b)(2)(i) (12) and (13)] read as follows sect1926501 Duty to have fall protection (b)(1)
(2) Leading edges (i) Each employee who is constructing a leading edge 6 feet (18 m) or more above lower levels shall be protected from falling by guardrail systems safety net systems or personal fall arrest systems Exception When the employer can demonstrate that it is infeasible or creates a greater hazard to use these systems the employer shall develop and implement a
fall protection plan which meets the requirements of paragraph (k) of sect1926502 Note There is a presumption that it is feasible and will not create a greater hazard to implement at least one of the above-listed fall protection systems Accordingly the employer has the burden of establishing that it is appropriate to implement a fall protection plan which complies with sect1926502(k) for a particular workplace situation in lieu of implementing any of those
systems (12) Precast concrete erection Each employee engaged in the erection of precast concrete members (including but not limited to the erection of wall panels columns beams and floor and roof tees) and related operations such as grouting of precast concrete members who is 6 feet (18 m) or more above lower levels shall be protected from falling by guardrail systems safety net systems or personal fall arrest systems unless another provision in paragraph (b) of this section provides for an alternative fall protection measure Exception When the employer can demonstrate that it is infeasible or creates a greater hazard to use these systems the employer shall develop and implement a fall protection plan which meets the requirements of
paragraph (k) of sect1926502 (13) Residential construction Each employee engaged in residential construction activities 6 feet (18 m) or more above lower levels shall be protected by guardrail systems safety net system or personal fall arrest system unless another provision in paragraph (b) of this section provides for an alternative fall protection measure Exception When the employer can demonstrate that it is infeasible or creates a greater hazard to use these systems the employer shall develop and implement a fall protection plan which meets the requirements of paragraph (k) of sect1926502 As stated in the three provisions above sect1926502(k) sets out specific requirements for fall protection plans however sect1926502(k) does not require preplanning meetings4 Question (4) Does OSHAs provision for prompt rescue from personal fall arrest systems in the event of a fall require the use of a written plan What constitutes prompt
Answer With regard to rescuing employees from personal fall arrest systems the provision in Subpart M that addresses this is sect1926502(d)(20) which states sect1926502 Fall protection systems criteria and practices (d) Personal fall arrest systems (20) The employer shall provide for prompt rescue of employees in the event of a fall or shall assure that employees are able to rescue themselves As explained in interpretation letters to J Nigel Ellis (May 11 1999) and Charles Hill (August 14 2000) the particular hazard that sect1926502(d)(20) addresses is being suspended by the fall arrest system after an arrested fall In the Hill letter we stated Prompt rescue as required under sect1926502(d)(20) is not defined in the standard The particular hazard that sect1926502(d)(20) addresses is being suspended by the fall arrest system after a fall While an employee may be safely suspended in a body harness for a longer period than from a body belt the word prompt requires that rescue be performed quickly -- in time to prevent serious injury to the worker
You note that electrical utility and telecommunications workers sometimes work alone and that the employees status is maintained through normal work rules and operating procedures We recognize that there are a wide range of variables and circumstances between worksites The standard requires that to the extent feasible a reliable system be in place to ensure that rescue will be prompt Precisely what is required to comply with this provision in a remote location will depend on what is feasible under the particular circumstances The range of feasible options available in remote locations may be more limited than in more populated areas
Note that sect1926502(d)(20) does not require that a written rescue plan be prepared or that a preplanning event be held If you need additional information please contact us by fax at US Department of Labor OSHA [Directorate of Construction Office of Construction Standards and Guidance] fax 202-693-
1689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
November 15 2002 Mr Keith Harkins Safety Manager LinbeckKennedy amp Rossi
One Maguire Road Lexington Ma 02421 Re Whether a warning line at 6 feet used to protect roofing workers may also be used to meet fall protection requirements for HVAC construction workers sect1926502(b) Dear Mr Harkins This is in response to your letter dated June 10 2002 to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requesting clarification on the use of fall protection systems for
employees other than roofers working on low slope roofs I apologize for the delay in answering your inquiry We have paraphrased your questions 1 as follows Question (1) Scenario multiple trades - roofers as well as mechanical trades - are working on a low slope roof Under sect1926501(b)(10) the roofers can comply with fall protection requirements by using a warning line 6 feet from the edge In accordance with OSHAs August 1 2000 letter to Mr Mark Troxell the mechanical trades who are installing HVAC equipment can work without personal fall protection as long as they stay inside a warning line 15 feet from the edge Since both roofers and mechanical trades are working on the roof at the same time is it
permissible in this situation for the mechanical trades to use the roofers warning line that is 6 feet from the edge We would require the mechanical trades to be trained and required to use fall protection if they were to work between the warning line and the edge Also the warning line would comply with the criteria requirements in sect1926502(f) Is this acceptable Answer As explained below the answer is no Background
OSHAs fall protection standard for construction 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart M (beginning at sect1926500) generally requires fall protection when there is a fall distance of 6 feet or more In a few very specific situations (low-slope roof work some leading-edge work precast concrete erection and residential construction see sect1926501(b)(2) (12) and (13)) because of feasibility limitations the standard permits the use of a warning line in combination with other measures instead of conventional fall protection (guardrail systems personal fall arrest systems or safety net systems) to keep employees away from an edge Installation of HVAC equipment does not fall within the categories listed ie leading-edge work precast concrete erection or residential construction Therefore the warning line at the 6-foot
option does not apply As explained in the August 1 2000 Troxell letter where certain conditions are met the use of a warning line 15 feet back from the edge will be considered a de minimis violation of the guardrail criteria in sect1926502(b) The conditions that must be met for the application of this policy are as follows
1 A warning line is used 15 feet or more from the edge
2 The warning line meets or exceeds the requirements in sect1926502(f)(2) 3 No work or work-related activity is to take place in the area between the warning line and
the edge and
4 The employer effectively implements a work rule prohibiting the employees from going past the warning line
Therefore where these conditions are met you may use a warning line 15 feet back from the edge to protect the HVAC workers Applying the policy to your mixed-trades scenario The fact that the HVAC workers are working on the roof at the same time as the roofing workers does not alter the fact that the standard does not permit the HVAC workers to rely on a warning line at 6 feet from the edge for fall protection If you believe that use of two warning lines - one at 6 feet and one at 15 feet -- would be confusing or otherwise unworkable you can protect the
HVAC workers with conventional fall protection equipment and dispense with the 15-feet warning line If you need further clarification on this subject please contact us by fax at US Department of Labor Directorate of Construction [Office of Construction Standards and Guidance] 202-6931689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue N W Washington DC 20210 although due to continuing anthrax decontamination procedures there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence Sincerely
Russell B Swanson Directorate of Construction Enclosure
August 28 2000 Mr Mark Troxell Construction Team Leader The PMA Insurance Group
107 Ponderosa Drive Blandon PA 19510 Re 1926501(b)(3) and 1926502(b) Dear Mr Troxell This responds to your June 1 1999 letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requesting information on wire rope and Crosby clips used around the perimeter of buildings as a guardrail You also requested clarification on when employees must tie-off when a
guardrail system is removed to facilitate hoisting operations We apologize for the long delay in providing this response Question 1 How many Crosby clips are required to be used when setting up a wire rope guardrail Is it permissible to splice two wire ropes by overlapping or must the connections be turned back into eyelets and properly secured Answer For construction work covered by 29 CFR 1926 Subpart M sect1926502(b) sets forth the criteria that must be met when using wire rope as a guardrail The standard requires guardrails
to meet several specific criteria For example 1926502(b)(3) states that the guardrail shall be capable of withstanding without failure a force of at least 200 pounds applied within 2 inches of the top edge in any outward or downward direction at any point along the top edge Section 1926502(b)(4) states that when the 200 pound test load noted in sect1926502(b)(3) is applied in a downward direction the top edge of the guardrail shall not deflect to a height less than 39 inches above the walkingworking level Section 1926502(b)(9) states that the top rail and mid-rails shall be at least frac14-inch nominal diameter or thickness to prevent cuts and lacerations These and other criteria must be met when using wire rope as a guardrail around the perimeter of a building
The OSHA standard does not specify a minimum number of clips when using wire rope as a guardrail However as a practical matter it is unlikely you could meet the specific requirements under sect1926502(b) unless you follow the manufacturers recommendations for the number of clips to be used on wire ropes of different diameters (for example the Crosby Group Inc general catalog 2000 edition has tables showing their recommendations for their clips) Also note that OSHAs standard for rigging equipment used for material handling 29 CFR sect1926251 has a table for the number of clips required for wire rope frac12-inch and greater Although that standard does not apply to wire rope used for guardrails when you design a rope system to meet the sect1926502 requirements following those tables will normally ensure that you have enough clips
Question 2 What are the requirements for tying-off employees when a guardrail system is removed to facilitate hoisting operations 29 CFR sect1926501(b)(3) states that when guardrails are removed to facilitate hoisting operations employees who have to lean out over the edge must be tied off What about other employees who do not have to lean outmdashdo they have to be tied-off also Answer Section 1926501(b)(3) states that each employee in a hoist area shall be protected from falls of 6 feet or more by guardrail systems or personal fall arrest systems It also states
that If guardrail systems are removed to facilitate the hoisting operation (eg during landing of materials) and an employee must lean through the access opening or out over the edge of the access opening (to receive or guide equipment and materials for example) that employee shall be protected from fall hazards by a personal fall arrest system (59 FR 40710)
You ask if this means that the only employees who must use fall protection when the guardrails are removed are those who must lean out The answer is no the first sentence of sect1926501(d)(3) requires that all employees in the hoist area be protected by either a guardrail or personal fall arrest system So when all or part of a guardrail has been removed all
employees must be protected by a personal fall arrest system The last sentence of sect1926501(d)(3) which states that employees who must lean out must be protected with personal fall arrest equipment did not create an exception for employees with no need to lean out The requirement that these employees also be protected is reflected in sect1926502(d)(24) It specifically provides that fall arrest systems in hoist areas be rigged to prevent employees from leaning past the edge when a personal fall arrest system is used at hoist areas it shall be rigged to allow the movement of the employee only as far as the edge of the walkingworking surface The Agency explained in the preamble to subpart M that this provision was promulgated to eliminate the tendency for employees to lean out over the edge at
hoist areas (see volume 59 No152 of the Federal Register page 40685 August 9 1994) Although inartfully drafted the purpose of the last sentence of sect1926501(b)(3) is to require that personal fall arrest equipment be used even when the necessity of leaning out makes compliance with sect1926502(d)(24) infeasible If you need additional information please contact us by fax at US Department of Labor OSHA Directorate of Construction Office of Construction Standards and Guidance fax 202-693-1689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving
correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
August 28 2000
MEMORANDUM FOR Ed Kassak
David Herstedt Region VIII
FROM Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
This memorandum responds to your fax dated May 7 1999 in which you ask for assistance in
responding to the Concrete Frame Association(CFA)s letter of May 4 1999 We apologize for the long delay in responding CFA asked whether the fall protection requirements of 29 CFR 1926 Subpart L apply when employees are working from a concrete formwork platform in two scenarios CFA believes that during the erection of individual formwork components of an integrated floor system such as beams drop panels joists and slab panels Subpart L should apply (see scenario submitted by CFA below) At that point workers stand and walk on the individual formwork components In its view Subpart M applies only once the components are tied together and become a continuous
integrated floor system (not pictured) CFA states that in the pictured scenario general contractors are requiring employees to tie-off with personal fall arrest systems They assert that their shoring platform is only about 85 feet above the ground level and that if a fall were to occur it would not be arrested prior to the employee contacting the level below
Which standard applies Subpart M or Subpart L
Classification of the formworkshoring as a walkingworking surface under Subpart M or as a work platform under Subpart L is significant because these standards have different thresholds for requiring fall protection As you know Subpart M requires employees to be protected from falls of 6 feet or more (29 CFR 1926501(b)(1)) It defines a walkingworking surface to mean in part any surface whether horizontal or vertical on which an employee walks or works including but not limited to floors roofs ramps bridges runways formwork and concrete reinforcing steel [emphasis added]
Section 501(b)(1) requires that employees on a walkingworking surface (horizontal and vertical surface) with an unprotected side or edge must be protected Therefore where that walkingworking surface is formwork the employee must be protected Section 1926501(b)(2) requires fall protection for employees constructing leading edges That term is defined in sect500(b) as the edge of a floor roof or formwork for a floor or other walkingworking surface
(such as the deck) which changes location as additional floor roof decking or formwork sections are placed formed or constructed [emphasis added] Therefore under sect501(b)(2) employees constructing formwork leading edges must be protected in accordance with that section Finally sect501(b)(5) requires that employees on the face of formwork must be protected under Subpart M as well OSHAs scaffold standard 29 CFR 1926 Subpart L does not require fall protection for employees until they are exposed to falls in excess of 10 feet as specified in sect1926451(g) Subpart L defines a scaffold to mean any temporary elevated platform (supported or suspended) and its supporting
structure (including points of anchorage) used for supporting employees or materials or both Subpart L addresses formwork in sect1926450(b) under the definition of form scaffold which is defined as a supported scaffold consisting of a platform supported by brackets attached to formwork In the preamble to Subpart L the Agency stated that this type of scaffold is similar to a carpenters bracket scaffold and a top plate bracket scaffold (volume 61 of the Federal Register No 170 page 46033 August 30 1996) Therefore when an employee is supported by a device that attaches to the formwork the scaffold standard applies The scaffold standard would also apply where the formwork is not erected for use as formwork but instead is being
used only as a substitute for scaffold components Otherwise Subpart M applies when an employee stands on the face or the top of the formwork In the two situations described by CFA -- where employees are walking and working on individual formwork sections and on sections joined together Subpart M is the most specifically applicable standard It specifically covers formwork in its definition of walkingworking surfaces and the employees in the submitted scenario are not working on form scaffolds Therefore the requirements of Subpart M apply irrespective of whether the formwork sections stand alone or are joined into an integrated system1 Fall Arrest Distances CFA asserts that the personal fall arrest systems being used by workers on the formwork would not arrest falls at heights of about 8 feet We note that the fall arrest distance is determined by many factors and that there are often ways to rig systems to limit falls to very short distances
For the narrow walkingworking surface pictured above (see right side of illustration) guardrails may be the most useful approach Please feel free to contact us if you need further clarification on this issue
May 21 2003 Ms Deborah Caldwell 5071 Butler Rd Caldwell Electrical Contractors
Gainesville Georgia 30506 Re Ladders fall protection working on top of equipment Dear Ms Caldwell This is in response to your letter of November 22 2002 in which you ask for guidance regarding OSHAs fall protection requirements for construction work We apologize for the delay in providing this response
We have paraphrased your question as follows Question Scenario to complete a construction project a worker places a portable ladder on top of a piece of equipment or on the roof of a structure that is inside a large building The top of the equipment or structure is at least 10 x 10 and at least 10 above the ground It is stable level and sufficiently strong to support the loads imposed by the worker materials and tools needed for the job The worker will then do the construction task while on the ladder Is fall protection required for this worker
Answer We will answer your question in two parts first with respect to whether fall protection is required for a worker while on the surfaces you describe second with respect to whether fall protection is required while the worker is on the ladder 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart M (Fall protection) contains fall protection requirements for protecting an employee working on walkingworking surface (sect1926501(b)(1)) A walkingworking surface is defined in sect1926500(b) as follows Any surface whether horizontal or vertical on which an employee walks or works including but
not limited to floors roofs ramps bridges runways formwork and concrete reinforcing steel but not ladders vehicles or trailers on which employees must be located in order to perform their duties The 10 x 10 top surface of the equipment and the roof the structure that is inside the large building both meet this definition and would be considered a walkingworking surface The requirements of Subpart M would apply to a worker who is on those surfaces Section 1926501(b)(1) states Unprotected sides and edges Each employee on a walkingworking surface (horizontal and vertical surface) with an unprotected side or edge which is 6 feet or more above a lower level
shall be protected from falling by the use of guardrail systems safety net systems or personal fall arrest systems Since these surfaces are at or over 6 feet above the next lowest level fall protection is required while the worker is on those surfaces Fall protection can be accomplished by using guardrails a personal fall arrest system a fall restraint device or safety net system However with respect to fall protection requirements for a worker on the ladder sect1926500(a)(2)(vii) states Requirements relating to fall protection for employees working on stairways and ladders are
provided in Subpart X Subpart X (29 CFR 19261050 et seq) does not require fall protection for a worker on a portable ladder Therefore no additional fall protection is required while the worker is on the ladder The fact that the ladder is on either of the surfaces you describe rather than on the ground does not
alter this conclusion Recommendation Although not an OSHA requirement we recommend the use of a scaffold scissor lift or aerial device instead of a ladder in the scenario you describe where practicable
If you have further concerns or questions please feel free to contact us again by fax at US Department of Labor OSHA Directorate of Construction [Office of Construction Standards and Guidance] fax 202-693-1689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely
Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
March 12 2004 Mr Randy Stahl Safety Manager Korellis Roofing Inc
1333 169th Street Hammond IN 46324-2008 Re Is fall protection required during small roofing repairs that take minimal time to complete Dear Mr Stahl This is in response to your letter dated December 16 2003 to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) We have paraphrased your question as follows
Question 1 Scenario We do roofing inspections in order to identify where repairs are needed on pre-existing roofing systems Often the repairs needed are small in scale and worker exposure to a fall hazard is minimal in terms of time The fall hazard exposure time for the installation and removal of fall protection systems from the roof exceeds the exposure time for completing these roofing repair jobs In this circumstance in non-residential roofing work is fall protection required by 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart M
Answer First Part 1926 Subpart M does not require fall protection for those conducting the initial inspection of the roof to determine what work needs to be done Section 1926500(a) states This subpart sets forth requirements and criteria for fall protection in construction workplaces covered under 29 CFR Part 1926 Exception The provisions of this subpart do not apply when employees are making an inspection investigation or assessment of workplace conditions prior to the actual start of construction work or after all construction work has been completed [Emphasis added] With regard to fall protection requirements applicable to the construction work itself
sect1926501(b)(10) (low slope roofs) requires conventional fall protection a combination of a monitoring system and warning line or on roofs of 50 feet or less in width a monitoring system alone (ie without a warning line) be used Under the standard the requirement for fall protection for this work does not depend on the duration of the fall hazard exposure In contrast the Agency found in the rulemaking that the short duration of hazard exposure was part of the basis for creating the exception for the inspection-only activity But another basis for the exception was the concept that in inspections before and after the work is done there is no on-going construction work to divert the inspectors attention from the fall hazard Once there is construction activity the risk goes up by virtue of that diversion of attention Consequently in
the preamble to the rule OSHA stated that the exception does not apply if the inspection activity takes place at the same time the construction work is on-going [I]f inspections are made while construction operations are underway all employees who are exposed to fall hazards while performing inspections must be protected as required by Subpart M1 Therefore apart from inspections the Agency in the rulemaking rejected short duration of the exposure as an exception to the fall protection requirement for construction work Note though that the use of warning lines without a monitor is acceptable where the warning
lines are at least 15 feet back from the edge and all of the following are met (1) A warning line is used 15 feet or more from the edge (or nearest edge of a hole) (2) The warning line meets or exceeds the requirements in sect1926502(f)(2) (3) No work or work-related activity is to take place in the area between the warning line and the
hole or edge and (4) The employer effectively implements a work rule prohibiting the employees from going past the warning line2 If you need additional information please contact us by fax (202-693-1689) at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance You can also contact us by mail
at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
April 17 2006
MEMORANDUM FOR Kenneth Gereke
Regional Administrator Region III
ATTN John McFee Construction Coordinator Region III
FROM Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
SUBJECT Guardrail height requirements for construction activities in General Industry Facilities
This is in response to your e-mail submitted April 7 2005 You ask for compliance guidance with regard to the application of Subpart M Fall Protection requirements for construction activities in a General Industry facility We apologize for the long delay in providing this response
We have paraphrased your question as follows Question Scenario Employees are engaged in construction activities on a walkingworking surface at a General Industry worksite The guardrails on that site have a top rail that is 36 inches from the walkingworking surface Under OSHA Directive STD 01-01-010 and subsequent proposed rulemaking the use of such a guardrail by General Industry employees is only a technical violation of the General Industry standard 29 CFR 191023(e)(1) which otherwise requires a nominal vertical height of 42 inches
Would the construction employer be in violation of sect1926502(b)(1) (Subpart M) of the construction standards which requires the use of guardrails with a top rail that is 39 to 45 inches above the walkingworking surface level Answer Yes it would be a violation of Subpart M if construction work were performed on an elevated walkingworking surface that is guarded by a permanent guardrail system with a 36-inch top rail even though that top rail height is permitted for General Industry work under STD 01-01-010
Background Section 191023(e)(1) (Subpart D mdash Walking-Working Surfaces) of the General Industry standards states Railing toe boards and cover specifications (1) A standard railing shall consist of top rail intermediate rail and posts and shall have a vertical height of 42 inches nominal from upper surface of top rail to floor platform runway or ramp level [Emphasis added] However OSHA Directive STD-01-01-010 mdash Height of Guardrails in General Industry Applications notes
C Action OSHA Regional AdministratorsArea Directors shall classify technical violations of 29 CFR 191023(e)(1) as de minimis violations where the employer has provided guardrails which meet the following specifications (1) Existing guardrailing shall consist of a top rail intermediate rail and posts or equivalent and shall have a minimum vertical height of 36 inches to 44 inches from the upper surface of the top rail to the floor platform runway or ramp level [Emphasis added] E Background A Field Information Memorandum was previously issued regarding the
height of guardrails The intended revision [of Subpart D of 29 CFR 1910] is not yet available therefore to provide equitable enforcement which does not place unnecessary cost burdens upon employers or have a direct or immediate effect upon the safety or health of employees this instruction reissues the previous policy 1 In addition under General Industrys proposed rule on Walking and Working Surfaces (55
Federal Register 13360) guardrail systems with top rails that are 36 inches in height would similarly be grandfathered2 In support of that provision OSHA noted in the preamble that continuing to tolerate the use of guardrails as low as 36 inches (91 cm) would not unacceptably reduce employee protection and that the hazard to which to which employees would be exposed in replacing those guardrails would be greater than that from allowing the existing guardrails to remain in place (55 Federal Register 13374) [Emphasis added] The applicable construction provision sect1926502(b)(1) (Subpart M-Fall Protection) provides in part Guardrail systems Guardrail systems and their use shall comply with the following provisions
(1) Top edge height of top rails or equivalent guardrail system members shall be 42 inches (11 m) plus or minus 3 inches (8 cm) above the walkingworking level [Emphasis added] AnalysisConclusion The General Industry directive permits the use of existing permanently-installed guardrails that have a 36-inch top rail The rationale for that policy as reflected in the preamble for General Industrys proposed rule on Walking and Working Surfaces is that employee safety is not compromised by the use of such existing permanent guardrails and employee exposure to fall hazards would be increased by requiring the replacement of these guardrails
In contrast construction activities often include carrying tools and materials that are heavy awkward to handle and in the case of large materials can sometimes block the employees view In addition unlike the general industry employer a construction employer is not faced with the choice of leaving the permanent guardrails in place or replacing them Instead because construction work is by its nature temporary construction employers typically install temporary guardrails These guardrail systems are designed for temporary use under varied worksite conditions
For example some of these systems would allow a construction employer to erect a temporary guardrail system adjacent to the permanent guardrail system or to attach a temporary top rail to the permanent guardrail system to meet the applicable requirements in Subpart M In addition unlike the permanent guardrail systems in and on structures addressed in STD 01-01-010 these temporary guardrail systems are designed to facilitate repeated installation and removal Consequently the concerns regarding unjustified additional hazard exposure involved in replacing permanent guardrails is not applicable to the construction employees in your scenario In sum when a construction employer protects its employees from falls with a guardrail system that guardrail system must meet the requirements in sect1926502(b) including the top rail height
requirement in sect1926501(b)(1) even where there is a permanent guardrail with a 36-inch top rail that pursuant to STD 01-01-010 is acceptable for General Industry work If you need additional assistance please contact us by fax or e-mail
1 It is our understanding that STD-01-01-010 was adopted in light of pre-OSHA General Industry practices Specifically in the Preamble of a proposed rulemaking for General Industrys Walking and Working Surfaces standard (Volume 55 of the Federal Register page 13373 (Apr 10 1999)) OSHA offered the following explanation OSHA issued the directive because it recognized that employers with guardrails as low as 36 inches (91 cm) might have installed their systems in compliance with pre-OSHA
building codes The Agency was also concerned that employers would be unreasonably burdened by the cost of replacing their guardrail systems with new guardrail systems that were a nominal 42 inches (11 m) high
In contrast a question remains about whether a de minimis policy on the use of warning lines in areas farther back from those specifically addressed in the rule would be appropriate Our finding in the Preamble that there is no safe distance from an unprotected side or edge referred to an issue raised in the rulemaking of whether distance alone is ever sufficient protection from an
unprotected edge When OSHA proposed in 1986 to revise the fall protection requirements we asked the public if fall protection was necessary for employees working 10 20 or 30 feet from an unprotected edge In response some commenters stated that distance alone was not enough They stated that employees may wander and the fact that the area where the work is taking place is far from the edge is by itself ineffective to ensure that workers will not approach the edge (59 FR 40682) We have now had 5 years of experience with the application of the rule since it was published in 1994 We continue to believe that distance alone is ineffective to protect workers from unprotected sides or edges However we have determined that in the area farther back from
the distances specified for the warning lines permitted under the standard there is a point that is sufficiently far from the edge or hole to warrant the application of a de minimis policy regarding non-conforming guardrails At 15 feet from the edge or hole (in the case of a hole measured from the nearest edge of the hole) a warning line combined with effective work rules can be expected to prevent workers from going past the line and approaching the edge Also at that distance the failure of a barrier to restrain a worker from unintentionally crossing it would not place the worker in immediate risk of falling off the edge Therefore we will apply a de minimis policy for non-conforming guardrails
15 or more feet from the edge under certain circumstances Specifically we will consider the use of certain physical barriers that fail to meet the criteria for a guardrail a de minimis violation of the guardrail criteria in sect1926502(b) where all of the following are met
1 A warning line is used 15 feet or more from the edge (or nearest edge of a hole) 2 The warning line meets or exceeds the requirements in sect1926502(f)(2) 3 No work or work-related activity is to take place in the area between the warning line and
the hole or edge and 4 The employer effectively implements a work rule prohibiting the employees from going
past the warning line
If you need additional information please contact us by fax (202-693-1689) at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance You can also contact us by mail at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance Room
N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
December 18 2003 Mr Michael Wright PE Managing Principal LJB Inc
3100 Research Boulevard PO Box 20246 Dayton OH 45420-0246 Re Inspection of personal fall arrest systems competent person fall protection plans sect1926501(b)(2) (12) and (13) sect1926502(c)(4) and (d)(20) and (21) and sect1926503(a)(2) Dear Mr Wright This is in response to your letter dated August 4 2003 faxed to the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) asking for clarification on a number of issues regarding OSHAs construction industry standards for fall protection My staff discussed and resolved some of your questions with you over the telephone We have paraphrased the remainder of your questions as follows Question (1) How often must a construction employer inspect hisher employees personal fall arrest systems (PFAS) Would formal inspections performed once annually be the maximum amount of time permitted between inspections
Answer Paragraph (d)(21) of sect1926502 addresses the inspection of personal fall arrest systems (PFAS) as follows sect1926502 Fall protection systems criteria and practices (d) Personal fall arrest systems (21) Personal fall arrest systems shall be inspected prior to each use for wear damage and other deterioration and defective components shall be removed from service
Note that in the preamble to the final rule (at volume 59 of the Federal Register pages 40709-40710 August 9 1994 excerpted below) OSHA stated that weekly inspections would not be sufficient to guard against the use of defective equipment Leading to promulgation of final rule sect1926502(d)(21) the Agency specifically sought comments on the frequency of inspection for fall protection equipment in separate issues [9 and 17] as part of the proposed rule Based on the rulemaking record OSHA did not amend the language in the proposed rule regarding the frequency of inspections of PFAS to set out a time frame Some pertinent portions of that preamble discussion are as follows Paragraph (d)(21) (proposed as paragraph (d)(20)) requires that personal fall arrest systems be
inspected prior to each use for damage and deterioration and that defective components be removed from service This provision is essentially identical to the proposed provision in sect1926502(d)(20) OSHA raised Issues 9 and 17 in the proposal to request public comment regarding the frequency of inspection and whether or not more definitive inspection criteria were needed for determining when personal fall arrest systems (or positioning device systems as regulated in paragraph (e)(5) below) are no longer suitable for use OSHA also asked commenters what inspection criteria should be specified
The majority of the commenters thought the criteria provided in the standard were sufficient as proposed (Exs 2-12 2-19 2-23 2-43 and 2-45)hellip The GLFEA and the BCMALU (Exs 2-19 and 2-46) thought inspection should be weekly rather
than prior to each use The GLFEA supported its position with the statement that A more frequent schedule does not enhance the safety of the employees Essentially there was no objection to the substance of the rule only disagreement on the frequency of inspection OSHA believes it is critical to inspect equipment before each use otherwise employees may use defective equipment which could result in loss of life in the event of a fall Therefore OSHA has
not reduced the frequency of inspection and has determined that the provision as proposed is appropriate Further information on inspection criteria has been provided in paragraph (g) Inspection considerations in Part II of Appendix C relating to sect1926502(d) -- Personal Fall Arrest Systems OSHA also notes that this provision is consistent with the inspection requirements for personal fall arrest systems in the powered platforms standard sect191066 Therefore annual inspections instead of inspections prior to each use would violate sect1926502(d)(21) Question (2) Does Part 1926 Subpart M require that personal fall arrest systems be inspected
by a competent person Answer The inspection of personal fall arrest systems required in sect1926502(d)(21) does not have to be performed by a competent person1 However sect1926503(a)(2) states The employer shall assure that each employee has been trained as necessary by a competent person qualified in the following areas
(ii) The correct procedures for inspecting the fall protection systems to be used Therefore under sectsect1926502(d)(21) and 1926503(a)(2)(ii) the equipment must be inspected prior to each use by an employee who has been trained by a competent person to do the inspection Also under sect1926502(d)(19) a competent person must inspect personal fall arrest equipment to determine that personal fall arrest systems and components subjected to impact loading are undamaged and suitable for reuse2
Personal fall arrest systems and components subjected to impact loading shall be immediately removed from service and shall not be used again for employee protection until inspected and determined by a competent person to be undamaged and suitable for reuse Question (3) Before any employee is permitted to work at heights that would require the use of a written fall protection plan must a preplanning meeting be conducted to prepare a written rescue plan Answer Under sect1926501(b) employees doing construction work at a height of 6 feet or more above lower levels must be protected from falls However Subpart M does not require a fall protection
plan unless the employer is using alternative fall protection methods to protect employees performing leading-edge work precast concrete erection or residential construction (sect1926501(b)(2)(i) (12) and (13) respectively) Those three provisions allow employers engaged in the work specified to develop and implement a fall protection plan that uses alternative fall protection methods if they can demonstrate the infeasibility of conventional fall protection3 The three provisions [sect1926501(b)(2)(i) (12) and (13)] read as follows sect1926501 Duty to have fall protection (b)(1)
(2) Leading edges (i) Each employee who is constructing a leading edge 6 feet (18 m) or more above lower levels shall be protected from falling by guardrail systems safety net systems or personal fall arrest systems Exception When the employer can demonstrate that it is infeasible or creates a greater hazard to use these systems the employer shall develop and implement a
fall protection plan which meets the requirements of paragraph (k) of sect1926502 Note There is a presumption that it is feasible and will not create a greater hazard to implement at least one of the above-listed fall protection systems Accordingly the employer has the burden of establishing that it is appropriate to implement a fall protection plan which complies with sect1926502(k) for a particular workplace situation in lieu of implementing any of those
systems (12) Precast concrete erection Each employee engaged in the erection of precast concrete members (including but not limited to the erection of wall panels columns beams and floor and roof tees) and related operations such as grouting of precast concrete members who is 6 feet (18 m) or more above lower levels shall be protected from falling by guardrail systems safety net systems or personal fall arrest systems unless another provision in paragraph (b) of this section provides for an alternative fall protection measure Exception When the employer can demonstrate that it is infeasible or creates a greater hazard to use these systems the employer shall develop and implement a fall protection plan which meets the requirements of
paragraph (k) of sect1926502 (13) Residential construction Each employee engaged in residential construction activities 6 feet (18 m) or more above lower levels shall be protected by guardrail systems safety net system or personal fall arrest system unless another provision in paragraph (b) of this section provides for an alternative fall protection measure Exception When the employer can demonstrate that it is infeasible or creates a greater hazard to use these systems the employer shall develop and implement a fall protection plan which meets the requirements of paragraph (k) of sect1926502 As stated in the three provisions above sect1926502(k) sets out specific requirements for fall protection plans however sect1926502(k) does not require preplanning meetings4 Question (4) Does OSHAs provision for prompt rescue from personal fall arrest systems in the event of a fall require the use of a written plan What constitutes prompt
Answer With regard to rescuing employees from personal fall arrest systems the provision in Subpart M that addresses this is sect1926502(d)(20) which states sect1926502 Fall protection systems criteria and practices (d) Personal fall arrest systems (20) The employer shall provide for prompt rescue of employees in the event of a fall or shall assure that employees are able to rescue themselves As explained in interpretation letters to J Nigel Ellis (May 11 1999) and Charles Hill (August 14 2000) the particular hazard that sect1926502(d)(20) addresses is being suspended by the fall arrest system after an arrested fall In the Hill letter we stated Prompt rescue as required under sect1926502(d)(20) is not defined in the standard The particular hazard that sect1926502(d)(20) addresses is being suspended by the fall arrest system after a fall While an employee may be safely suspended in a body harness for a longer period than from a body belt the word prompt requires that rescue be performed quickly -- in time to prevent serious injury to the worker
You note that electrical utility and telecommunications workers sometimes work alone and that the employees status is maintained through normal work rules and operating procedures We recognize that there are a wide range of variables and circumstances between worksites The standard requires that to the extent feasible a reliable system be in place to ensure that rescue will be prompt Precisely what is required to comply with this provision in a remote location will depend on what is feasible under the particular circumstances The range of feasible options available in remote locations may be more limited than in more populated areas
Note that sect1926502(d)(20) does not require that a written rescue plan be prepared or that a preplanning event be held If you need additional information please contact us by fax at US Department of Labor OSHA [Directorate of Construction Office of Construction Standards and Guidance] fax 202-693-
1689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
November 15 2002 Mr Keith Harkins Safety Manager LinbeckKennedy amp Rossi
One Maguire Road Lexington Ma 02421 Re Whether a warning line at 6 feet used to protect roofing workers may also be used to meet fall protection requirements for HVAC construction workers sect1926502(b) Dear Mr Harkins This is in response to your letter dated June 10 2002 to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requesting clarification on the use of fall protection systems for
employees other than roofers working on low slope roofs I apologize for the delay in answering your inquiry We have paraphrased your questions 1 as follows Question (1) Scenario multiple trades - roofers as well as mechanical trades - are working on a low slope roof Under sect1926501(b)(10) the roofers can comply with fall protection requirements by using a warning line 6 feet from the edge In accordance with OSHAs August 1 2000 letter to Mr Mark Troxell the mechanical trades who are installing HVAC equipment can work without personal fall protection as long as they stay inside a warning line 15 feet from the edge Since both roofers and mechanical trades are working on the roof at the same time is it
permissible in this situation for the mechanical trades to use the roofers warning line that is 6 feet from the edge We would require the mechanical trades to be trained and required to use fall protection if they were to work between the warning line and the edge Also the warning line would comply with the criteria requirements in sect1926502(f) Is this acceptable Answer As explained below the answer is no Background
OSHAs fall protection standard for construction 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart M (beginning at sect1926500) generally requires fall protection when there is a fall distance of 6 feet or more In a few very specific situations (low-slope roof work some leading-edge work precast concrete erection and residential construction see sect1926501(b)(2) (12) and (13)) because of feasibility limitations the standard permits the use of a warning line in combination with other measures instead of conventional fall protection (guardrail systems personal fall arrest systems or safety net systems) to keep employees away from an edge Installation of HVAC equipment does not fall within the categories listed ie leading-edge work precast concrete erection or residential construction Therefore the warning line at the 6-foot
option does not apply As explained in the August 1 2000 Troxell letter where certain conditions are met the use of a warning line 15 feet back from the edge will be considered a de minimis violation of the guardrail criteria in sect1926502(b) The conditions that must be met for the application of this policy are as follows
1 A warning line is used 15 feet or more from the edge
2 The warning line meets or exceeds the requirements in sect1926502(f)(2) 3 No work or work-related activity is to take place in the area between the warning line and
the edge and
4 The employer effectively implements a work rule prohibiting the employees from going past the warning line
Therefore where these conditions are met you may use a warning line 15 feet back from the edge to protect the HVAC workers Applying the policy to your mixed-trades scenario The fact that the HVAC workers are working on the roof at the same time as the roofing workers does not alter the fact that the standard does not permit the HVAC workers to rely on a warning line at 6 feet from the edge for fall protection If you believe that use of two warning lines - one at 6 feet and one at 15 feet -- would be confusing or otherwise unworkable you can protect the
HVAC workers with conventional fall protection equipment and dispense with the 15-feet warning line If you need further clarification on this subject please contact us by fax at US Department of Labor Directorate of Construction [Office of Construction Standards and Guidance] 202-6931689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue N W Washington DC 20210 although due to continuing anthrax decontamination procedures there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence Sincerely
Russell B Swanson Directorate of Construction Enclosure
August 28 2000 Mr Mark Troxell Construction Team Leader The PMA Insurance Group
107 Ponderosa Drive Blandon PA 19510 Re 1926501(b)(3) and 1926502(b) Dear Mr Troxell This responds to your June 1 1999 letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requesting information on wire rope and Crosby clips used around the perimeter of buildings as a guardrail You also requested clarification on when employees must tie-off when a
guardrail system is removed to facilitate hoisting operations We apologize for the long delay in providing this response Question 1 How many Crosby clips are required to be used when setting up a wire rope guardrail Is it permissible to splice two wire ropes by overlapping or must the connections be turned back into eyelets and properly secured Answer For construction work covered by 29 CFR 1926 Subpart M sect1926502(b) sets forth the criteria that must be met when using wire rope as a guardrail The standard requires guardrails
to meet several specific criteria For example 1926502(b)(3) states that the guardrail shall be capable of withstanding without failure a force of at least 200 pounds applied within 2 inches of the top edge in any outward or downward direction at any point along the top edge Section 1926502(b)(4) states that when the 200 pound test load noted in sect1926502(b)(3) is applied in a downward direction the top edge of the guardrail shall not deflect to a height less than 39 inches above the walkingworking level Section 1926502(b)(9) states that the top rail and mid-rails shall be at least frac14-inch nominal diameter or thickness to prevent cuts and lacerations These and other criteria must be met when using wire rope as a guardrail around the perimeter of a building
The OSHA standard does not specify a minimum number of clips when using wire rope as a guardrail However as a practical matter it is unlikely you could meet the specific requirements under sect1926502(b) unless you follow the manufacturers recommendations for the number of clips to be used on wire ropes of different diameters (for example the Crosby Group Inc general catalog 2000 edition has tables showing their recommendations for their clips) Also note that OSHAs standard for rigging equipment used for material handling 29 CFR sect1926251 has a table for the number of clips required for wire rope frac12-inch and greater Although that standard does not apply to wire rope used for guardrails when you design a rope system to meet the sect1926502 requirements following those tables will normally ensure that you have enough clips
Question 2 What are the requirements for tying-off employees when a guardrail system is removed to facilitate hoisting operations 29 CFR sect1926501(b)(3) states that when guardrails are removed to facilitate hoisting operations employees who have to lean out over the edge must be tied off What about other employees who do not have to lean outmdashdo they have to be tied-off also Answer Section 1926501(b)(3) states that each employee in a hoist area shall be protected from falls of 6 feet or more by guardrail systems or personal fall arrest systems It also states
that If guardrail systems are removed to facilitate the hoisting operation (eg during landing of materials) and an employee must lean through the access opening or out over the edge of the access opening (to receive or guide equipment and materials for example) that employee shall be protected from fall hazards by a personal fall arrest system (59 FR 40710)
You ask if this means that the only employees who must use fall protection when the guardrails are removed are those who must lean out The answer is no the first sentence of sect1926501(d)(3) requires that all employees in the hoist area be protected by either a guardrail or personal fall arrest system So when all or part of a guardrail has been removed all
employees must be protected by a personal fall arrest system The last sentence of sect1926501(d)(3) which states that employees who must lean out must be protected with personal fall arrest equipment did not create an exception for employees with no need to lean out The requirement that these employees also be protected is reflected in sect1926502(d)(24) It specifically provides that fall arrest systems in hoist areas be rigged to prevent employees from leaning past the edge when a personal fall arrest system is used at hoist areas it shall be rigged to allow the movement of the employee only as far as the edge of the walkingworking surface The Agency explained in the preamble to subpart M that this provision was promulgated to eliminate the tendency for employees to lean out over the edge at
hoist areas (see volume 59 No152 of the Federal Register page 40685 August 9 1994) Although inartfully drafted the purpose of the last sentence of sect1926501(b)(3) is to require that personal fall arrest equipment be used even when the necessity of leaning out makes compliance with sect1926502(d)(24) infeasible If you need additional information please contact us by fax at US Department of Labor OSHA Directorate of Construction Office of Construction Standards and Guidance fax 202-693-1689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving
correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
August 28 2000
MEMORANDUM FOR Ed Kassak
David Herstedt Region VIII
FROM Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
This memorandum responds to your fax dated May 7 1999 in which you ask for assistance in
responding to the Concrete Frame Association(CFA)s letter of May 4 1999 We apologize for the long delay in responding CFA asked whether the fall protection requirements of 29 CFR 1926 Subpart L apply when employees are working from a concrete formwork platform in two scenarios CFA believes that during the erection of individual formwork components of an integrated floor system such as beams drop panels joists and slab panels Subpart L should apply (see scenario submitted by CFA below) At that point workers stand and walk on the individual formwork components In its view Subpart M applies only once the components are tied together and become a continuous
integrated floor system (not pictured) CFA states that in the pictured scenario general contractors are requiring employees to tie-off with personal fall arrest systems They assert that their shoring platform is only about 85 feet above the ground level and that if a fall were to occur it would not be arrested prior to the employee contacting the level below
Which standard applies Subpart M or Subpart L
Classification of the formworkshoring as a walkingworking surface under Subpart M or as a work platform under Subpart L is significant because these standards have different thresholds for requiring fall protection As you know Subpart M requires employees to be protected from falls of 6 feet or more (29 CFR 1926501(b)(1)) It defines a walkingworking surface to mean in part any surface whether horizontal or vertical on which an employee walks or works including but not limited to floors roofs ramps bridges runways formwork and concrete reinforcing steel [emphasis added]
Section 501(b)(1) requires that employees on a walkingworking surface (horizontal and vertical surface) with an unprotected side or edge must be protected Therefore where that walkingworking surface is formwork the employee must be protected Section 1926501(b)(2) requires fall protection for employees constructing leading edges That term is defined in sect500(b) as the edge of a floor roof or formwork for a floor or other walkingworking surface
(such as the deck) which changes location as additional floor roof decking or formwork sections are placed formed or constructed [emphasis added] Therefore under sect501(b)(2) employees constructing formwork leading edges must be protected in accordance with that section Finally sect501(b)(5) requires that employees on the face of formwork must be protected under Subpart M as well OSHAs scaffold standard 29 CFR 1926 Subpart L does not require fall protection for employees until they are exposed to falls in excess of 10 feet as specified in sect1926451(g) Subpart L defines a scaffold to mean any temporary elevated platform (supported or suspended) and its supporting
structure (including points of anchorage) used for supporting employees or materials or both Subpart L addresses formwork in sect1926450(b) under the definition of form scaffold which is defined as a supported scaffold consisting of a platform supported by brackets attached to formwork In the preamble to Subpart L the Agency stated that this type of scaffold is similar to a carpenters bracket scaffold and a top plate bracket scaffold (volume 61 of the Federal Register No 170 page 46033 August 30 1996) Therefore when an employee is supported by a device that attaches to the formwork the scaffold standard applies The scaffold standard would also apply where the formwork is not erected for use as formwork but instead is being
used only as a substitute for scaffold components Otherwise Subpart M applies when an employee stands on the face or the top of the formwork In the two situations described by CFA -- where employees are walking and working on individual formwork sections and on sections joined together Subpart M is the most specifically applicable standard It specifically covers formwork in its definition of walkingworking surfaces and the employees in the submitted scenario are not working on form scaffolds Therefore the requirements of Subpart M apply irrespective of whether the formwork sections stand alone or are joined into an integrated system1 Fall Arrest Distances CFA asserts that the personal fall arrest systems being used by workers on the formwork would not arrest falls at heights of about 8 feet We note that the fall arrest distance is determined by many factors and that there are often ways to rig systems to limit falls to very short distances
For the narrow walkingworking surface pictured above (see right side of illustration) guardrails may be the most useful approach Please feel free to contact us if you need further clarification on this issue
May 21 2003 Ms Deborah Caldwell 5071 Butler Rd Caldwell Electrical Contractors
Gainesville Georgia 30506 Re Ladders fall protection working on top of equipment Dear Ms Caldwell This is in response to your letter of November 22 2002 in which you ask for guidance regarding OSHAs fall protection requirements for construction work We apologize for the delay in providing this response
We have paraphrased your question as follows Question Scenario to complete a construction project a worker places a portable ladder on top of a piece of equipment or on the roof of a structure that is inside a large building The top of the equipment or structure is at least 10 x 10 and at least 10 above the ground It is stable level and sufficiently strong to support the loads imposed by the worker materials and tools needed for the job The worker will then do the construction task while on the ladder Is fall protection required for this worker
Answer We will answer your question in two parts first with respect to whether fall protection is required for a worker while on the surfaces you describe second with respect to whether fall protection is required while the worker is on the ladder 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart M (Fall protection) contains fall protection requirements for protecting an employee working on walkingworking surface (sect1926501(b)(1)) A walkingworking surface is defined in sect1926500(b) as follows Any surface whether horizontal or vertical on which an employee walks or works including but
not limited to floors roofs ramps bridges runways formwork and concrete reinforcing steel but not ladders vehicles or trailers on which employees must be located in order to perform their duties The 10 x 10 top surface of the equipment and the roof the structure that is inside the large building both meet this definition and would be considered a walkingworking surface The requirements of Subpart M would apply to a worker who is on those surfaces Section 1926501(b)(1) states Unprotected sides and edges Each employee on a walkingworking surface (horizontal and vertical surface) with an unprotected side or edge which is 6 feet or more above a lower level
shall be protected from falling by the use of guardrail systems safety net systems or personal fall arrest systems Since these surfaces are at or over 6 feet above the next lowest level fall protection is required while the worker is on those surfaces Fall protection can be accomplished by using guardrails a personal fall arrest system a fall restraint device or safety net system However with respect to fall protection requirements for a worker on the ladder sect1926500(a)(2)(vii) states Requirements relating to fall protection for employees working on stairways and ladders are
provided in Subpart X Subpart X (29 CFR 19261050 et seq) does not require fall protection for a worker on a portable ladder Therefore no additional fall protection is required while the worker is on the ladder The fact that the ladder is on either of the surfaces you describe rather than on the ground does not
alter this conclusion Recommendation Although not an OSHA requirement we recommend the use of a scaffold scissor lift or aerial device instead of a ladder in the scenario you describe where practicable
If you have further concerns or questions please feel free to contact us again by fax at US Department of Labor OSHA Directorate of Construction [Office of Construction Standards and Guidance] fax 202-693-1689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely
Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
March 12 2004 Mr Randy Stahl Safety Manager Korellis Roofing Inc
1333 169th Street Hammond IN 46324-2008 Re Is fall protection required during small roofing repairs that take minimal time to complete Dear Mr Stahl This is in response to your letter dated December 16 2003 to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) We have paraphrased your question as follows
Question 1 Scenario We do roofing inspections in order to identify where repairs are needed on pre-existing roofing systems Often the repairs needed are small in scale and worker exposure to a fall hazard is minimal in terms of time The fall hazard exposure time for the installation and removal of fall protection systems from the roof exceeds the exposure time for completing these roofing repair jobs In this circumstance in non-residential roofing work is fall protection required by 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart M
Answer First Part 1926 Subpart M does not require fall protection for those conducting the initial inspection of the roof to determine what work needs to be done Section 1926500(a) states This subpart sets forth requirements and criteria for fall protection in construction workplaces covered under 29 CFR Part 1926 Exception The provisions of this subpart do not apply when employees are making an inspection investigation or assessment of workplace conditions prior to the actual start of construction work or after all construction work has been completed [Emphasis added] With regard to fall protection requirements applicable to the construction work itself
sect1926501(b)(10) (low slope roofs) requires conventional fall protection a combination of a monitoring system and warning line or on roofs of 50 feet or less in width a monitoring system alone (ie without a warning line) be used Under the standard the requirement for fall protection for this work does not depend on the duration of the fall hazard exposure In contrast the Agency found in the rulemaking that the short duration of hazard exposure was part of the basis for creating the exception for the inspection-only activity But another basis for the exception was the concept that in inspections before and after the work is done there is no on-going construction work to divert the inspectors attention from the fall hazard Once there is construction activity the risk goes up by virtue of that diversion of attention Consequently in
the preamble to the rule OSHA stated that the exception does not apply if the inspection activity takes place at the same time the construction work is on-going [I]f inspections are made while construction operations are underway all employees who are exposed to fall hazards while performing inspections must be protected as required by Subpart M1 Therefore apart from inspections the Agency in the rulemaking rejected short duration of the exposure as an exception to the fall protection requirement for construction work Note though that the use of warning lines without a monitor is acceptable where the warning
lines are at least 15 feet back from the edge and all of the following are met (1) A warning line is used 15 feet or more from the edge (or nearest edge of a hole) (2) The warning line meets or exceeds the requirements in sect1926502(f)(2) (3) No work or work-related activity is to take place in the area between the warning line and the
hole or edge and (4) The employer effectively implements a work rule prohibiting the employees from going past the warning line2 If you need additional information please contact us by fax (202-693-1689) at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance You can also contact us by mail
at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
April 17 2006
MEMORANDUM FOR Kenneth Gereke
Regional Administrator Region III
ATTN John McFee Construction Coordinator Region III
FROM Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
SUBJECT Guardrail height requirements for construction activities in General Industry Facilities
This is in response to your e-mail submitted April 7 2005 You ask for compliance guidance with regard to the application of Subpart M Fall Protection requirements for construction activities in a General Industry facility We apologize for the long delay in providing this response
We have paraphrased your question as follows Question Scenario Employees are engaged in construction activities on a walkingworking surface at a General Industry worksite The guardrails on that site have a top rail that is 36 inches from the walkingworking surface Under OSHA Directive STD 01-01-010 and subsequent proposed rulemaking the use of such a guardrail by General Industry employees is only a technical violation of the General Industry standard 29 CFR 191023(e)(1) which otherwise requires a nominal vertical height of 42 inches
Would the construction employer be in violation of sect1926502(b)(1) (Subpart M) of the construction standards which requires the use of guardrails with a top rail that is 39 to 45 inches above the walkingworking surface level Answer Yes it would be a violation of Subpart M if construction work were performed on an elevated walkingworking surface that is guarded by a permanent guardrail system with a 36-inch top rail even though that top rail height is permitted for General Industry work under STD 01-01-010
Background Section 191023(e)(1) (Subpart D mdash Walking-Working Surfaces) of the General Industry standards states Railing toe boards and cover specifications (1) A standard railing shall consist of top rail intermediate rail and posts and shall have a vertical height of 42 inches nominal from upper surface of top rail to floor platform runway or ramp level [Emphasis added] However OSHA Directive STD-01-01-010 mdash Height of Guardrails in General Industry Applications notes
C Action OSHA Regional AdministratorsArea Directors shall classify technical violations of 29 CFR 191023(e)(1) as de minimis violations where the employer has provided guardrails which meet the following specifications (1) Existing guardrailing shall consist of a top rail intermediate rail and posts or equivalent and shall have a minimum vertical height of 36 inches to 44 inches from the upper surface of the top rail to the floor platform runway or ramp level [Emphasis added] E Background A Field Information Memorandum was previously issued regarding the
height of guardrails The intended revision [of Subpart D of 29 CFR 1910] is not yet available therefore to provide equitable enforcement which does not place unnecessary cost burdens upon employers or have a direct or immediate effect upon the safety or health of employees this instruction reissues the previous policy 1 In addition under General Industrys proposed rule on Walking and Working Surfaces (55
Federal Register 13360) guardrail systems with top rails that are 36 inches in height would similarly be grandfathered2 In support of that provision OSHA noted in the preamble that continuing to tolerate the use of guardrails as low as 36 inches (91 cm) would not unacceptably reduce employee protection and that the hazard to which to which employees would be exposed in replacing those guardrails would be greater than that from allowing the existing guardrails to remain in place (55 Federal Register 13374) [Emphasis added] The applicable construction provision sect1926502(b)(1) (Subpart M-Fall Protection) provides in part Guardrail systems Guardrail systems and their use shall comply with the following provisions
(1) Top edge height of top rails or equivalent guardrail system members shall be 42 inches (11 m) plus or minus 3 inches (8 cm) above the walkingworking level [Emphasis added] AnalysisConclusion The General Industry directive permits the use of existing permanently-installed guardrails that have a 36-inch top rail The rationale for that policy as reflected in the preamble for General Industrys proposed rule on Walking and Working Surfaces is that employee safety is not compromised by the use of such existing permanent guardrails and employee exposure to fall hazards would be increased by requiring the replacement of these guardrails
In contrast construction activities often include carrying tools and materials that are heavy awkward to handle and in the case of large materials can sometimes block the employees view In addition unlike the general industry employer a construction employer is not faced with the choice of leaving the permanent guardrails in place or replacing them Instead because construction work is by its nature temporary construction employers typically install temporary guardrails These guardrail systems are designed for temporary use under varied worksite conditions
For example some of these systems would allow a construction employer to erect a temporary guardrail system adjacent to the permanent guardrail system or to attach a temporary top rail to the permanent guardrail system to meet the applicable requirements in Subpart M In addition unlike the permanent guardrail systems in and on structures addressed in STD 01-01-010 these temporary guardrail systems are designed to facilitate repeated installation and removal Consequently the concerns regarding unjustified additional hazard exposure involved in replacing permanent guardrails is not applicable to the construction employees in your scenario In sum when a construction employer protects its employees from falls with a guardrail system that guardrail system must meet the requirements in sect1926502(b) including the top rail height
requirement in sect1926501(b)(1) even where there is a permanent guardrail with a 36-inch top rail that pursuant to STD 01-01-010 is acceptable for General Industry work If you need additional assistance please contact us by fax or e-mail
1 It is our understanding that STD-01-01-010 was adopted in light of pre-OSHA General Industry practices Specifically in the Preamble of a proposed rulemaking for General Industrys Walking and Working Surfaces standard (Volume 55 of the Federal Register page 13373 (Apr 10 1999)) OSHA offered the following explanation OSHA issued the directive because it recognized that employers with guardrails as low as 36 inches (91 cm) might have installed their systems in compliance with pre-OSHA
building codes The Agency was also concerned that employers would be unreasonably burdened by the cost of replacing their guardrail systems with new guardrail systems that were a nominal 42 inches (11 m) high
December 18 2003 Mr Michael Wright PE Managing Principal LJB Inc
3100 Research Boulevard PO Box 20246 Dayton OH 45420-0246 Re Inspection of personal fall arrest systems competent person fall protection plans sect1926501(b)(2) (12) and (13) sect1926502(c)(4) and (d)(20) and (21) and sect1926503(a)(2) Dear Mr Wright This is in response to your letter dated August 4 2003 faxed to the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) asking for clarification on a number of issues regarding OSHAs construction industry standards for fall protection My staff discussed and resolved some of your questions with you over the telephone We have paraphrased the remainder of your questions as follows Question (1) How often must a construction employer inspect hisher employees personal fall arrest systems (PFAS) Would formal inspections performed once annually be the maximum amount of time permitted between inspections
Answer Paragraph (d)(21) of sect1926502 addresses the inspection of personal fall arrest systems (PFAS) as follows sect1926502 Fall protection systems criteria and practices (d) Personal fall arrest systems (21) Personal fall arrest systems shall be inspected prior to each use for wear damage and other deterioration and defective components shall be removed from service
Note that in the preamble to the final rule (at volume 59 of the Federal Register pages 40709-40710 August 9 1994 excerpted below) OSHA stated that weekly inspections would not be sufficient to guard against the use of defective equipment Leading to promulgation of final rule sect1926502(d)(21) the Agency specifically sought comments on the frequency of inspection for fall protection equipment in separate issues [9 and 17] as part of the proposed rule Based on the rulemaking record OSHA did not amend the language in the proposed rule regarding the frequency of inspections of PFAS to set out a time frame Some pertinent portions of that preamble discussion are as follows Paragraph (d)(21) (proposed as paragraph (d)(20)) requires that personal fall arrest systems be
inspected prior to each use for damage and deterioration and that defective components be removed from service This provision is essentially identical to the proposed provision in sect1926502(d)(20) OSHA raised Issues 9 and 17 in the proposal to request public comment regarding the frequency of inspection and whether or not more definitive inspection criteria were needed for determining when personal fall arrest systems (or positioning device systems as regulated in paragraph (e)(5) below) are no longer suitable for use OSHA also asked commenters what inspection criteria should be specified
The majority of the commenters thought the criteria provided in the standard were sufficient as proposed (Exs 2-12 2-19 2-23 2-43 and 2-45)hellip The GLFEA and the BCMALU (Exs 2-19 and 2-46) thought inspection should be weekly rather
than prior to each use The GLFEA supported its position with the statement that A more frequent schedule does not enhance the safety of the employees Essentially there was no objection to the substance of the rule only disagreement on the frequency of inspection OSHA believes it is critical to inspect equipment before each use otherwise employees may use defective equipment which could result in loss of life in the event of a fall Therefore OSHA has
not reduced the frequency of inspection and has determined that the provision as proposed is appropriate Further information on inspection criteria has been provided in paragraph (g) Inspection considerations in Part II of Appendix C relating to sect1926502(d) -- Personal Fall Arrest Systems OSHA also notes that this provision is consistent with the inspection requirements for personal fall arrest systems in the powered platforms standard sect191066 Therefore annual inspections instead of inspections prior to each use would violate sect1926502(d)(21) Question (2) Does Part 1926 Subpart M require that personal fall arrest systems be inspected
by a competent person Answer The inspection of personal fall arrest systems required in sect1926502(d)(21) does not have to be performed by a competent person1 However sect1926503(a)(2) states The employer shall assure that each employee has been trained as necessary by a competent person qualified in the following areas
(ii) The correct procedures for inspecting the fall protection systems to be used Therefore under sectsect1926502(d)(21) and 1926503(a)(2)(ii) the equipment must be inspected prior to each use by an employee who has been trained by a competent person to do the inspection Also under sect1926502(d)(19) a competent person must inspect personal fall arrest equipment to determine that personal fall arrest systems and components subjected to impact loading are undamaged and suitable for reuse2
Personal fall arrest systems and components subjected to impact loading shall be immediately removed from service and shall not be used again for employee protection until inspected and determined by a competent person to be undamaged and suitable for reuse Question (3) Before any employee is permitted to work at heights that would require the use of a written fall protection plan must a preplanning meeting be conducted to prepare a written rescue plan Answer Under sect1926501(b) employees doing construction work at a height of 6 feet or more above lower levels must be protected from falls However Subpart M does not require a fall protection
plan unless the employer is using alternative fall protection methods to protect employees performing leading-edge work precast concrete erection or residential construction (sect1926501(b)(2)(i) (12) and (13) respectively) Those three provisions allow employers engaged in the work specified to develop and implement a fall protection plan that uses alternative fall protection methods if they can demonstrate the infeasibility of conventional fall protection3 The three provisions [sect1926501(b)(2)(i) (12) and (13)] read as follows sect1926501 Duty to have fall protection (b)(1)
(2) Leading edges (i) Each employee who is constructing a leading edge 6 feet (18 m) or more above lower levels shall be protected from falling by guardrail systems safety net systems or personal fall arrest systems Exception When the employer can demonstrate that it is infeasible or creates a greater hazard to use these systems the employer shall develop and implement a
fall protection plan which meets the requirements of paragraph (k) of sect1926502 Note There is a presumption that it is feasible and will not create a greater hazard to implement at least one of the above-listed fall protection systems Accordingly the employer has the burden of establishing that it is appropriate to implement a fall protection plan which complies with sect1926502(k) for a particular workplace situation in lieu of implementing any of those
systems (12) Precast concrete erection Each employee engaged in the erection of precast concrete members (including but not limited to the erection of wall panels columns beams and floor and roof tees) and related operations such as grouting of precast concrete members who is 6 feet (18 m) or more above lower levels shall be protected from falling by guardrail systems safety net systems or personal fall arrest systems unless another provision in paragraph (b) of this section provides for an alternative fall protection measure Exception When the employer can demonstrate that it is infeasible or creates a greater hazard to use these systems the employer shall develop and implement a fall protection plan which meets the requirements of
paragraph (k) of sect1926502 (13) Residential construction Each employee engaged in residential construction activities 6 feet (18 m) or more above lower levels shall be protected by guardrail systems safety net system or personal fall arrest system unless another provision in paragraph (b) of this section provides for an alternative fall protection measure Exception When the employer can demonstrate that it is infeasible or creates a greater hazard to use these systems the employer shall develop and implement a fall protection plan which meets the requirements of paragraph (k) of sect1926502 As stated in the three provisions above sect1926502(k) sets out specific requirements for fall protection plans however sect1926502(k) does not require preplanning meetings4 Question (4) Does OSHAs provision for prompt rescue from personal fall arrest systems in the event of a fall require the use of a written plan What constitutes prompt
Answer With regard to rescuing employees from personal fall arrest systems the provision in Subpart M that addresses this is sect1926502(d)(20) which states sect1926502 Fall protection systems criteria and practices (d) Personal fall arrest systems (20) The employer shall provide for prompt rescue of employees in the event of a fall or shall assure that employees are able to rescue themselves As explained in interpretation letters to J Nigel Ellis (May 11 1999) and Charles Hill (August 14 2000) the particular hazard that sect1926502(d)(20) addresses is being suspended by the fall arrest system after an arrested fall In the Hill letter we stated Prompt rescue as required under sect1926502(d)(20) is not defined in the standard The particular hazard that sect1926502(d)(20) addresses is being suspended by the fall arrest system after a fall While an employee may be safely suspended in a body harness for a longer period than from a body belt the word prompt requires that rescue be performed quickly -- in time to prevent serious injury to the worker
You note that electrical utility and telecommunications workers sometimes work alone and that the employees status is maintained through normal work rules and operating procedures We recognize that there are a wide range of variables and circumstances between worksites The standard requires that to the extent feasible a reliable system be in place to ensure that rescue will be prompt Precisely what is required to comply with this provision in a remote location will depend on what is feasible under the particular circumstances The range of feasible options available in remote locations may be more limited than in more populated areas
Note that sect1926502(d)(20) does not require that a written rescue plan be prepared or that a preplanning event be held If you need additional information please contact us by fax at US Department of Labor OSHA [Directorate of Construction Office of Construction Standards and Guidance] fax 202-693-
1689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
November 15 2002 Mr Keith Harkins Safety Manager LinbeckKennedy amp Rossi
One Maguire Road Lexington Ma 02421 Re Whether a warning line at 6 feet used to protect roofing workers may also be used to meet fall protection requirements for HVAC construction workers sect1926502(b) Dear Mr Harkins This is in response to your letter dated June 10 2002 to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requesting clarification on the use of fall protection systems for
employees other than roofers working on low slope roofs I apologize for the delay in answering your inquiry We have paraphrased your questions 1 as follows Question (1) Scenario multiple trades - roofers as well as mechanical trades - are working on a low slope roof Under sect1926501(b)(10) the roofers can comply with fall protection requirements by using a warning line 6 feet from the edge In accordance with OSHAs August 1 2000 letter to Mr Mark Troxell the mechanical trades who are installing HVAC equipment can work without personal fall protection as long as they stay inside a warning line 15 feet from the edge Since both roofers and mechanical trades are working on the roof at the same time is it
permissible in this situation for the mechanical trades to use the roofers warning line that is 6 feet from the edge We would require the mechanical trades to be trained and required to use fall protection if they were to work between the warning line and the edge Also the warning line would comply with the criteria requirements in sect1926502(f) Is this acceptable Answer As explained below the answer is no Background
OSHAs fall protection standard for construction 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart M (beginning at sect1926500) generally requires fall protection when there is a fall distance of 6 feet or more In a few very specific situations (low-slope roof work some leading-edge work precast concrete erection and residential construction see sect1926501(b)(2) (12) and (13)) because of feasibility limitations the standard permits the use of a warning line in combination with other measures instead of conventional fall protection (guardrail systems personal fall arrest systems or safety net systems) to keep employees away from an edge Installation of HVAC equipment does not fall within the categories listed ie leading-edge work precast concrete erection or residential construction Therefore the warning line at the 6-foot
option does not apply As explained in the August 1 2000 Troxell letter where certain conditions are met the use of a warning line 15 feet back from the edge will be considered a de minimis violation of the guardrail criteria in sect1926502(b) The conditions that must be met for the application of this policy are as follows
1 A warning line is used 15 feet or more from the edge
2 The warning line meets or exceeds the requirements in sect1926502(f)(2) 3 No work or work-related activity is to take place in the area between the warning line and
the edge and
4 The employer effectively implements a work rule prohibiting the employees from going past the warning line
Therefore where these conditions are met you may use a warning line 15 feet back from the edge to protect the HVAC workers Applying the policy to your mixed-trades scenario The fact that the HVAC workers are working on the roof at the same time as the roofing workers does not alter the fact that the standard does not permit the HVAC workers to rely on a warning line at 6 feet from the edge for fall protection If you believe that use of two warning lines - one at 6 feet and one at 15 feet -- would be confusing or otherwise unworkable you can protect the
HVAC workers with conventional fall protection equipment and dispense with the 15-feet warning line If you need further clarification on this subject please contact us by fax at US Department of Labor Directorate of Construction [Office of Construction Standards and Guidance] 202-6931689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue N W Washington DC 20210 although due to continuing anthrax decontamination procedures there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence Sincerely
Russell B Swanson Directorate of Construction Enclosure
August 28 2000 Mr Mark Troxell Construction Team Leader The PMA Insurance Group
107 Ponderosa Drive Blandon PA 19510 Re 1926501(b)(3) and 1926502(b) Dear Mr Troxell This responds to your June 1 1999 letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requesting information on wire rope and Crosby clips used around the perimeter of buildings as a guardrail You also requested clarification on when employees must tie-off when a
guardrail system is removed to facilitate hoisting operations We apologize for the long delay in providing this response Question 1 How many Crosby clips are required to be used when setting up a wire rope guardrail Is it permissible to splice two wire ropes by overlapping or must the connections be turned back into eyelets and properly secured Answer For construction work covered by 29 CFR 1926 Subpart M sect1926502(b) sets forth the criteria that must be met when using wire rope as a guardrail The standard requires guardrails
to meet several specific criteria For example 1926502(b)(3) states that the guardrail shall be capable of withstanding without failure a force of at least 200 pounds applied within 2 inches of the top edge in any outward or downward direction at any point along the top edge Section 1926502(b)(4) states that when the 200 pound test load noted in sect1926502(b)(3) is applied in a downward direction the top edge of the guardrail shall not deflect to a height less than 39 inches above the walkingworking level Section 1926502(b)(9) states that the top rail and mid-rails shall be at least frac14-inch nominal diameter or thickness to prevent cuts and lacerations These and other criteria must be met when using wire rope as a guardrail around the perimeter of a building
The OSHA standard does not specify a minimum number of clips when using wire rope as a guardrail However as a practical matter it is unlikely you could meet the specific requirements under sect1926502(b) unless you follow the manufacturers recommendations for the number of clips to be used on wire ropes of different diameters (for example the Crosby Group Inc general catalog 2000 edition has tables showing their recommendations for their clips) Also note that OSHAs standard for rigging equipment used for material handling 29 CFR sect1926251 has a table for the number of clips required for wire rope frac12-inch and greater Although that standard does not apply to wire rope used for guardrails when you design a rope system to meet the sect1926502 requirements following those tables will normally ensure that you have enough clips
Question 2 What are the requirements for tying-off employees when a guardrail system is removed to facilitate hoisting operations 29 CFR sect1926501(b)(3) states that when guardrails are removed to facilitate hoisting operations employees who have to lean out over the edge must be tied off What about other employees who do not have to lean outmdashdo they have to be tied-off also Answer Section 1926501(b)(3) states that each employee in a hoist area shall be protected from falls of 6 feet or more by guardrail systems or personal fall arrest systems It also states
that If guardrail systems are removed to facilitate the hoisting operation (eg during landing of materials) and an employee must lean through the access opening or out over the edge of the access opening (to receive or guide equipment and materials for example) that employee shall be protected from fall hazards by a personal fall arrest system (59 FR 40710)
You ask if this means that the only employees who must use fall protection when the guardrails are removed are those who must lean out The answer is no the first sentence of sect1926501(d)(3) requires that all employees in the hoist area be protected by either a guardrail or personal fall arrest system So when all or part of a guardrail has been removed all
employees must be protected by a personal fall arrest system The last sentence of sect1926501(d)(3) which states that employees who must lean out must be protected with personal fall arrest equipment did not create an exception for employees with no need to lean out The requirement that these employees also be protected is reflected in sect1926502(d)(24) It specifically provides that fall arrest systems in hoist areas be rigged to prevent employees from leaning past the edge when a personal fall arrest system is used at hoist areas it shall be rigged to allow the movement of the employee only as far as the edge of the walkingworking surface The Agency explained in the preamble to subpart M that this provision was promulgated to eliminate the tendency for employees to lean out over the edge at
hoist areas (see volume 59 No152 of the Federal Register page 40685 August 9 1994) Although inartfully drafted the purpose of the last sentence of sect1926501(b)(3) is to require that personal fall arrest equipment be used even when the necessity of leaning out makes compliance with sect1926502(d)(24) infeasible If you need additional information please contact us by fax at US Department of Labor OSHA Directorate of Construction Office of Construction Standards and Guidance fax 202-693-1689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving
correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
August 28 2000
MEMORANDUM FOR Ed Kassak
David Herstedt Region VIII
FROM Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
This memorandum responds to your fax dated May 7 1999 in which you ask for assistance in
responding to the Concrete Frame Association(CFA)s letter of May 4 1999 We apologize for the long delay in responding CFA asked whether the fall protection requirements of 29 CFR 1926 Subpart L apply when employees are working from a concrete formwork platform in two scenarios CFA believes that during the erection of individual formwork components of an integrated floor system such as beams drop panels joists and slab panels Subpart L should apply (see scenario submitted by CFA below) At that point workers stand and walk on the individual formwork components In its view Subpart M applies only once the components are tied together and become a continuous
integrated floor system (not pictured) CFA states that in the pictured scenario general contractors are requiring employees to tie-off with personal fall arrest systems They assert that their shoring platform is only about 85 feet above the ground level and that if a fall were to occur it would not be arrested prior to the employee contacting the level below
Which standard applies Subpart M or Subpart L
Classification of the formworkshoring as a walkingworking surface under Subpart M or as a work platform under Subpart L is significant because these standards have different thresholds for requiring fall protection As you know Subpart M requires employees to be protected from falls of 6 feet or more (29 CFR 1926501(b)(1)) It defines a walkingworking surface to mean in part any surface whether horizontal or vertical on which an employee walks or works including but not limited to floors roofs ramps bridges runways formwork and concrete reinforcing steel [emphasis added]
Section 501(b)(1) requires that employees on a walkingworking surface (horizontal and vertical surface) with an unprotected side or edge must be protected Therefore where that walkingworking surface is formwork the employee must be protected Section 1926501(b)(2) requires fall protection for employees constructing leading edges That term is defined in sect500(b) as the edge of a floor roof or formwork for a floor or other walkingworking surface
(such as the deck) which changes location as additional floor roof decking or formwork sections are placed formed or constructed [emphasis added] Therefore under sect501(b)(2) employees constructing formwork leading edges must be protected in accordance with that section Finally sect501(b)(5) requires that employees on the face of formwork must be protected under Subpart M as well OSHAs scaffold standard 29 CFR 1926 Subpart L does not require fall protection for employees until they are exposed to falls in excess of 10 feet as specified in sect1926451(g) Subpart L defines a scaffold to mean any temporary elevated platform (supported or suspended) and its supporting
structure (including points of anchorage) used for supporting employees or materials or both Subpart L addresses formwork in sect1926450(b) under the definition of form scaffold which is defined as a supported scaffold consisting of a platform supported by brackets attached to formwork In the preamble to Subpart L the Agency stated that this type of scaffold is similar to a carpenters bracket scaffold and a top plate bracket scaffold (volume 61 of the Federal Register No 170 page 46033 August 30 1996) Therefore when an employee is supported by a device that attaches to the formwork the scaffold standard applies The scaffold standard would also apply where the formwork is not erected for use as formwork but instead is being
used only as a substitute for scaffold components Otherwise Subpart M applies when an employee stands on the face or the top of the formwork In the two situations described by CFA -- where employees are walking and working on individual formwork sections and on sections joined together Subpart M is the most specifically applicable standard It specifically covers formwork in its definition of walkingworking surfaces and the employees in the submitted scenario are not working on form scaffolds Therefore the requirements of Subpart M apply irrespective of whether the formwork sections stand alone or are joined into an integrated system1 Fall Arrest Distances CFA asserts that the personal fall arrest systems being used by workers on the formwork would not arrest falls at heights of about 8 feet We note that the fall arrest distance is determined by many factors and that there are often ways to rig systems to limit falls to very short distances
For the narrow walkingworking surface pictured above (see right side of illustration) guardrails may be the most useful approach Please feel free to contact us if you need further clarification on this issue
May 21 2003 Ms Deborah Caldwell 5071 Butler Rd Caldwell Electrical Contractors
Gainesville Georgia 30506 Re Ladders fall protection working on top of equipment Dear Ms Caldwell This is in response to your letter of November 22 2002 in which you ask for guidance regarding OSHAs fall protection requirements for construction work We apologize for the delay in providing this response
We have paraphrased your question as follows Question Scenario to complete a construction project a worker places a portable ladder on top of a piece of equipment or on the roof of a structure that is inside a large building The top of the equipment or structure is at least 10 x 10 and at least 10 above the ground It is stable level and sufficiently strong to support the loads imposed by the worker materials and tools needed for the job The worker will then do the construction task while on the ladder Is fall protection required for this worker
Answer We will answer your question in two parts first with respect to whether fall protection is required for a worker while on the surfaces you describe second with respect to whether fall protection is required while the worker is on the ladder 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart M (Fall protection) contains fall protection requirements for protecting an employee working on walkingworking surface (sect1926501(b)(1)) A walkingworking surface is defined in sect1926500(b) as follows Any surface whether horizontal or vertical on which an employee walks or works including but
not limited to floors roofs ramps bridges runways formwork and concrete reinforcing steel but not ladders vehicles or trailers on which employees must be located in order to perform their duties The 10 x 10 top surface of the equipment and the roof the structure that is inside the large building both meet this definition and would be considered a walkingworking surface The requirements of Subpart M would apply to a worker who is on those surfaces Section 1926501(b)(1) states Unprotected sides and edges Each employee on a walkingworking surface (horizontal and vertical surface) with an unprotected side or edge which is 6 feet or more above a lower level
shall be protected from falling by the use of guardrail systems safety net systems or personal fall arrest systems Since these surfaces are at or over 6 feet above the next lowest level fall protection is required while the worker is on those surfaces Fall protection can be accomplished by using guardrails a personal fall arrest system a fall restraint device or safety net system However with respect to fall protection requirements for a worker on the ladder sect1926500(a)(2)(vii) states Requirements relating to fall protection for employees working on stairways and ladders are
provided in Subpart X Subpart X (29 CFR 19261050 et seq) does not require fall protection for a worker on a portable ladder Therefore no additional fall protection is required while the worker is on the ladder The fact that the ladder is on either of the surfaces you describe rather than on the ground does not
alter this conclusion Recommendation Although not an OSHA requirement we recommend the use of a scaffold scissor lift or aerial device instead of a ladder in the scenario you describe where practicable
If you have further concerns or questions please feel free to contact us again by fax at US Department of Labor OSHA Directorate of Construction [Office of Construction Standards and Guidance] fax 202-693-1689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely
Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
March 12 2004 Mr Randy Stahl Safety Manager Korellis Roofing Inc
1333 169th Street Hammond IN 46324-2008 Re Is fall protection required during small roofing repairs that take minimal time to complete Dear Mr Stahl This is in response to your letter dated December 16 2003 to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) We have paraphrased your question as follows
Question 1 Scenario We do roofing inspections in order to identify where repairs are needed on pre-existing roofing systems Often the repairs needed are small in scale and worker exposure to a fall hazard is minimal in terms of time The fall hazard exposure time for the installation and removal of fall protection systems from the roof exceeds the exposure time for completing these roofing repair jobs In this circumstance in non-residential roofing work is fall protection required by 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart M
Answer First Part 1926 Subpart M does not require fall protection for those conducting the initial inspection of the roof to determine what work needs to be done Section 1926500(a) states This subpart sets forth requirements and criteria for fall protection in construction workplaces covered under 29 CFR Part 1926 Exception The provisions of this subpart do not apply when employees are making an inspection investigation or assessment of workplace conditions prior to the actual start of construction work or after all construction work has been completed [Emphasis added] With regard to fall protection requirements applicable to the construction work itself
sect1926501(b)(10) (low slope roofs) requires conventional fall protection a combination of a monitoring system and warning line or on roofs of 50 feet or less in width a monitoring system alone (ie without a warning line) be used Under the standard the requirement for fall protection for this work does not depend on the duration of the fall hazard exposure In contrast the Agency found in the rulemaking that the short duration of hazard exposure was part of the basis for creating the exception for the inspection-only activity But another basis for the exception was the concept that in inspections before and after the work is done there is no on-going construction work to divert the inspectors attention from the fall hazard Once there is construction activity the risk goes up by virtue of that diversion of attention Consequently in
the preamble to the rule OSHA stated that the exception does not apply if the inspection activity takes place at the same time the construction work is on-going [I]f inspections are made while construction operations are underway all employees who are exposed to fall hazards while performing inspections must be protected as required by Subpart M1 Therefore apart from inspections the Agency in the rulemaking rejected short duration of the exposure as an exception to the fall protection requirement for construction work Note though that the use of warning lines without a monitor is acceptable where the warning
lines are at least 15 feet back from the edge and all of the following are met (1) A warning line is used 15 feet or more from the edge (or nearest edge of a hole) (2) The warning line meets or exceeds the requirements in sect1926502(f)(2) (3) No work or work-related activity is to take place in the area between the warning line and the
hole or edge and (4) The employer effectively implements a work rule prohibiting the employees from going past the warning line2 If you need additional information please contact us by fax (202-693-1689) at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance You can also contact us by mail
at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
April 17 2006
MEMORANDUM FOR Kenneth Gereke
Regional Administrator Region III
ATTN John McFee Construction Coordinator Region III
FROM Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
SUBJECT Guardrail height requirements for construction activities in General Industry Facilities
This is in response to your e-mail submitted April 7 2005 You ask for compliance guidance with regard to the application of Subpart M Fall Protection requirements for construction activities in a General Industry facility We apologize for the long delay in providing this response
We have paraphrased your question as follows Question Scenario Employees are engaged in construction activities on a walkingworking surface at a General Industry worksite The guardrails on that site have a top rail that is 36 inches from the walkingworking surface Under OSHA Directive STD 01-01-010 and subsequent proposed rulemaking the use of such a guardrail by General Industry employees is only a technical violation of the General Industry standard 29 CFR 191023(e)(1) which otherwise requires a nominal vertical height of 42 inches
Would the construction employer be in violation of sect1926502(b)(1) (Subpart M) of the construction standards which requires the use of guardrails with a top rail that is 39 to 45 inches above the walkingworking surface level Answer Yes it would be a violation of Subpart M if construction work were performed on an elevated walkingworking surface that is guarded by a permanent guardrail system with a 36-inch top rail even though that top rail height is permitted for General Industry work under STD 01-01-010
Background Section 191023(e)(1) (Subpart D mdash Walking-Working Surfaces) of the General Industry standards states Railing toe boards and cover specifications (1) A standard railing shall consist of top rail intermediate rail and posts and shall have a vertical height of 42 inches nominal from upper surface of top rail to floor platform runway or ramp level [Emphasis added] However OSHA Directive STD-01-01-010 mdash Height of Guardrails in General Industry Applications notes
C Action OSHA Regional AdministratorsArea Directors shall classify technical violations of 29 CFR 191023(e)(1) as de minimis violations where the employer has provided guardrails which meet the following specifications (1) Existing guardrailing shall consist of a top rail intermediate rail and posts or equivalent and shall have a minimum vertical height of 36 inches to 44 inches from the upper surface of the top rail to the floor platform runway or ramp level [Emphasis added] E Background A Field Information Memorandum was previously issued regarding the
height of guardrails The intended revision [of Subpart D of 29 CFR 1910] is not yet available therefore to provide equitable enforcement which does not place unnecessary cost burdens upon employers or have a direct or immediate effect upon the safety or health of employees this instruction reissues the previous policy 1 In addition under General Industrys proposed rule on Walking and Working Surfaces (55
Federal Register 13360) guardrail systems with top rails that are 36 inches in height would similarly be grandfathered2 In support of that provision OSHA noted in the preamble that continuing to tolerate the use of guardrails as low as 36 inches (91 cm) would not unacceptably reduce employee protection and that the hazard to which to which employees would be exposed in replacing those guardrails would be greater than that from allowing the existing guardrails to remain in place (55 Federal Register 13374) [Emphasis added] The applicable construction provision sect1926502(b)(1) (Subpart M-Fall Protection) provides in part Guardrail systems Guardrail systems and their use shall comply with the following provisions
(1) Top edge height of top rails or equivalent guardrail system members shall be 42 inches (11 m) plus or minus 3 inches (8 cm) above the walkingworking level [Emphasis added] AnalysisConclusion The General Industry directive permits the use of existing permanently-installed guardrails that have a 36-inch top rail The rationale for that policy as reflected in the preamble for General Industrys proposed rule on Walking and Working Surfaces is that employee safety is not compromised by the use of such existing permanent guardrails and employee exposure to fall hazards would be increased by requiring the replacement of these guardrails
In contrast construction activities often include carrying tools and materials that are heavy awkward to handle and in the case of large materials can sometimes block the employees view In addition unlike the general industry employer a construction employer is not faced with the choice of leaving the permanent guardrails in place or replacing them Instead because construction work is by its nature temporary construction employers typically install temporary guardrails These guardrail systems are designed for temporary use under varied worksite conditions
For example some of these systems would allow a construction employer to erect a temporary guardrail system adjacent to the permanent guardrail system or to attach a temporary top rail to the permanent guardrail system to meet the applicable requirements in Subpart M In addition unlike the permanent guardrail systems in and on structures addressed in STD 01-01-010 these temporary guardrail systems are designed to facilitate repeated installation and removal Consequently the concerns regarding unjustified additional hazard exposure involved in replacing permanent guardrails is not applicable to the construction employees in your scenario In sum when a construction employer protects its employees from falls with a guardrail system that guardrail system must meet the requirements in sect1926502(b) including the top rail height
requirement in sect1926501(b)(1) even where there is a permanent guardrail with a 36-inch top rail that pursuant to STD 01-01-010 is acceptable for General Industry work If you need additional assistance please contact us by fax or e-mail
1 It is our understanding that STD-01-01-010 was adopted in light of pre-OSHA General Industry practices Specifically in the Preamble of a proposed rulemaking for General Industrys Walking and Working Surfaces standard (Volume 55 of the Federal Register page 13373 (Apr 10 1999)) OSHA offered the following explanation OSHA issued the directive because it recognized that employers with guardrails as low as 36 inches (91 cm) might have installed their systems in compliance with pre-OSHA
building codes The Agency was also concerned that employers would be unreasonably burdened by the cost of replacing their guardrail systems with new guardrail systems that were a nominal 42 inches (11 m) high
than prior to each use The GLFEA supported its position with the statement that A more frequent schedule does not enhance the safety of the employees Essentially there was no objection to the substance of the rule only disagreement on the frequency of inspection OSHA believes it is critical to inspect equipment before each use otherwise employees may use defective equipment which could result in loss of life in the event of a fall Therefore OSHA has
not reduced the frequency of inspection and has determined that the provision as proposed is appropriate Further information on inspection criteria has been provided in paragraph (g) Inspection considerations in Part II of Appendix C relating to sect1926502(d) -- Personal Fall Arrest Systems OSHA also notes that this provision is consistent with the inspection requirements for personal fall arrest systems in the powered platforms standard sect191066 Therefore annual inspections instead of inspections prior to each use would violate sect1926502(d)(21) Question (2) Does Part 1926 Subpart M require that personal fall arrest systems be inspected
by a competent person Answer The inspection of personal fall arrest systems required in sect1926502(d)(21) does not have to be performed by a competent person1 However sect1926503(a)(2) states The employer shall assure that each employee has been trained as necessary by a competent person qualified in the following areas
(ii) The correct procedures for inspecting the fall protection systems to be used Therefore under sectsect1926502(d)(21) and 1926503(a)(2)(ii) the equipment must be inspected prior to each use by an employee who has been trained by a competent person to do the inspection Also under sect1926502(d)(19) a competent person must inspect personal fall arrest equipment to determine that personal fall arrest systems and components subjected to impact loading are undamaged and suitable for reuse2
Personal fall arrest systems and components subjected to impact loading shall be immediately removed from service and shall not be used again for employee protection until inspected and determined by a competent person to be undamaged and suitable for reuse Question (3) Before any employee is permitted to work at heights that would require the use of a written fall protection plan must a preplanning meeting be conducted to prepare a written rescue plan Answer Under sect1926501(b) employees doing construction work at a height of 6 feet or more above lower levels must be protected from falls However Subpart M does not require a fall protection
plan unless the employer is using alternative fall protection methods to protect employees performing leading-edge work precast concrete erection or residential construction (sect1926501(b)(2)(i) (12) and (13) respectively) Those three provisions allow employers engaged in the work specified to develop and implement a fall protection plan that uses alternative fall protection methods if they can demonstrate the infeasibility of conventional fall protection3 The three provisions [sect1926501(b)(2)(i) (12) and (13)] read as follows sect1926501 Duty to have fall protection (b)(1)
(2) Leading edges (i) Each employee who is constructing a leading edge 6 feet (18 m) or more above lower levels shall be protected from falling by guardrail systems safety net systems or personal fall arrest systems Exception When the employer can demonstrate that it is infeasible or creates a greater hazard to use these systems the employer shall develop and implement a
fall protection plan which meets the requirements of paragraph (k) of sect1926502 Note There is a presumption that it is feasible and will not create a greater hazard to implement at least one of the above-listed fall protection systems Accordingly the employer has the burden of establishing that it is appropriate to implement a fall protection plan which complies with sect1926502(k) for a particular workplace situation in lieu of implementing any of those
systems (12) Precast concrete erection Each employee engaged in the erection of precast concrete members (including but not limited to the erection of wall panels columns beams and floor and roof tees) and related operations such as grouting of precast concrete members who is 6 feet (18 m) or more above lower levels shall be protected from falling by guardrail systems safety net systems or personal fall arrest systems unless another provision in paragraph (b) of this section provides for an alternative fall protection measure Exception When the employer can demonstrate that it is infeasible or creates a greater hazard to use these systems the employer shall develop and implement a fall protection plan which meets the requirements of
paragraph (k) of sect1926502 (13) Residential construction Each employee engaged in residential construction activities 6 feet (18 m) or more above lower levels shall be protected by guardrail systems safety net system or personal fall arrest system unless another provision in paragraph (b) of this section provides for an alternative fall protection measure Exception When the employer can demonstrate that it is infeasible or creates a greater hazard to use these systems the employer shall develop and implement a fall protection plan which meets the requirements of paragraph (k) of sect1926502 As stated in the three provisions above sect1926502(k) sets out specific requirements for fall protection plans however sect1926502(k) does not require preplanning meetings4 Question (4) Does OSHAs provision for prompt rescue from personal fall arrest systems in the event of a fall require the use of a written plan What constitutes prompt
Answer With regard to rescuing employees from personal fall arrest systems the provision in Subpart M that addresses this is sect1926502(d)(20) which states sect1926502 Fall protection systems criteria and practices (d) Personal fall arrest systems (20) The employer shall provide for prompt rescue of employees in the event of a fall or shall assure that employees are able to rescue themselves As explained in interpretation letters to J Nigel Ellis (May 11 1999) and Charles Hill (August 14 2000) the particular hazard that sect1926502(d)(20) addresses is being suspended by the fall arrest system after an arrested fall In the Hill letter we stated Prompt rescue as required under sect1926502(d)(20) is not defined in the standard The particular hazard that sect1926502(d)(20) addresses is being suspended by the fall arrest system after a fall While an employee may be safely suspended in a body harness for a longer period than from a body belt the word prompt requires that rescue be performed quickly -- in time to prevent serious injury to the worker
You note that electrical utility and telecommunications workers sometimes work alone and that the employees status is maintained through normal work rules and operating procedures We recognize that there are a wide range of variables and circumstances between worksites The standard requires that to the extent feasible a reliable system be in place to ensure that rescue will be prompt Precisely what is required to comply with this provision in a remote location will depend on what is feasible under the particular circumstances The range of feasible options available in remote locations may be more limited than in more populated areas
Note that sect1926502(d)(20) does not require that a written rescue plan be prepared or that a preplanning event be held If you need additional information please contact us by fax at US Department of Labor OSHA [Directorate of Construction Office of Construction Standards and Guidance] fax 202-693-
1689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
November 15 2002 Mr Keith Harkins Safety Manager LinbeckKennedy amp Rossi
One Maguire Road Lexington Ma 02421 Re Whether a warning line at 6 feet used to protect roofing workers may also be used to meet fall protection requirements for HVAC construction workers sect1926502(b) Dear Mr Harkins This is in response to your letter dated June 10 2002 to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requesting clarification on the use of fall protection systems for
employees other than roofers working on low slope roofs I apologize for the delay in answering your inquiry We have paraphrased your questions 1 as follows Question (1) Scenario multiple trades - roofers as well as mechanical trades - are working on a low slope roof Under sect1926501(b)(10) the roofers can comply with fall protection requirements by using a warning line 6 feet from the edge In accordance with OSHAs August 1 2000 letter to Mr Mark Troxell the mechanical trades who are installing HVAC equipment can work without personal fall protection as long as they stay inside a warning line 15 feet from the edge Since both roofers and mechanical trades are working on the roof at the same time is it
permissible in this situation for the mechanical trades to use the roofers warning line that is 6 feet from the edge We would require the mechanical trades to be trained and required to use fall protection if they were to work between the warning line and the edge Also the warning line would comply with the criteria requirements in sect1926502(f) Is this acceptable Answer As explained below the answer is no Background
OSHAs fall protection standard for construction 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart M (beginning at sect1926500) generally requires fall protection when there is a fall distance of 6 feet or more In a few very specific situations (low-slope roof work some leading-edge work precast concrete erection and residential construction see sect1926501(b)(2) (12) and (13)) because of feasibility limitations the standard permits the use of a warning line in combination with other measures instead of conventional fall protection (guardrail systems personal fall arrest systems or safety net systems) to keep employees away from an edge Installation of HVAC equipment does not fall within the categories listed ie leading-edge work precast concrete erection or residential construction Therefore the warning line at the 6-foot
option does not apply As explained in the August 1 2000 Troxell letter where certain conditions are met the use of a warning line 15 feet back from the edge will be considered a de minimis violation of the guardrail criteria in sect1926502(b) The conditions that must be met for the application of this policy are as follows
1 A warning line is used 15 feet or more from the edge
2 The warning line meets or exceeds the requirements in sect1926502(f)(2) 3 No work or work-related activity is to take place in the area between the warning line and
the edge and
4 The employer effectively implements a work rule prohibiting the employees from going past the warning line
Therefore where these conditions are met you may use a warning line 15 feet back from the edge to protect the HVAC workers Applying the policy to your mixed-trades scenario The fact that the HVAC workers are working on the roof at the same time as the roofing workers does not alter the fact that the standard does not permit the HVAC workers to rely on a warning line at 6 feet from the edge for fall protection If you believe that use of two warning lines - one at 6 feet and one at 15 feet -- would be confusing or otherwise unworkable you can protect the
HVAC workers with conventional fall protection equipment and dispense with the 15-feet warning line If you need further clarification on this subject please contact us by fax at US Department of Labor Directorate of Construction [Office of Construction Standards and Guidance] 202-6931689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue N W Washington DC 20210 although due to continuing anthrax decontamination procedures there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence Sincerely
Russell B Swanson Directorate of Construction Enclosure
August 28 2000 Mr Mark Troxell Construction Team Leader The PMA Insurance Group
107 Ponderosa Drive Blandon PA 19510 Re 1926501(b)(3) and 1926502(b) Dear Mr Troxell This responds to your June 1 1999 letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requesting information on wire rope and Crosby clips used around the perimeter of buildings as a guardrail You also requested clarification on when employees must tie-off when a
guardrail system is removed to facilitate hoisting operations We apologize for the long delay in providing this response Question 1 How many Crosby clips are required to be used when setting up a wire rope guardrail Is it permissible to splice two wire ropes by overlapping or must the connections be turned back into eyelets and properly secured Answer For construction work covered by 29 CFR 1926 Subpart M sect1926502(b) sets forth the criteria that must be met when using wire rope as a guardrail The standard requires guardrails
to meet several specific criteria For example 1926502(b)(3) states that the guardrail shall be capable of withstanding without failure a force of at least 200 pounds applied within 2 inches of the top edge in any outward or downward direction at any point along the top edge Section 1926502(b)(4) states that when the 200 pound test load noted in sect1926502(b)(3) is applied in a downward direction the top edge of the guardrail shall not deflect to a height less than 39 inches above the walkingworking level Section 1926502(b)(9) states that the top rail and mid-rails shall be at least frac14-inch nominal diameter or thickness to prevent cuts and lacerations These and other criteria must be met when using wire rope as a guardrail around the perimeter of a building
The OSHA standard does not specify a minimum number of clips when using wire rope as a guardrail However as a practical matter it is unlikely you could meet the specific requirements under sect1926502(b) unless you follow the manufacturers recommendations for the number of clips to be used on wire ropes of different diameters (for example the Crosby Group Inc general catalog 2000 edition has tables showing their recommendations for their clips) Also note that OSHAs standard for rigging equipment used for material handling 29 CFR sect1926251 has a table for the number of clips required for wire rope frac12-inch and greater Although that standard does not apply to wire rope used for guardrails when you design a rope system to meet the sect1926502 requirements following those tables will normally ensure that you have enough clips
Question 2 What are the requirements for tying-off employees when a guardrail system is removed to facilitate hoisting operations 29 CFR sect1926501(b)(3) states that when guardrails are removed to facilitate hoisting operations employees who have to lean out over the edge must be tied off What about other employees who do not have to lean outmdashdo they have to be tied-off also Answer Section 1926501(b)(3) states that each employee in a hoist area shall be protected from falls of 6 feet or more by guardrail systems or personal fall arrest systems It also states
that If guardrail systems are removed to facilitate the hoisting operation (eg during landing of materials) and an employee must lean through the access opening or out over the edge of the access opening (to receive or guide equipment and materials for example) that employee shall be protected from fall hazards by a personal fall arrest system (59 FR 40710)
You ask if this means that the only employees who must use fall protection when the guardrails are removed are those who must lean out The answer is no the first sentence of sect1926501(d)(3) requires that all employees in the hoist area be protected by either a guardrail or personal fall arrest system So when all or part of a guardrail has been removed all
employees must be protected by a personal fall arrest system The last sentence of sect1926501(d)(3) which states that employees who must lean out must be protected with personal fall arrest equipment did not create an exception for employees with no need to lean out The requirement that these employees also be protected is reflected in sect1926502(d)(24) It specifically provides that fall arrest systems in hoist areas be rigged to prevent employees from leaning past the edge when a personal fall arrest system is used at hoist areas it shall be rigged to allow the movement of the employee only as far as the edge of the walkingworking surface The Agency explained in the preamble to subpart M that this provision was promulgated to eliminate the tendency for employees to lean out over the edge at
hoist areas (see volume 59 No152 of the Federal Register page 40685 August 9 1994) Although inartfully drafted the purpose of the last sentence of sect1926501(b)(3) is to require that personal fall arrest equipment be used even when the necessity of leaning out makes compliance with sect1926502(d)(24) infeasible If you need additional information please contact us by fax at US Department of Labor OSHA Directorate of Construction Office of Construction Standards and Guidance fax 202-693-1689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving
correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
August 28 2000
MEMORANDUM FOR Ed Kassak
David Herstedt Region VIII
FROM Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
This memorandum responds to your fax dated May 7 1999 in which you ask for assistance in
responding to the Concrete Frame Association(CFA)s letter of May 4 1999 We apologize for the long delay in responding CFA asked whether the fall protection requirements of 29 CFR 1926 Subpart L apply when employees are working from a concrete formwork platform in two scenarios CFA believes that during the erection of individual formwork components of an integrated floor system such as beams drop panels joists and slab panels Subpart L should apply (see scenario submitted by CFA below) At that point workers stand and walk on the individual formwork components In its view Subpart M applies only once the components are tied together and become a continuous
integrated floor system (not pictured) CFA states that in the pictured scenario general contractors are requiring employees to tie-off with personal fall arrest systems They assert that their shoring platform is only about 85 feet above the ground level and that if a fall were to occur it would not be arrested prior to the employee contacting the level below
Which standard applies Subpart M or Subpart L
Classification of the formworkshoring as a walkingworking surface under Subpart M or as a work platform under Subpart L is significant because these standards have different thresholds for requiring fall protection As you know Subpart M requires employees to be protected from falls of 6 feet or more (29 CFR 1926501(b)(1)) It defines a walkingworking surface to mean in part any surface whether horizontal or vertical on which an employee walks or works including but not limited to floors roofs ramps bridges runways formwork and concrete reinforcing steel [emphasis added]
Section 501(b)(1) requires that employees on a walkingworking surface (horizontal and vertical surface) with an unprotected side or edge must be protected Therefore where that walkingworking surface is formwork the employee must be protected Section 1926501(b)(2) requires fall protection for employees constructing leading edges That term is defined in sect500(b) as the edge of a floor roof or formwork for a floor or other walkingworking surface
(such as the deck) which changes location as additional floor roof decking or formwork sections are placed formed or constructed [emphasis added] Therefore under sect501(b)(2) employees constructing formwork leading edges must be protected in accordance with that section Finally sect501(b)(5) requires that employees on the face of formwork must be protected under Subpart M as well OSHAs scaffold standard 29 CFR 1926 Subpart L does not require fall protection for employees until they are exposed to falls in excess of 10 feet as specified in sect1926451(g) Subpart L defines a scaffold to mean any temporary elevated platform (supported or suspended) and its supporting
structure (including points of anchorage) used for supporting employees or materials or both Subpart L addresses formwork in sect1926450(b) under the definition of form scaffold which is defined as a supported scaffold consisting of a platform supported by brackets attached to formwork In the preamble to Subpart L the Agency stated that this type of scaffold is similar to a carpenters bracket scaffold and a top plate bracket scaffold (volume 61 of the Federal Register No 170 page 46033 August 30 1996) Therefore when an employee is supported by a device that attaches to the formwork the scaffold standard applies The scaffold standard would also apply where the formwork is not erected for use as formwork but instead is being
used only as a substitute for scaffold components Otherwise Subpart M applies when an employee stands on the face or the top of the formwork In the two situations described by CFA -- where employees are walking and working on individual formwork sections and on sections joined together Subpart M is the most specifically applicable standard It specifically covers formwork in its definition of walkingworking surfaces and the employees in the submitted scenario are not working on form scaffolds Therefore the requirements of Subpart M apply irrespective of whether the formwork sections stand alone or are joined into an integrated system1 Fall Arrest Distances CFA asserts that the personal fall arrest systems being used by workers on the formwork would not arrest falls at heights of about 8 feet We note that the fall arrest distance is determined by many factors and that there are often ways to rig systems to limit falls to very short distances
For the narrow walkingworking surface pictured above (see right side of illustration) guardrails may be the most useful approach Please feel free to contact us if you need further clarification on this issue
May 21 2003 Ms Deborah Caldwell 5071 Butler Rd Caldwell Electrical Contractors
Gainesville Georgia 30506 Re Ladders fall protection working on top of equipment Dear Ms Caldwell This is in response to your letter of November 22 2002 in which you ask for guidance regarding OSHAs fall protection requirements for construction work We apologize for the delay in providing this response
We have paraphrased your question as follows Question Scenario to complete a construction project a worker places a portable ladder on top of a piece of equipment or on the roof of a structure that is inside a large building The top of the equipment or structure is at least 10 x 10 and at least 10 above the ground It is stable level and sufficiently strong to support the loads imposed by the worker materials and tools needed for the job The worker will then do the construction task while on the ladder Is fall protection required for this worker
Answer We will answer your question in two parts first with respect to whether fall protection is required for a worker while on the surfaces you describe second with respect to whether fall protection is required while the worker is on the ladder 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart M (Fall protection) contains fall protection requirements for protecting an employee working on walkingworking surface (sect1926501(b)(1)) A walkingworking surface is defined in sect1926500(b) as follows Any surface whether horizontal or vertical on which an employee walks or works including but
not limited to floors roofs ramps bridges runways formwork and concrete reinforcing steel but not ladders vehicles or trailers on which employees must be located in order to perform their duties The 10 x 10 top surface of the equipment and the roof the structure that is inside the large building both meet this definition and would be considered a walkingworking surface The requirements of Subpart M would apply to a worker who is on those surfaces Section 1926501(b)(1) states Unprotected sides and edges Each employee on a walkingworking surface (horizontal and vertical surface) with an unprotected side or edge which is 6 feet or more above a lower level
shall be protected from falling by the use of guardrail systems safety net systems or personal fall arrest systems Since these surfaces are at or over 6 feet above the next lowest level fall protection is required while the worker is on those surfaces Fall protection can be accomplished by using guardrails a personal fall arrest system a fall restraint device or safety net system However with respect to fall protection requirements for a worker on the ladder sect1926500(a)(2)(vii) states Requirements relating to fall protection for employees working on stairways and ladders are
provided in Subpart X Subpart X (29 CFR 19261050 et seq) does not require fall protection for a worker on a portable ladder Therefore no additional fall protection is required while the worker is on the ladder The fact that the ladder is on either of the surfaces you describe rather than on the ground does not
alter this conclusion Recommendation Although not an OSHA requirement we recommend the use of a scaffold scissor lift or aerial device instead of a ladder in the scenario you describe where practicable
If you have further concerns or questions please feel free to contact us again by fax at US Department of Labor OSHA Directorate of Construction [Office of Construction Standards and Guidance] fax 202-693-1689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely
Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
March 12 2004 Mr Randy Stahl Safety Manager Korellis Roofing Inc
1333 169th Street Hammond IN 46324-2008 Re Is fall protection required during small roofing repairs that take minimal time to complete Dear Mr Stahl This is in response to your letter dated December 16 2003 to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) We have paraphrased your question as follows
Question 1 Scenario We do roofing inspections in order to identify where repairs are needed on pre-existing roofing systems Often the repairs needed are small in scale and worker exposure to a fall hazard is minimal in terms of time The fall hazard exposure time for the installation and removal of fall protection systems from the roof exceeds the exposure time for completing these roofing repair jobs In this circumstance in non-residential roofing work is fall protection required by 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart M
Answer First Part 1926 Subpart M does not require fall protection for those conducting the initial inspection of the roof to determine what work needs to be done Section 1926500(a) states This subpart sets forth requirements and criteria for fall protection in construction workplaces covered under 29 CFR Part 1926 Exception The provisions of this subpart do not apply when employees are making an inspection investigation or assessment of workplace conditions prior to the actual start of construction work or after all construction work has been completed [Emphasis added] With regard to fall protection requirements applicable to the construction work itself
sect1926501(b)(10) (low slope roofs) requires conventional fall protection a combination of a monitoring system and warning line or on roofs of 50 feet or less in width a monitoring system alone (ie without a warning line) be used Under the standard the requirement for fall protection for this work does not depend on the duration of the fall hazard exposure In contrast the Agency found in the rulemaking that the short duration of hazard exposure was part of the basis for creating the exception for the inspection-only activity But another basis for the exception was the concept that in inspections before and after the work is done there is no on-going construction work to divert the inspectors attention from the fall hazard Once there is construction activity the risk goes up by virtue of that diversion of attention Consequently in
the preamble to the rule OSHA stated that the exception does not apply if the inspection activity takes place at the same time the construction work is on-going [I]f inspections are made while construction operations are underway all employees who are exposed to fall hazards while performing inspections must be protected as required by Subpart M1 Therefore apart from inspections the Agency in the rulemaking rejected short duration of the exposure as an exception to the fall protection requirement for construction work Note though that the use of warning lines without a monitor is acceptable where the warning
lines are at least 15 feet back from the edge and all of the following are met (1) A warning line is used 15 feet or more from the edge (or nearest edge of a hole) (2) The warning line meets or exceeds the requirements in sect1926502(f)(2) (3) No work or work-related activity is to take place in the area between the warning line and the
hole or edge and (4) The employer effectively implements a work rule prohibiting the employees from going past the warning line2 If you need additional information please contact us by fax (202-693-1689) at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance You can also contact us by mail
at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
April 17 2006
MEMORANDUM FOR Kenneth Gereke
Regional Administrator Region III
ATTN John McFee Construction Coordinator Region III
FROM Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
SUBJECT Guardrail height requirements for construction activities in General Industry Facilities
This is in response to your e-mail submitted April 7 2005 You ask for compliance guidance with regard to the application of Subpart M Fall Protection requirements for construction activities in a General Industry facility We apologize for the long delay in providing this response
We have paraphrased your question as follows Question Scenario Employees are engaged in construction activities on a walkingworking surface at a General Industry worksite The guardrails on that site have a top rail that is 36 inches from the walkingworking surface Under OSHA Directive STD 01-01-010 and subsequent proposed rulemaking the use of such a guardrail by General Industry employees is only a technical violation of the General Industry standard 29 CFR 191023(e)(1) which otherwise requires a nominal vertical height of 42 inches
Would the construction employer be in violation of sect1926502(b)(1) (Subpart M) of the construction standards which requires the use of guardrails with a top rail that is 39 to 45 inches above the walkingworking surface level Answer Yes it would be a violation of Subpart M if construction work were performed on an elevated walkingworking surface that is guarded by a permanent guardrail system with a 36-inch top rail even though that top rail height is permitted for General Industry work under STD 01-01-010
Background Section 191023(e)(1) (Subpart D mdash Walking-Working Surfaces) of the General Industry standards states Railing toe boards and cover specifications (1) A standard railing shall consist of top rail intermediate rail and posts and shall have a vertical height of 42 inches nominal from upper surface of top rail to floor platform runway or ramp level [Emphasis added] However OSHA Directive STD-01-01-010 mdash Height of Guardrails in General Industry Applications notes
C Action OSHA Regional AdministratorsArea Directors shall classify technical violations of 29 CFR 191023(e)(1) as de minimis violations where the employer has provided guardrails which meet the following specifications (1) Existing guardrailing shall consist of a top rail intermediate rail and posts or equivalent and shall have a minimum vertical height of 36 inches to 44 inches from the upper surface of the top rail to the floor platform runway or ramp level [Emphasis added] E Background A Field Information Memorandum was previously issued regarding the
height of guardrails The intended revision [of Subpart D of 29 CFR 1910] is not yet available therefore to provide equitable enforcement which does not place unnecessary cost burdens upon employers or have a direct or immediate effect upon the safety or health of employees this instruction reissues the previous policy 1 In addition under General Industrys proposed rule on Walking and Working Surfaces (55
Federal Register 13360) guardrail systems with top rails that are 36 inches in height would similarly be grandfathered2 In support of that provision OSHA noted in the preamble that continuing to tolerate the use of guardrails as low as 36 inches (91 cm) would not unacceptably reduce employee protection and that the hazard to which to which employees would be exposed in replacing those guardrails would be greater than that from allowing the existing guardrails to remain in place (55 Federal Register 13374) [Emphasis added] The applicable construction provision sect1926502(b)(1) (Subpart M-Fall Protection) provides in part Guardrail systems Guardrail systems and their use shall comply with the following provisions
(1) Top edge height of top rails or equivalent guardrail system members shall be 42 inches (11 m) plus or minus 3 inches (8 cm) above the walkingworking level [Emphasis added] AnalysisConclusion The General Industry directive permits the use of existing permanently-installed guardrails that have a 36-inch top rail The rationale for that policy as reflected in the preamble for General Industrys proposed rule on Walking and Working Surfaces is that employee safety is not compromised by the use of such existing permanent guardrails and employee exposure to fall hazards would be increased by requiring the replacement of these guardrails
In contrast construction activities often include carrying tools and materials that are heavy awkward to handle and in the case of large materials can sometimes block the employees view In addition unlike the general industry employer a construction employer is not faced with the choice of leaving the permanent guardrails in place or replacing them Instead because construction work is by its nature temporary construction employers typically install temporary guardrails These guardrail systems are designed for temporary use under varied worksite conditions
For example some of these systems would allow a construction employer to erect a temporary guardrail system adjacent to the permanent guardrail system or to attach a temporary top rail to the permanent guardrail system to meet the applicable requirements in Subpart M In addition unlike the permanent guardrail systems in and on structures addressed in STD 01-01-010 these temporary guardrail systems are designed to facilitate repeated installation and removal Consequently the concerns regarding unjustified additional hazard exposure involved in replacing permanent guardrails is not applicable to the construction employees in your scenario In sum when a construction employer protects its employees from falls with a guardrail system that guardrail system must meet the requirements in sect1926502(b) including the top rail height
requirement in sect1926501(b)(1) even where there is a permanent guardrail with a 36-inch top rail that pursuant to STD 01-01-010 is acceptable for General Industry work If you need additional assistance please contact us by fax or e-mail
1 It is our understanding that STD-01-01-010 was adopted in light of pre-OSHA General Industry practices Specifically in the Preamble of a proposed rulemaking for General Industrys Walking and Working Surfaces standard (Volume 55 of the Federal Register page 13373 (Apr 10 1999)) OSHA offered the following explanation OSHA issued the directive because it recognized that employers with guardrails as low as 36 inches (91 cm) might have installed their systems in compliance with pre-OSHA
building codes The Agency was also concerned that employers would be unreasonably burdened by the cost of replacing their guardrail systems with new guardrail systems that were a nominal 42 inches (11 m) high
fall protection plan which meets the requirements of paragraph (k) of sect1926502 Note There is a presumption that it is feasible and will not create a greater hazard to implement at least one of the above-listed fall protection systems Accordingly the employer has the burden of establishing that it is appropriate to implement a fall protection plan which complies with sect1926502(k) for a particular workplace situation in lieu of implementing any of those
systems (12) Precast concrete erection Each employee engaged in the erection of precast concrete members (including but not limited to the erection of wall panels columns beams and floor and roof tees) and related operations such as grouting of precast concrete members who is 6 feet (18 m) or more above lower levels shall be protected from falling by guardrail systems safety net systems or personal fall arrest systems unless another provision in paragraph (b) of this section provides for an alternative fall protection measure Exception When the employer can demonstrate that it is infeasible or creates a greater hazard to use these systems the employer shall develop and implement a fall protection plan which meets the requirements of
paragraph (k) of sect1926502 (13) Residential construction Each employee engaged in residential construction activities 6 feet (18 m) or more above lower levels shall be protected by guardrail systems safety net system or personal fall arrest system unless another provision in paragraph (b) of this section provides for an alternative fall protection measure Exception When the employer can demonstrate that it is infeasible or creates a greater hazard to use these systems the employer shall develop and implement a fall protection plan which meets the requirements of paragraph (k) of sect1926502 As stated in the three provisions above sect1926502(k) sets out specific requirements for fall protection plans however sect1926502(k) does not require preplanning meetings4 Question (4) Does OSHAs provision for prompt rescue from personal fall arrest systems in the event of a fall require the use of a written plan What constitutes prompt
Answer With regard to rescuing employees from personal fall arrest systems the provision in Subpart M that addresses this is sect1926502(d)(20) which states sect1926502 Fall protection systems criteria and practices (d) Personal fall arrest systems (20) The employer shall provide for prompt rescue of employees in the event of a fall or shall assure that employees are able to rescue themselves As explained in interpretation letters to J Nigel Ellis (May 11 1999) and Charles Hill (August 14 2000) the particular hazard that sect1926502(d)(20) addresses is being suspended by the fall arrest system after an arrested fall In the Hill letter we stated Prompt rescue as required under sect1926502(d)(20) is not defined in the standard The particular hazard that sect1926502(d)(20) addresses is being suspended by the fall arrest system after a fall While an employee may be safely suspended in a body harness for a longer period than from a body belt the word prompt requires that rescue be performed quickly -- in time to prevent serious injury to the worker
You note that electrical utility and telecommunications workers sometimes work alone and that the employees status is maintained through normal work rules and operating procedures We recognize that there are a wide range of variables and circumstances between worksites The standard requires that to the extent feasible a reliable system be in place to ensure that rescue will be prompt Precisely what is required to comply with this provision in a remote location will depend on what is feasible under the particular circumstances The range of feasible options available in remote locations may be more limited than in more populated areas
Note that sect1926502(d)(20) does not require that a written rescue plan be prepared or that a preplanning event be held If you need additional information please contact us by fax at US Department of Labor OSHA [Directorate of Construction Office of Construction Standards and Guidance] fax 202-693-
1689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
November 15 2002 Mr Keith Harkins Safety Manager LinbeckKennedy amp Rossi
One Maguire Road Lexington Ma 02421 Re Whether a warning line at 6 feet used to protect roofing workers may also be used to meet fall protection requirements for HVAC construction workers sect1926502(b) Dear Mr Harkins This is in response to your letter dated June 10 2002 to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requesting clarification on the use of fall protection systems for
employees other than roofers working on low slope roofs I apologize for the delay in answering your inquiry We have paraphrased your questions 1 as follows Question (1) Scenario multiple trades - roofers as well as mechanical trades - are working on a low slope roof Under sect1926501(b)(10) the roofers can comply with fall protection requirements by using a warning line 6 feet from the edge In accordance with OSHAs August 1 2000 letter to Mr Mark Troxell the mechanical trades who are installing HVAC equipment can work without personal fall protection as long as they stay inside a warning line 15 feet from the edge Since both roofers and mechanical trades are working on the roof at the same time is it
permissible in this situation for the mechanical trades to use the roofers warning line that is 6 feet from the edge We would require the mechanical trades to be trained and required to use fall protection if they were to work between the warning line and the edge Also the warning line would comply with the criteria requirements in sect1926502(f) Is this acceptable Answer As explained below the answer is no Background
OSHAs fall protection standard for construction 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart M (beginning at sect1926500) generally requires fall protection when there is a fall distance of 6 feet or more In a few very specific situations (low-slope roof work some leading-edge work precast concrete erection and residential construction see sect1926501(b)(2) (12) and (13)) because of feasibility limitations the standard permits the use of a warning line in combination with other measures instead of conventional fall protection (guardrail systems personal fall arrest systems or safety net systems) to keep employees away from an edge Installation of HVAC equipment does not fall within the categories listed ie leading-edge work precast concrete erection or residential construction Therefore the warning line at the 6-foot
option does not apply As explained in the August 1 2000 Troxell letter where certain conditions are met the use of a warning line 15 feet back from the edge will be considered a de minimis violation of the guardrail criteria in sect1926502(b) The conditions that must be met for the application of this policy are as follows
1 A warning line is used 15 feet or more from the edge
2 The warning line meets or exceeds the requirements in sect1926502(f)(2) 3 No work or work-related activity is to take place in the area between the warning line and
the edge and
4 The employer effectively implements a work rule prohibiting the employees from going past the warning line
Therefore where these conditions are met you may use a warning line 15 feet back from the edge to protect the HVAC workers Applying the policy to your mixed-trades scenario The fact that the HVAC workers are working on the roof at the same time as the roofing workers does not alter the fact that the standard does not permit the HVAC workers to rely on a warning line at 6 feet from the edge for fall protection If you believe that use of two warning lines - one at 6 feet and one at 15 feet -- would be confusing or otherwise unworkable you can protect the
HVAC workers with conventional fall protection equipment and dispense with the 15-feet warning line If you need further clarification on this subject please contact us by fax at US Department of Labor Directorate of Construction [Office of Construction Standards and Guidance] 202-6931689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue N W Washington DC 20210 although due to continuing anthrax decontamination procedures there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence Sincerely
Russell B Swanson Directorate of Construction Enclosure
August 28 2000 Mr Mark Troxell Construction Team Leader The PMA Insurance Group
107 Ponderosa Drive Blandon PA 19510 Re 1926501(b)(3) and 1926502(b) Dear Mr Troxell This responds to your June 1 1999 letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requesting information on wire rope and Crosby clips used around the perimeter of buildings as a guardrail You also requested clarification on when employees must tie-off when a
guardrail system is removed to facilitate hoisting operations We apologize for the long delay in providing this response Question 1 How many Crosby clips are required to be used when setting up a wire rope guardrail Is it permissible to splice two wire ropes by overlapping or must the connections be turned back into eyelets and properly secured Answer For construction work covered by 29 CFR 1926 Subpart M sect1926502(b) sets forth the criteria that must be met when using wire rope as a guardrail The standard requires guardrails
to meet several specific criteria For example 1926502(b)(3) states that the guardrail shall be capable of withstanding without failure a force of at least 200 pounds applied within 2 inches of the top edge in any outward or downward direction at any point along the top edge Section 1926502(b)(4) states that when the 200 pound test load noted in sect1926502(b)(3) is applied in a downward direction the top edge of the guardrail shall not deflect to a height less than 39 inches above the walkingworking level Section 1926502(b)(9) states that the top rail and mid-rails shall be at least frac14-inch nominal diameter or thickness to prevent cuts and lacerations These and other criteria must be met when using wire rope as a guardrail around the perimeter of a building
The OSHA standard does not specify a minimum number of clips when using wire rope as a guardrail However as a practical matter it is unlikely you could meet the specific requirements under sect1926502(b) unless you follow the manufacturers recommendations for the number of clips to be used on wire ropes of different diameters (for example the Crosby Group Inc general catalog 2000 edition has tables showing their recommendations for their clips) Also note that OSHAs standard for rigging equipment used for material handling 29 CFR sect1926251 has a table for the number of clips required for wire rope frac12-inch and greater Although that standard does not apply to wire rope used for guardrails when you design a rope system to meet the sect1926502 requirements following those tables will normally ensure that you have enough clips
Question 2 What are the requirements for tying-off employees when a guardrail system is removed to facilitate hoisting operations 29 CFR sect1926501(b)(3) states that when guardrails are removed to facilitate hoisting operations employees who have to lean out over the edge must be tied off What about other employees who do not have to lean outmdashdo they have to be tied-off also Answer Section 1926501(b)(3) states that each employee in a hoist area shall be protected from falls of 6 feet or more by guardrail systems or personal fall arrest systems It also states
that If guardrail systems are removed to facilitate the hoisting operation (eg during landing of materials) and an employee must lean through the access opening or out over the edge of the access opening (to receive or guide equipment and materials for example) that employee shall be protected from fall hazards by a personal fall arrest system (59 FR 40710)
You ask if this means that the only employees who must use fall protection when the guardrails are removed are those who must lean out The answer is no the first sentence of sect1926501(d)(3) requires that all employees in the hoist area be protected by either a guardrail or personal fall arrest system So when all or part of a guardrail has been removed all
employees must be protected by a personal fall arrest system The last sentence of sect1926501(d)(3) which states that employees who must lean out must be protected with personal fall arrest equipment did not create an exception for employees with no need to lean out The requirement that these employees also be protected is reflected in sect1926502(d)(24) It specifically provides that fall arrest systems in hoist areas be rigged to prevent employees from leaning past the edge when a personal fall arrest system is used at hoist areas it shall be rigged to allow the movement of the employee only as far as the edge of the walkingworking surface The Agency explained in the preamble to subpart M that this provision was promulgated to eliminate the tendency for employees to lean out over the edge at
hoist areas (see volume 59 No152 of the Federal Register page 40685 August 9 1994) Although inartfully drafted the purpose of the last sentence of sect1926501(b)(3) is to require that personal fall arrest equipment be used even when the necessity of leaning out makes compliance with sect1926502(d)(24) infeasible If you need additional information please contact us by fax at US Department of Labor OSHA Directorate of Construction Office of Construction Standards and Guidance fax 202-693-1689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving
correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
August 28 2000
MEMORANDUM FOR Ed Kassak
David Herstedt Region VIII
FROM Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
This memorandum responds to your fax dated May 7 1999 in which you ask for assistance in
responding to the Concrete Frame Association(CFA)s letter of May 4 1999 We apologize for the long delay in responding CFA asked whether the fall protection requirements of 29 CFR 1926 Subpart L apply when employees are working from a concrete formwork platform in two scenarios CFA believes that during the erection of individual formwork components of an integrated floor system such as beams drop panels joists and slab panels Subpart L should apply (see scenario submitted by CFA below) At that point workers stand and walk on the individual formwork components In its view Subpart M applies only once the components are tied together and become a continuous
integrated floor system (not pictured) CFA states that in the pictured scenario general contractors are requiring employees to tie-off with personal fall arrest systems They assert that their shoring platform is only about 85 feet above the ground level and that if a fall were to occur it would not be arrested prior to the employee contacting the level below
Which standard applies Subpart M or Subpart L
Classification of the formworkshoring as a walkingworking surface under Subpart M or as a work platform under Subpart L is significant because these standards have different thresholds for requiring fall protection As you know Subpart M requires employees to be protected from falls of 6 feet or more (29 CFR 1926501(b)(1)) It defines a walkingworking surface to mean in part any surface whether horizontal or vertical on which an employee walks or works including but not limited to floors roofs ramps bridges runways formwork and concrete reinforcing steel [emphasis added]
Section 501(b)(1) requires that employees on a walkingworking surface (horizontal and vertical surface) with an unprotected side or edge must be protected Therefore where that walkingworking surface is formwork the employee must be protected Section 1926501(b)(2) requires fall protection for employees constructing leading edges That term is defined in sect500(b) as the edge of a floor roof or formwork for a floor or other walkingworking surface
(such as the deck) which changes location as additional floor roof decking or formwork sections are placed formed or constructed [emphasis added] Therefore under sect501(b)(2) employees constructing formwork leading edges must be protected in accordance with that section Finally sect501(b)(5) requires that employees on the face of formwork must be protected under Subpart M as well OSHAs scaffold standard 29 CFR 1926 Subpart L does not require fall protection for employees until they are exposed to falls in excess of 10 feet as specified in sect1926451(g) Subpart L defines a scaffold to mean any temporary elevated platform (supported or suspended) and its supporting
structure (including points of anchorage) used for supporting employees or materials or both Subpart L addresses formwork in sect1926450(b) under the definition of form scaffold which is defined as a supported scaffold consisting of a platform supported by brackets attached to formwork In the preamble to Subpart L the Agency stated that this type of scaffold is similar to a carpenters bracket scaffold and a top plate bracket scaffold (volume 61 of the Federal Register No 170 page 46033 August 30 1996) Therefore when an employee is supported by a device that attaches to the formwork the scaffold standard applies The scaffold standard would also apply where the formwork is not erected for use as formwork but instead is being
used only as a substitute for scaffold components Otherwise Subpart M applies when an employee stands on the face or the top of the formwork In the two situations described by CFA -- where employees are walking and working on individual formwork sections and on sections joined together Subpart M is the most specifically applicable standard It specifically covers formwork in its definition of walkingworking surfaces and the employees in the submitted scenario are not working on form scaffolds Therefore the requirements of Subpart M apply irrespective of whether the formwork sections stand alone or are joined into an integrated system1 Fall Arrest Distances CFA asserts that the personal fall arrest systems being used by workers on the formwork would not arrest falls at heights of about 8 feet We note that the fall arrest distance is determined by many factors and that there are often ways to rig systems to limit falls to very short distances
For the narrow walkingworking surface pictured above (see right side of illustration) guardrails may be the most useful approach Please feel free to contact us if you need further clarification on this issue
May 21 2003 Ms Deborah Caldwell 5071 Butler Rd Caldwell Electrical Contractors
Gainesville Georgia 30506 Re Ladders fall protection working on top of equipment Dear Ms Caldwell This is in response to your letter of November 22 2002 in which you ask for guidance regarding OSHAs fall protection requirements for construction work We apologize for the delay in providing this response
We have paraphrased your question as follows Question Scenario to complete a construction project a worker places a portable ladder on top of a piece of equipment or on the roof of a structure that is inside a large building The top of the equipment or structure is at least 10 x 10 and at least 10 above the ground It is stable level and sufficiently strong to support the loads imposed by the worker materials and tools needed for the job The worker will then do the construction task while on the ladder Is fall protection required for this worker
Answer We will answer your question in two parts first with respect to whether fall protection is required for a worker while on the surfaces you describe second with respect to whether fall protection is required while the worker is on the ladder 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart M (Fall protection) contains fall protection requirements for protecting an employee working on walkingworking surface (sect1926501(b)(1)) A walkingworking surface is defined in sect1926500(b) as follows Any surface whether horizontal or vertical on which an employee walks or works including but
not limited to floors roofs ramps bridges runways formwork and concrete reinforcing steel but not ladders vehicles or trailers on which employees must be located in order to perform their duties The 10 x 10 top surface of the equipment and the roof the structure that is inside the large building both meet this definition and would be considered a walkingworking surface The requirements of Subpart M would apply to a worker who is on those surfaces Section 1926501(b)(1) states Unprotected sides and edges Each employee on a walkingworking surface (horizontal and vertical surface) with an unprotected side or edge which is 6 feet or more above a lower level
shall be protected from falling by the use of guardrail systems safety net systems or personal fall arrest systems Since these surfaces are at or over 6 feet above the next lowest level fall protection is required while the worker is on those surfaces Fall protection can be accomplished by using guardrails a personal fall arrest system a fall restraint device or safety net system However with respect to fall protection requirements for a worker on the ladder sect1926500(a)(2)(vii) states Requirements relating to fall protection for employees working on stairways and ladders are
provided in Subpart X Subpart X (29 CFR 19261050 et seq) does not require fall protection for a worker on a portable ladder Therefore no additional fall protection is required while the worker is on the ladder The fact that the ladder is on either of the surfaces you describe rather than on the ground does not
alter this conclusion Recommendation Although not an OSHA requirement we recommend the use of a scaffold scissor lift or aerial device instead of a ladder in the scenario you describe where practicable
If you have further concerns or questions please feel free to contact us again by fax at US Department of Labor OSHA Directorate of Construction [Office of Construction Standards and Guidance] fax 202-693-1689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely
Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
March 12 2004 Mr Randy Stahl Safety Manager Korellis Roofing Inc
1333 169th Street Hammond IN 46324-2008 Re Is fall protection required during small roofing repairs that take minimal time to complete Dear Mr Stahl This is in response to your letter dated December 16 2003 to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) We have paraphrased your question as follows
Question 1 Scenario We do roofing inspections in order to identify where repairs are needed on pre-existing roofing systems Often the repairs needed are small in scale and worker exposure to a fall hazard is minimal in terms of time The fall hazard exposure time for the installation and removal of fall protection systems from the roof exceeds the exposure time for completing these roofing repair jobs In this circumstance in non-residential roofing work is fall protection required by 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart M
Answer First Part 1926 Subpart M does not require fall protection for those conducting the initial inspection of the roof to determine what work needs to be done Section 1926500(a) states This subpart sets forth requirements and criteria for fall protection in construction workplaces covered under 29 CFR Part 1926 Exception The provisions of this subpart do not apply when employees are making an inspection investigation or assessment of workplace conditions prior to the actual start of construction work or after all construction work has been completed [Emphasis added] With regard to fall protection requirements applicable to the construction work itself
sect1926501(b)(10) (low slope roofs) requires conventional fall protection a combination of a monitoring system and warning line or on roofs of 50 feet or less in width a monitoring system alone (ie without a warning line) be used Under the standard the requirement for fall protection for this work does not depend on the duration of the fall hazard exposure In contrast the Agency found in the rulemaking that the short duration of hazard exposure was part of the basis for creating the exception for the inspection-only activity But another basis for the exception was the concept that in inspections before and after the work is done there is no on-going construction work to divert the inspectors attention from the fall hazard Once there is construction activity the risk goes up by virtue of that diversion of attention Consequently in
the preamble to the rule OSHA stated that the exception does not apply if the inspection activity takes place at the same time the construction work is on-going [I]f inspections are made while construction operations are underway all employees who are exposed to fall hazards while performing inspections must be protected as required by Subpart M1 Therefore apart from inspections the Agency in the rulemaking rejected short duration of the exposure as an exception to the fall protection requirement for construction work Note though that the use of warning lines without a monitor is acceptable where the warning
lines are at least 15 feet back from the edge and all of the following are met (1) A warning line is used 15 feet or more from the edge (or nearest edge of a hole) (2) The warning line meets or exceeds the requirements in sect1926502(f)(2) (3) No work or work-related activity is to take place in the area between the warning line and the
hole or edge and (4) The employer effectively implements a work rule prohibiting the employees from going past the warning line2 If you need additional information please contact us by fax (202-693-1689) at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance You can also contact us by mail
at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
April 17 2006
MEMORANDUM FOR Kenneth Gereke
Regional Administrator Region III
ATTN John McFee Construction Coordinator Region III
FROM Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
SUBJECT Guardrail height requirements for construction activities in General Industry Facilities
This is in response to your e-mail submitted April 7 2005 You ask for compliance guidance with regard to the application of Subpart M Fall Protection requirements for construction activities in a General Industry facility We apologize for the long delay in providing this response
We have paraphrased your question as follows Question Scenario Employees are engaged in construction activities on a walkingworking surface at a General Industry worksite The guardrails on that site have a top rail that is 36 inches from the walkingworking surface Under OSHA Directive STD 01-01-010 and subsequent proposed rulemaking the use of such a guardrail by General Industry employees is only a technical violation of the General Industry standard 29 CFR 191023(e)(1) which otherwise requires a nominal vertical height of 42 inches
Would the construction employer be in violation of sect1926502(b)(1) (Subpart M) of the construction standards which requires the use of guardrails with a top rail that is 39 to 45 inches above the walkingworking surface level Answer Yes it would be a violation of Subpart M if construction work were performed on an elevated walkingworking surface that is guarded by a permanent guardrail system with a 36-inch top rail even though that top rail height is permitted for General Industry work under STD 01-01-010
Background Section 191023(e)(1) (Subpart D mdash Walking-Working Surfaces) of the General Industry standards states Railing toe boards and cover specifications (1) A standard railing shall consist of top rail intermediate rail and posts and shall have a vertical height of 42 inches nominal from upper surface of top rail to floor platform runway or ramp level [Emphasis added] However OSHA Directive STD-01-01-010 mdash Height of Guardrails in General Industry Applications notes
C Action OSHA Regional AdministratorsArea Directors shall classify technical violations of 29 CFR 191023(e)(1) as de minimis violations where the employer has provided guardrails which meet the following specifications (1) Existing guardrailing shall consist of a top rail intermediate rail and posts or equivalent and shall have a minimum vertical height of 36 inches to 44 inches from the upper surface of the top rail to the floor platform runway or ramp level [Emphasis added] E Background A Field Information Memorandum was previously issued regarding the
height of guardrails The intended revision [of Subpart D of 29 CFR 1910] is not yet available therefore to provide equitable enforcement which does not place unnecessary cost burdens upon employers or have a direct or immediate effect upon the safety or health of employees this instruction reissues the previous policy 1 In addition under General Industrys proposed rule on Walking and Working Surfaces (55
Federal Register 13360) guardrail systems with top rails that are 36 inches in height would similarly be grandfathered2 In support of that provision OSHA noted in the preamble that continuing to tolerate the use of guardrails as low as 36 inches (91 cm) would not unacceptably reduce employee protection and that the hazard to which to which employees would be exposed in replacing those guardrails would be greater than that from allowing the existing guardrails to remain in place (55 Federal Register 13374) [Emphasis added] The applicable construction provision sect1926502(b)(1) (Subpart M-Fall Protection) provides in part Guardrail systems Guardrail systems and their use shall comply with the following provisions
(1) Top edge height of top rails or equivalent guardrail system members shall be 42 inches (11 m) plus or minus 3 inches (8 cm) above the walkingworking level [Emphasis added] AnalysisConclusion The General Industry directive permits the use of existing permanently-installed guardrails that have a 36-inch top rail The rationale for that policy as reflected in the preamble for General Industrys proposed rule on Walking and Working Surfaces is that employee safety is not compromised by the use of such existing permanent guardrails and employee exposure to fall hazards would be increased by requiring the replacement of these guardrails
In contrast construction activities often include carrying tools and materials that are heavy awkward to handle and in the case of large materials can sometimes block the employees view In addition unlike the general industry employer a construction employer is not faced with the choice of leaving the permanent guardrails in place or replacing them Instead because construction work is by its nature temporary construction employers typically install temporary guardrails These guardrail systems are designed for temporary use under varied worksite conditions
For example some of these systems would allow a construction employer to erect a temporary guardrail system adjacent to the permanent guardrail system or to attach a temporary top rail to the permanent guardrail system to meet the applicable requirements in Subpart M In addition unlike the permanent guardrail systems in and on structures addressed in STD 01-01-010 these temporary guardrail systems are designed to facilitate repeated installation and removal Consequently the concerns regarding unjustified additional hazard exposure involved in replacing permanent guardrails is not applicable to the construction employees in your scenario In sum when a construction employer protects its employees from falls with a guardrail system that guardrail system must meet the requirements in sect1926502(b) including the top rail height
requirement in sect1926501(b)(1) even where there is a permanent guardrail with a 36-inch top rail that pursuant to STD 01-01-010 is acceptable for General Industry work If you need additional assistance please contact us by fax or e-mail
1 It is our understanding that STD-01-01-010 was adopted in light of pre-OSHA General Industry practices Specifically in the Preamble of a proposed rulemaking for General Industrys Walking and Working Surfaces standard (Volume 55 of the Federal Register page 13373 (Apr 10 1999)) OSHA offered the following explanation OSHA issued the directive because it recognized that employers with guardrails as low as 36 inches (91 cm) might have installed their systems in compliance with pre-OSHA
building codes The Agency was also concerned that employers would be unreasonably burdened by the cost of replacing their guardrail systems with new guardrail systems that were a nominal 42 inches (11 m) high
Note that sect1926502(d)(20) does not require that a written rescue plan be prepared or that a preplanning event be held If you need additional information please contact us by fax at US Department of Labor OSHA [Directorate of Construction Office of Construction Standards and Guidance] fax 202-693-
1689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
November 15 2002 Mr Keith Harkins Safety Manager LinbeckKennedy amp Rossi
One Maguire Road Lexington Ma 02421 Re Whether a warning line at 6 feet used to protect roofing workers may also be used to meet fall protection requirements for HVAC construction workers sect1926502(b) Dear Mr Harkins This is in response to your letter dated June 10 2002 to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requesting clarification on the use of fall protection systems for
employees other than roofers working on low slope roofs I apologize for the delay in answering your inquiry We have paraphrased your questions 1 as follows Question (1) Scenario multiple trades - roofers as well as mechanical trades - are working on a low slope roof Under sect1926501(b)(10) the roofers can comply with fall protection requirements by using a warning line 6 feet from the edge In accordance with OSHAs August 1 2000 letter to Mr Mark Troxell the mechanical trades who are installing HVAC equipment can work without personal fall protection as long as they stay inside a warning line 15 feet from the edge Since both roofers and mechanical trades are working on the roof at the same time is it
permissible in this situation for the mechanical trades to use the roofers warning line that is 6 feet from the edge We would require the mechanical trades to be trained and required to use fall protection if they were to work between the warning line and the edge Also the warning line would comply with the criteria requirements in sect1926502(f) Is this acceptable Answer As explained below the answer is no Background
OSHAs fall protection standard for construction 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart M (beginning at sect1926500) generally requires fall protection when there is a fall distance of 6 feet or more In a few very specific situations (low-slope roof work some leading-edge work precast concrete erection and residential construction see sect1926501(b)(2) (12) and (13)) because of feasibility limitations the standard permits the use of a warning line in combination with other measures instead of conventional fall protection (guardrail systems personal fall arrest systems or safety net systems) to keep employees away from an edge Installation of HVAC equipment does not fall within the categories listed ie leading-edge work precast concrete erection or residential construction Therefore the warning line at the 6-foot
option does not apply As explained in the August 1 2000 Troxell letter where certain conditions are met the use of a warning line 15 feet back from the edge will be considered a de minimis violation of the guardrail criteria in sect1926502(b) The conditions that must be met for the application of this policy are as follows
1 A warning line is used 15 feet or more from the edge
2 The warning line meets or exceeds the requirements in sect1926502(f)(2) 3 No work or work-related activity is to take place in the area between the warning line and
the edge and
4 The employer effectively implements a work rule prohibiting the employees from going past the warning line
Therefore where these conditions are met you may use a warning line 15 feet back from the edge to protect the HVAC workers Applying the policy to your mixed-trades scenario The fact that the HVAC workers are working on the roof at the same time as the roofing workers does not alter the fact that the standard does not permit the HVAC workers to rely on a warning line at 6 feet from the edge for fall protection If you believe that use of two warning lines - one at 6 feet and one at 15 feet -- would be confusing or otherwise unworkable you can protect the
HVAC workers with conventional fall protection equipment and dispense with the 15-feet warning line If you need further clarification on this subject please contact us by fax at US Department of Labor Directorate of Construction [Office of Construction Standards and Guidance] 202-6931689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue N W Washington DC 20210 although due to continuing anthrax decontamination procedures there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence Sincerely
Russell B Swanson Directorate of Construction Enclosure
August 28 2000 Mr Mark Troxell Construction Team Leader The PMA Insurance Group
107 Ponderosa Drive Blandon PA 19510 Re 1926501(b)(3) and 1926502(b) Dear Mr Troxell This responds to your June 1 1999 letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requesting information on wire rope and Crosby clips used around the perimeter of buildings as a guardrail You also requested clarification on when employees must tie-off when a
guardrail system is removed to facilitate hoisting operations We apologize for the long delay in providing this response Question 1 How many Crosby clips are required to be used when setting up a wire rope guardrail Is it permissible to splice two wire ropes by overlapping or must the connections be turned back into eyelets and properly secured Answer For construction work covered by 29 CFR 1926 Subpart M sect1926502(b) sets forth the criteria that must be met when using wire rope as a guardrail The standard requires guardrails
to meet several specific criteria For example 1926502(b)(3) states that the guardrail shall be capable of withstanding without failure a force of at least 200 pounds applied within 2 inches of the top edge in any outward or downward direction at any point along the top edge Section 1926502(b)(4) states that when the 200 pound test load noted in sect1926502(b)(3) is applied in a downward direction the top edge of the guardrail shall not deflect to a height less than 39 inches above the walkingworking level Section 1926502(b)(9) states that the top rail and mid-rails shall be at least frac14-inch nominal diameter or thickness to prevent cuts and lacerations These and other criteria must be met when using wire rope as a guardrail around the perimeter of a building
The OSHA standard does not specify a minimum number of clips when using wire rope as a guardrail However as a practical matter it is unlikely you could meet the specific requirements under sect1926502(b) unless you follow the manufacturers recommendations for the number of clips to be used on wire ropes of different diameters (for example the Crosby Group Inc general catalog 2000 edition has tables showing their recommendations for their clips) Also note that OSHAs standard for rigging equipment used for material handling 29 CFR sect1926251 has a table for the number of clips required for wire rope frac12-inch and greater Although that standard does not apply to wire rope used for guardrails when you design a rope system to meet the sect1926502 requirements following those tables will normally ensure that you have enough clips
Question 2 What are the requirements for tying-off employees when a guardrail system is removed to facilitate hoisting operations 29 CFR sect1926501(b)(3) states that when guardrails are removed to facilitate hoisting operations employees who have to lean out over the edge must be tied off What about other employees who do not have to lean outmdashdo they have to be tied-off also Answer Section 1926501(b)(3) states that each employee in a hoist area shall be protected from falls of 6 feet or more by guardrail systems or personal fall arrest systems It also states
that If guardrail systems are removed to facilitate the hoisting operation (eg during landing of materials) and an employee must lean through the access opening or out over the edge of the access opening (to receive or guide equipment and materials for example) that employee shall be protected from fall hazards by a personal fall arrest system (59 FR 40710)
You ask if this means that the only employees who must use fall protection when the guardrails are removed are those who must lean out The answer is no the first sentence of sect1926501(d)(3) requires that all employees in the hoist area be protected by either a guardrail or personal fall arrest system So when all or part of a guardrail has been removed all
employees must be protected by a personal fall arrest system The last sentence of sect1926501(d)(3) which states that employees who must lean out must be protected with personal fall arrest equipment did not create an exception for employees with no need to lean out The requirement that these employees also be protected is reflected in sect1926502(d)(24) It specifically provides that fall arrest systems in hoist areas be rigged to prevent employees from leaning past the edge when a personal fall arrest system is used at hoist areas it shall be rigged to allow the movement of the employee only as far as the edge of the walkingworking surface The Agency explained in the preamble to subpart M that this provision was promulgated to eliminate the tendency for employees to lean out over the edge at
hoist areas (see volume 59 No152 of the Federal Register page 40685 August 9 1994) Although inartfully drafted the purpose of the last sentence of sect1926501(b)(3) is to require that personal fall arrest equipment be used even when the necessity of leaning out makes compliance with sect1926502(d)(24) infeasible If you need additional information please contact us by fax at US Department of Labor OSHA Directorate of Construction Office of Construction Standards and Guidance fax 202-693-1689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving
correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
August 28 2000
MEMORANDUM FOR Ed Kassak
David Herstedt Region VIII
FROM Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
This memorandum responds to your fax dated May 7 1999 in which you ask for assistance in
responding to the Concrete Frame Association(CFA)s letter of May 4 1999 We apologize for the long delay in responding CFA asked whether the fall protection requirements of 29 CFR 1926 Subpart L apply when employees are working from a concrete formwork platform in two scenarios CFA believes that during the erection of individual formwork components of an integrated floor system such as beams drop panels joists and slab panels Subpart L should apply (see scenario submitted by CFA below) At that point workers stand and walk on the individual formwork components In its view Subpart M applies only once the components are tied together and become a continuous
integrated floor system (not pictured) CFA states that in the pictured scenario general contractors are requiring employees to tie-off with personal fall arrest systems They assert that their shoring platform is only about 85 feet above the ground level and that if a fall were to occur it would not be arrested prior to the employee contacting the level below
Which standard applies Subpart M or Subpart L
Classification of the formworkshoring as a walkingworking surface under Subpart M or as a work platform under Subpart L is significant because these standards have different thresholds for requiring fall protection As you know Subpart M requires employees to be protected from falls of 6 feet or more (29 CFR 1926501(b)(1)) It defines a walkingworking surface to mean in part any surface whether horizontal or vertical on which an employee walks or works including but not limited to floors roofs ramps bridges runways formwork and concrete reinforcing steel [emphasis added]
Section 501(b)(1) requires that employees on a walkingworking surface (horizontal and vertical surface) with an unprotected side or edge must be protected Therefore where that walkingworking surface is formwork the employee must be protected Section 1926501(b)(2) requires fall protection for employees constructing leading edges That term is defined in sect500(b) as the edge of a floor roof or formwork for a floor or other walkingworking surface
(such as the deck) which changes location as additional floor roof decking or formwork sections are placed formed or constructed [emphasis added] Therefore under sect501(b)(2) employees constructing formwork leading edges must be protected in accordance with that section Finally sect501(b)(5) requires that employees on the face of formwork must be protected under Subpart M as well OSHAs scaffold standard 29 CFR 1926 Subpart L does not require fall protection for employees until they are exposed to falls in excess of 10 feet as specified in sect1926451(g) Subpart L defines a scaffold to mean any temporary elevated platform (supported or suspended) and its supporting
structure (including points of anchorage) used for supporting employees or materials or both Subpart L addresses formwork in sect1926450(b) under the definition of form scaffold which is defined as a supported scaffold consisting of a platform supported by brackets attached to formwork In the preamble to Subpart L the Agency stated that this type of scaffold is similar to a carpenters bracket scaffold and a top plate bracket scaffold (volume 61 of the Federal Register No 170 page 46033 August 30 1996) Therefore when an employee is supported by a device that attaches to the formwork the scaffold standard applies The scaffold standard would also apply where the formwork is not erected for use as formwork but instead is being
used only as a substitute for scaffold components Otherwise Subpart M applies when an employee stands on the face or the top of the formwork In the two situations described by CFA -- where employees are walking and working on individual formwork sections and on sections joined together Subpart M is the most specifically applicable standard It specifically covers formwork in its definition of walkingworking surfaces and the employees in the submitted scenario are not working on form scaffolds Therefore the requirements of Subpart M apply irrespective of whether the formwork sections stand alone or are joined into an integrated system1 Fall Arrest Distances CFA asserts that the personal fall arrest systems being used by workers on the formwork would not arrest falls at heights of about 8 feet We note that the fall arrest distance is determined by many factors and that there are often ways to rig systems to limit falls to very short distances
For the narrow walkingworking surface pictured above (see right side of illustration) guardrails may be the most useful approach Please feel free to contact us if you need further clarification on this issue
May 21 2003 Ms Deborah Caldwell 5071 Butler Rd Caldwell Electrical Contractors
Gainesville Georgia 30506 Re Ladders fall protection working on top of equipment Dear Ms Caldwell This is in response to your letter of November 22 2002 in which you ask for guidance regarding OSHAs fall protection requirements for construction work We apologize for the delay in providing this response
We have paraphrased your question as follows Question Scenario to complete a construction project a worker places a portable ladder on top of a piece of equipment or on the roof of a structure that is inside a large building The top of the equipment or structure is at least 10 x 10 and at least 10 above the ground It is stable level and sufficiently strong to support the loads imposed by the worker materials and tools needed for the job The worker will then do the construction task while on the ladder Is fall protection required for this worker
Answer We will answer your question in two parts first with respect to whether fall protection is required for a worker while on the surfaces you describe second with respect to whether fall protection is required while the worker is on the ladder 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart M (Fall protection) contains fall protection requirements for protecting an employee working on walkingworking surface (sect1926501(b)(1)) A walkingworking surface is defined in sect1926500(b) as follows Any surface whether horizontal or vertical on which an employee walks or works including but
not limited to floors roofs ramps bridges runways formwork and concrete reinforcing steel but not ladders vehicles or trailers on which employees must be located in order to perform their duties The 10 x 10 top surface of the equipment and the roof the structure that is inside the large building both meet this definition and would be considered a walkingworking surface The requirements of Subpart M would apply to a worker who is on those surfaces Section 1926501(b)(1) states Unprotected sides and edges Each employee on a walkingworking surface (horizontal and vertical surface) with an unprotected side or edge which is 6 feet or more above a lower level
shall be protected from falling by the use of guardrail systems safety net systems or personal fall arrest systems Since these surfaces are at or over 6 feet above the next lowest level fall protection is required while the worker is on those surfaces Fall protection can be accomplished by using guardrails a personal fall arrest system a fall restraint device or safety net system However with respect to fall protection requirements for a worker on the ladder sect1926500(a)(2)(vii) states Requirements relating to fall protection for employees working on stairways and ladders are
provided in Subpart X Subpart X (29 CFR 19261050 et seq) does not require fall protection for a worker on a portable ladder Therefore no additional fall protection is required while the worker is on the ladder The fact that the ladder is on either of the surfaces you describe rather than on the ground does not
alter this conclusion Recommendation Although not an OSHA requirement we recommend the use of a scaffold scissor lift or aerial device instead of a ladder in the scenario you describe where practicable
If you have further concerns or questions please feel free to contact us again by fax at US Department of Labor OSHA Directorate of Construction [Office of Construction Standards and Guidance] fax 202-693-1689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely
Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
March 12 2004 Mr Randy Stahl Safety Manager Korellis Roofing Inc
1333 169th Street Hammond IN 46324-2008 Re Is fall protection required during small roofing repairs that take minimal time to complete Dear Mr Stahl This is in response to your letter dated December 16 2003 to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) We have paraphrased your question as follows
Question 1 Scenario We do roofing inspections in order to identify where repairs are needed on pre-existing roofing systems Often the repairs needed are small in scale and worker exposure to a fall hazard is minimal in terms of time The fall hazard exposure time for the installation and removal of fall protection systems from the roof exceeds the exposure time for completing these roofing repair jobs In this circumstance in non-residential roofing work is fall protection required by 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart M
Answer First Part 1926 Subpart M does not require fall protection for those conducting the initial inspection of the roof to determine what work needs to be done Section 1926500(a) states This subpart sets forth requirements and criteria for fall protection in construction workplaces covered under 29 CFR Part 1926 Exception The provisions of this subpart do not apply when employees are making an inspection investigation or assessment of workplace conditions prior to the actual start of construction work or after all construction work has been completed [Emphasis added] With regard to fall protection requirements applicable to the construction work itself
sect1926501(b)(10) (low slope roofs) requires conventional fall protection a combination of a monitoring system and warning line or on roofs of 50 feet or less in width a monitoring system alone (ie without a warning line) be used Under the standard the requirement for fall protection for this work does not depend on the duration of the fall hazard exposure In contrast the Agency found in the rulemaking that the short duration of hazard exposure was part of the basis for creating the exception for the inspection-only activity But another basis for the exception was the concept that in inspections before and after the work is done there is no on-going construction work to divert the inspectors attention from the fall hazard Once there is construction activity the risk goes up by virtue of that diversion of attention Consequently in
the preamble to the rule OSHA stated that the exception does not apply if the inspection activity takes place at the same time the construction work is on-going [I]f inspections are made while construction operations are underway all employees who are exposed to fall hazards while performing inspections must be protected as required by Subpart M1 Therefore apart from inspections the Agency in the rulemaking rejected short duration of the exposure as an exception to the fall protection requirement for construction work Note though that the use of warning lines without a monitor is acceptable where the warning
lines are at least 15 feet back from the edge and all of the following are met (1) A warning line is used 15 feet or more from the edge (or nearest edge of a hole) (2) The warning line meets or exceeds the requirements in sect1926502(f)(2) (3) No work or work-related activity is to take place in the area between the warning line and the
hole or edge and (4) The employer effectively implements a work rule prohibiting the employees from going past the warning line2 If you need additional information please contact us by fax (202-693-1689) at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance You can also contact us by mail
at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
April 17 2006
MEMORANDUM FOR Kenneth Gereke
Regional Administrator Region III
ATTN John McFee Construction Coordinator Region III
FROM Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
SUBJECT Guardrail height requirements for construction activities in General Industry Facilities
This is in response to your e-mail submitted April 7 2005 You ask for compliance guidance with regard to the application of Subpart M Fall Protection requirements for construction activities in a General Industry facility We apologize for the long delay in providing this response
We have paraphrased your question as follows Question Scenario Employees are engaged in construction activities on a walkingworking surface at a General Industry worksite The guardrails on that site have a top rail that is 36 inches from the walkingworking surface Under OSHA Directive STD 01-01-010 and subsequent proposed rulemaking the use of such a guardrail by General Industry employees is only a technical violation of the General Industry standard 29 CFR 191023(e)(1) which otherwise requires a nominal vertical height of 42 inches
Would the construction employer be in violation of sect1926502(b)(1) (Subpart M) of the construction standards which requires the use of guardrails with a top rail that is 39 to 45 inches above the walkingworking surface level Answer Yes it would be a violation of Subpart M if construction work were performed on an elevated walkingworking surface that is guarded by a permanent guardrail system with a 36-inch top rail even though that top rail height is permitted for General Industry work under STD 01-01-010
Background Section 191023(e)(1) (Subpart D mdash Walking-Working Surfaces) of the General Industry standards states Railing toe boards and cover specifications (1) A standard railing shall consist of top rail intermediate rail and posts and shall have a vertical height of 42 inches nominal from upper surface of top rail to floor platform runway or ramp level [Emphasis added] However OSHA Directive STD-01-01-010 mdash Height of Guardrails in General Industry Applications notes
C Action OSHA Regional AdministratorsArea Directors shall classify technical violations of 29 CFR 191023(e)(1) as de minimis violations where the employer has provided guardrails which meet the following specifications (1) Existing guardrailing shall consist of a top rail intermediate rail and posts or equivalent and shall have a minimum vertical height of 36 inches to 44 inches from the upper surface of the top rail to the floor platform runway or ramp level [Emphasis added] E Background A Field Information Memorandum was previously issued regarding the
height of guardrails The intended revision [of Subpart D of 29 CFR 1910] is not yet available therefore to provide equitable enforcement which does not place unnecessary cost burdens upon employers or have a direct or immediate effect upon the safety or health of employees this instruction reissues the previous policy 1 In addition under General Industrys proposed rule on Walking and Working Surfaces (55
Federal Register 13360) guardrail systems with top rails that are 36 inches in height would similarly be grandfathered2 In support of that provision OSHA noted in the preamble that continuing to tolerate the use of guardrails as low as 36 inches (91 cm) would not unacceptably reduce employee protection and that the hazard to which to which employees would be exposed in replacing those guardrails would be greater than that from allowing the existing guardrails to remain in place (55 Federal Register 13374) [Emphasis added] The applicable construction provision sect1926502(b)(1) (Subpart M-Fall Protection) provides in part Guardrail systems Guardrail systems and their use shall comply with the following provisions
(1) Top edge height of top rails or equivalent guardrail system members shall be 42 inches (11 m) plus or minus 3 inches (8 cm) above the walkingworking level [Emphasis added] AnalysisConclusion The General Industry directive permits the use of existing permanently-installed guardrails that have a 36-inch top rail The rationale for that policy as reflected in the preamble for General Industrys proposed rule on Walking and Working Surfaces is that employee safety is not compromised by the use of such existing permanent guardrails and employee exposure to fall hazards would be increased by requiring the replacement of these guardrails
In contrast construction activities often include carrying tools and materials that are heavy awkward to handle and in the case of large materials can sometimes block the employees view In addition unlike the general industry employer a construction employer is not faced with the choice of leaving the permanent guardrails in place or replacing them Instead because construction work is by its nature temporary construction employers typically install temporary guardrails These guardrail systems are designed for temporary use under varied worksite conditions
For example some of these systems would allow a construction employer to erect a temporary guardrail system adjacent to the permanent guardrail system or to attach a temporary top rail to the permanent guardrail system to meet the applicable requirements in Subpart M In addition unlike the permanent guardrail systems in and on structures addressed in STD 01-01-010 these temporary guardrail systems are designed to facilitate repeated installation and removal Consequently the concerns regarding unjustified additional hazard exposure involved in replacing permanent guardrails is not applicable to the construction employees in your scenario In sum when a construction employer protects its employees from falls with a guardrail system that guardrail system must meet the requirements in sect1926502(b) including the top rail height
requirement in sect1926501(b)(1) even where there is a permanent guardrail with a 36-inch top rail that pursuant to STD 01-01-010 is acceptable for General Industry work If you need additional assistance please contact us by fax or e-mail
1 It is our understanding that STD-01-01-010 was adopted in light of pre-OSHA General Industry practices Specifically in the Preamble of a proposed rulemaking for General Industrys Walking and Working Surfaces standard (Volume 55 of the Federal Register page 13373 (Apr 10 1999)) OSHA offered the following explanation OSHA issued the directive because it recognized that employers with guardrails as low as 36 inches (91 cm) might have installed their systems in compliance with pre-OSHA
building codes The Agency was also concerned that employers would be unreasonably burdened by the cost of replacing their guardrail systems with new guardrail systems that were a nominal 42 inches (11 m) high
November 15 2002 Mr Keith Harkins Safety Manager LinbeckKennedy amp Rossi
One Maguire Road Lexington Ma 02421 Re Whether a warning line at 6 feet used to protect roofing workers may also be used to meet fall protection requirements for HVAC construction workers sect1926502(b) Dear Mr Harkins This is in response to your letter dated June 10 2002 to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requesting clarification on the use of fall protection systems for
employees other than roofers working on low slope roofs I apologize for the delay in answering your inquiry We have paraphrased your questions 1 as follows Question (1) Scenario multiple trades - roofers as well as mechanical trades - are working on a low slope roof Under sect1926501(b)(10) the roofers can comply with fall protection requirements by using a warning line 6 feet from the edge In accordance with OSHAs August 1 2000 letter to Mr Mark Troxell the mechanical trades who are installing HVAC equipment can work without personal fall protection as long as they stay inside a warning line 15 feet from the edge Since both roofers and mechanical trades are working on the roof at the same time is it
permissible in this situation for the mechanical trades to use the roofers warning line that is 6 feet from the edge We would require the mechanical trades to be trained and required to use fall protection if they were to work between the warning line and the edge Also the warning line would comply with the criteria requirements in sect1926502(f) Is this acceptable Answer As explained below the answer is no Background
OSHAs fall protection standard for construction 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart M (beginning at sect1926500) generally requires fall protection when there is a fall distance of 6 feet or more In a few very specific situations (low-slope roof work some leading-edge work precast concrete erection and residential construction see sect1926501(b)(2) (12) and (13)) because of feasibility limitations the standard permits the use of a warning line in combination with other measures instead of conventional fall protection (guardrail systems personal fall arrest systems or safety net systems) to keep employees away from an edge Installation of HVAC equipment does not fall within the categories listed ie leading-edge work precast concrete erection or residential construction Therefore the warning line at the 6-foot
option does not apply As explained in the August 1 2000 Troxell letter where certain conditions are met the use of a warning line 15 feet back from the edge will be considered a de minimis violation of the guardrail criteria in sect1926502(b) The conditions that must be met for the application of this policy are as follows
1 A warning line is used 15 feet or more from the edge
2 The warning line meets or exceeds the requirements in sect1926502(f)(2) 3 No work or work-related activity is to take place in the area between the warning line and
the edge and
4 The employer effectively implements a work rule prohibiting the employees from going past the warning line
Therefore where these conditions are met you may use a warning line 15 feet back from the edge to protect the HVAC workers Applying the policy to your mixed-trades scenario The fact that the HVAC workers are working on the roof at the same time as the roofing workers does not alter the fact that the standard does not permit the HVAC workers to rely on a warning line at 6 feet from the edge for fall protection If you believe that use of two warning lines - one at 6 feet and one at 15 feet -- would be confusing or otherwise unworkable you can protect the
HVAC workers with conventional fall protection equipment and dispense with the 15-feet warning line If you need further clarification on this subject please contact us by fax at US Department of Labor Directorate of Construction [Office of Construction Standards and Guidance] 202-6931689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue N W Washington DC 20210 although due to continuing anthrax decontamination procedures there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence Sincerely
Russell B Swanson Directorate of Construction Enclosure
August 28 2000 Mr Mark Troxell Construction Team Leader The PMA Insurance Group
107 Ponderosa Drive Blandon PA 19510 Re 1926501(b)(3) and 1926502(b) Dear Mr Troxell This responds to your June 1 1999 letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requesting information on wire rope and Crosby clips used around the perimeter of buildings as a guardrail You also requested clarification on when employees must tie-off when a
guardrail system is removed to facilitate hoisting operations We apologize for the long delay in providing this response Question 1 How many Crosby clips are required to be used when setting up a wire rope guardrail Is it permissible to splice two wire ropes by overlapping or must the connections be turned back into eyelets and properly secured Answer For construction work covered by 29 CFR 1926 Subpart M sect1926502(b) sets forth the criteria that must be met when using wire rope as a guardrail The standard requires guardrails
to meet several specific criteria For example 1926502(b)(3) states that the guardrail shall be capable of withstanding without failure a force of at least 200 pounds applied within 2 inches of the top edge in any outward or downward direction at any point along the top edge Section 1926502(b)(4) states that when the 200 pound test load noted in sect1926502(b)(3) is applied in a downward direction the top edge of the guardrail shall not deflect to a height less than 39 inches above the walkingworking level Section 1926502(b)(9) states that the top rail and mid-rails shall be at least frac14-inch nominal diameter or thickness to prevent cuts and lacerations These and other criteria must be met when using wire rope as a guardrail around the perimeter of a building
The OSHA standard does not specify a minimum number of clips when using wire rope as a guardrail However as a practical matter it is unlikely you could meet the specific requirements under sect1926502(b) unless you follow the manufacturers recommendations for the number of clips to be used on wire ropes of different diameters (for example the Crosby Group Inc general catalog 2000 edition has tables showing their recommendations for their clips) Also note that OSHAs standard for rigging equipment used for material handling 29 CFR sect1926251 has a table for the number of clips required for wire rope frac12-inch and greater Although that standard does not apply to wire rope used for guardrails when you design a rope system to meet the sect1926502 requirements following those tables will normally ensure that you have enough clips
Question 2 What are the requirements for tying-off employees when a guardrail system is removed to facilitate hoisting operations 29 CFR sect1926501(b)(3) states that when guardrails are removed to facilitate hoisting operations employees who have to lean out over the edge must be tied off What about other employees who do not have to lean outmdashdo they have to be tied-off also Answer Section 1926501(b)(3) states that each employee in a hoist area shall be protected from falls of 6 feet or more by guardrail systems or personal fall arrest systems It also states
that If guardrail systems are removed to facilitate the hoisting operation (eg during landing of materials) and an employee must lean through the access opening or out over the edge of the access opening (to receive or guide equipment and materials for example) that employee shall be protected from fall hazards by a personal fall arrest system (59 FR 40710)
You ask if this means that the only employees who must use fall protection when the guardrails are removed are those who must lean out The answer is no the first sentence of sect1926501(d)(3) requires that all employees in the hoist area be protected by either a guardrail or personal fall arrest system So when all or part of a guardrail has been removed all
employees must be protected by a personal fall arrest system The last sentence of sect1926501(d)(3) which states that employees who must lean out must be protected with personal fall arrest equipment did not create an exception for employees with no need to lean out The requirement that these employees also be protected is reflected in sect1926502(d)(24) It specifically provides that fall arrest systems in hoist areas be rigged to prevent employees from leaning past the edge when a personal fall arrest system is used at hoist areas it shall be rigged to allow the movement of the employee only as far as the edge of the walkingworking surface The Agency explained in the preamble to subpart M that this provision was promulgated to eliminate the tendency for employees to lean out over the edge at
hoist areas (see volume 59 No152 of the Federal Register page 40685 August 9 1994) Although inartfully drafted the purpose of the last sentence of sect1926501(b)(3) is to require that personal fall arrest equipment be used even when the necessity of leaning out makes compliance with sect1926502(d)(24) infeasible If you need additional information please contact us by fax at US Department of Labor OSHA Directorate of Construction Office of Construction Standards and Guidance fax 202-693-1689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving
correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
August 28 2000
MEMORANDUM FOR Ed Kassak
David Herstedt Region VIII
FROM Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
This memorandum responds to your fax dated May 7 1999 in which you ask for assistance in
responding to the Concrete Frame Association(CFA)s letter of May 4 1999 We apologize for the long delay in responding CFA asked whether the fall protection requirements of 29 CFR 1926 Subpart L apply when employees are working from a concrete formwork platform in two scenarios CFA believes that during the erection of individual formwork components of an integrated floor system such as beams drop panels joists and slab panels Subpart L should apply (see scenario submitted by CFA below) At that point workers stand and walk on the individual formwork components In its view Subpart M applies only once the components are tied together and become a continuous
integrated floor system (not pictured) CFA states that in the pictured scenario general contractors are requiring employees to tie-off with personal fall arrest systems They assert that their shoring platform is only about 85 feet above the ground level and that if a fall were to occur it would not be arrested prior to the employee contacting the level below
Which standard applies Subpart M or Subpart L
Classification of the formworkshoring as a walkingworking surface under Subpart M or as a work platform under Subpart L is significant because these standards have different thresholds for requiring fall protection As you know Subpart M requires employees to be protected from falls of 6 feet or more (29 CFR 1926501(b)(1)) It defines a walkingworking surface to mean in part any surface whether horizontal or vertical on which an employee walks or works including but not limited to floors roofs ramps bridges runways formwork and concrete reinforcing steel [emphasis added]
Section 501(b)(1) requires that employees on a walkingworking surface (horizontal and vertical surface) with an unprotected side or edge must be protected Therefore where that walkingworking surface is formwork the employee must be protected Section 1926501(b)(2) requires fall protection for employees constructing leading edges That term is defined in sect500(b) as the edge of a floor roof or formwork for a floor or other walkingworking surface
(such as the deck) which changes location as additional floor roof decking or formwork sections are placed formed or constructed [emphasis added] Therefore under sect501(b)(2) employees constructing formwork leading edges must be protected in accordance with that section Finally sect501(b)(5) requires that employees on the face of formwork must be protected under Subpart M as well OSHAs scaffold standard 29 CFR 1926 Subpart L does not require fall protection for employees until they are exposed to falls in excess of 10 feet as specified in sect1926451(g) Subpart L defines a scaffold to mean any temporary elevated platform (supported or suspended) and its supporting
structure (including points of anchorage) used for supporting employees or materials or both Subpart L addresses formwork in sect1926450(b) under the definition of form scaffold which is defined as a supported scaffold consisting of a platform supported by brackets attached to formwork In the preamble to Subpart L the Agency stated that this type of scaffold is similar to a carpenters bracket scaffold and a top plate bracket scaffold (volume 61 of the Federal Register No 170 page 46033 August 30 1996) Therefore when an employee is supported by a device that attaches to the formwork the scaffold standard applies The scaffold standard would also apply where the formwork is not erected for use as formwork but instead is being
used only as a substitute for scaffold components Otherwise Subpart M applies when an employee stands on the face or the top of the formwork In the two situations described by CFA -- where employees are walking and working on individual formwork sections and on sections joined together Subpart M is the most specifically applicable standard It specifically covers formwork in its definition of walkingworking surfaces and the employees in the submitted scenario are not working on form scaffolds Therefore the requirements of Subpart M apply irrespective of whether the formwork sections stand alone or are joined into an integrated system1 Fall Arrest Distances CFA asserts that the personal fall arrest systems being used by workers on the formwork would not arrest falls at heights of about 8 feet We note that the fall arrest distance is determined by many factors and that there are often ways to rig systems to limit falls to very short distances
For the narrow walkingworking surface pictured above (see right side of illustration) guardrails may be the most useful approach Please feel free to contact us if you need further clarification on this issue
May 21 2003 Ms Deborah Caldwell 5071 Butler Rd Caldwell Electrical Contractors
Gainesville Georgia 30506 Re Ladders fall protection working on top of equipment Dear Ms Caldwell This is in response to your letter of November 22 2002 in which you ask for guidance regarding OSHAs fall protection requirements for construction work We apologize for the delay in providing this response
We have paraphrased your question as follows Question Scenario to complete a construction project a worker places a portable ladder on top of a piece of equipment or on the roof of a structure that is inside a large building The top of the equipment or structure is at least 10 x 10 and at least 10 above the ground It is stable level and sufficiently strong to support the loads imposed by the worker materials and tools needed for the job The worker will then do the construction task while on the ladder Is fall protection required for this worker
Answer We will answer your question in two parts first with respect to whether fall protection is required for a worker while on the surfaces you describe second with respect to whether fall protection is required while the worker is on the ladder 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart M (Fall protection) contains fall protection requirements for protecting an employee working on walkingworking surface (sect1926501(b)(1)) A walkingworking surface is defined in sect1926500(b) as follows Any surface whether horizontal or vertical on which an employee walks or works including but
not limited to floors roofs ramps bridges runways formwork and concrete reinforcing steel but not ladders vehicles or trailers on which employees must be located in order to perform their duties The 10 x 10 top surface of the equipment and the roof the structure that is inside the large building both meet this definition and would be considered a walkingworking surface The requirements of Subpart M would apply to a worker who is on those surfaces Section 1926501(b)(1) states Unprotected sides and edges Each employee on a walkingworking surface (horizontal and vertical surface) with an unprotected side or edge which is 6 feet or more above a lower level
shall be protected from falling by the use of guardrail systems safety net systems or personal fall arrest systems Since these surfaces are at or over 6 feet above the next lowest level fall protection is required while the worker is on those surfaces Fall protection can be accomplished by using guardrails a personal fall arrest system a fall restraint device or safety net system However with respect to fall protection requirements for a worker on the ladder sect1926500(a)(2)(vii) states Requirements relating to fall protection for employees working on stairways and ladders are
provided in Subpart X Subpart X (29 CFR 19261050 et seq) does not require fall protection for a worker on a portable ladder Therefore no additional fall protection is required while the worker is on the ladder The fact that the ladder is on either of the surfaces you describe rather than on the ground does not
alter this conclusion Recommendation Although not an OSHA requirement we recommend the use of a scaffold scissor lift or aerial device instead of a ladder in the scenario you describe where practicable
If you have further concerns or questions please feel free to contact us again by fax at US Department of Labor OSHA Directorate of Construction [Office of Construction Standards and Guidance] fax 202-693-1689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely
Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
March 12 2004 Mr Randy Stahl Safety Manager Korellis Roofing Inc
1333 169th Street Hammond IN 46324-2008 Re Is fall protection required during small roofing repairs that take minimal time to complete Dear Mr Stahl This is in response to your letter dated December 16 2003 to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) We have paraphrased your question as follows
Question 1 Scenario We do roofing inspections in order to identify where repairs are needed on pre-existing roofing systems Often the repairs needed are small in scale and worker exposure to a fall hazard is minimal in terms of time The fall hazard exposure time for the installation and removal of fall protection systems from the roof exceeds the exposure time for completing these roofing repair jobs In this circumstance in non-residential roofing work is fall protection required by 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart M
Answer First Part 1926 Subpart M does not require fall protection for those conducting the initial inspection of the roof to determine what work needs to be done Section 1926500(a) states This subpart sets forth requirements and criteria for fall protection in construction workplaces covered under 29 CFR Part 1926 Exception The provisions of this subpart do not apply when employees are making an inspection investigation or assessment of workplace conditions prior to the actual start of construction work or after all construction work has been completed [Emphasis added] With regard to fall protection requirements applicable to the construction work itself
sect1926501(b)(10) (low slope roofs) requires conventional fall protection a combination of a monitoring system and warning line or on roofs of 50 feet or less in width a monitoring system alone (ie without a warning line) be used Under the standard the requirement for fall protection for this work does not depend on the duration of the fall hazard exposure In contrast the Agency found in the rulemaking that the short duration of hazard exposure was part of the basis for creating the exception for the inspection-only activity But another basis for the exception was the concept that in inspections before and after the work is done there is no on-going construction work to divert the inspectors attention from the fall hazard Once there is construction activity the risk goes up by virtue of that diversion of attention Consequently in
the preamble to the rule OSHA stated that the exception does not apply if the inspection activity takes place at the same time the construction work is on-going [I]f inspections are made while construction operations are underway all employees who are exposed to fall hazards while performing inspections must be protected as required by Subpart M1 Therefore apart from inspections the Agency in the rulemaking rejected short duration of the exposure as an exception to the fall protection requirement for construction work Note though that the use of warning lines without a monitor is acceptable where the warning
lines are at least 15 feet back from the edge and all of the following are met (1) A warning line is used 15 feet or more from the edge (or nearest edge of a hole) (2) The warning line meets or exceeds the requirements in sect1926502(f)(2) (3) No work or work-related activity is to take place in the area between the warning line and the
hole or edge and (4) The employer effectively implements a work rule prohibiting the employees from going past the warning line2 If you need additional information please contact us by fax (202-693-1689) at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance You can also contact us by mail
at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
April 17 2006
MEMORANDUM FOR Kenneth Gereke
Regional Administrator Region III
ATTN John McFee Construction Coordinator Region III
FROM Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
SUBJECT Guardrail height requirements for construction activities in General Industry Facilities
This is in response to your e-mail submitted April 7 2005 You ask for compliance guidance with regard to the application of Subpart M Fall Protection requirements for construction activities in a General Industry facility We apologize for the long delay in providing this response
We have paraphrased your question as follows Question Scenario Employees are engaged in construction activities on a walkingworking surface at a General Industry worksite The guardrails on that site have a top rail that is 36 inches from the walkingworking surface Under OSHA Directive STD 01-01-010 and subsequent proposed rulemaking the use of such a guardrail by General Industry employees is only a technical violation of the General Industry standard 29 CFR 191023(e)(1) which otherwise requires a nominal vertical height of 42 inches
Would the construction employer be in violation of sect1926502(b)(1) (Subpart M) of the construction standards which requires the use of guardrails with a top rail that is 39 to 45 inches above the walkingworking surface level Answer Yes it would be a violation of Subpart M if construction work were performed on an elevated walkingworking surface that is guarded by a permanent guardrail system with a 36-inch top rail even though that top rail height is permitted for General Industry work under STD 01-01-010
Background Section 191023(e)(1) (Subpart D mdash Walking-Working Surfaces) of the General Industry standards states Railing toe boards and cover specifications (1) A standard railing shall consist of top rail intermediate rail and posts and shall have a vertical height of 42 inches nominal from upper surface of top rail to floor platform runway or ramp level [Emphasis added] However OSHA Directive STD-01-01-010 mdash Height of Guardrails in General Industry Applications notes
C Action OSHA Regional AdministratorsArea Directors shall classify technical violations of 29 CFR 191023(e)(1) as de minimis violations where the employer has provided guardrails which meet the following specifications (1) Existing guardrailing shall consist of a top rail intermediate rail and posts or equivalent and shall have a minimum vertical height of 36 inches to 44 inches from the upper surface of the top rail to the floor platform runway or ramp level [Emphasis added] E Background A Field Information Memorandum was previously issued regarding the
height of guardrails The intended revision [of Subpart D of 29 CFR 1910] is not yet available therefore to provide equitable enforcement which does not place unnecessary cost burdens upon employers or have a direct or immediate effect upon the safety or health of employees this instruction reissues the previous policy 1 In addition under General Industrys proposed rule on Walking and Working Surfaces (55
Federal Register 13360) guardrail systems with top rails that are 36 inches in height would similarly be grandfathered2 In support of that provision OSHA noted in the preamble that continuing to tolerate the use of guardrails as low as 36 inches (91 cm) would not unacceptably reduce employee protection and that the hazard to which to which employees would be exposed in replacing those guardrails would be greater than that from allowing the existing guardrails to remain in place (55 Federal Register 13374) [Emphasis added] The applicable construction provision sect1926502(b)(1) (Subpart M-Fall Protection) provides in part Guardrail systems Guardrail systems and their use shall comply with the following provisions
(1) Top edge height of top rails or equivalent guardrail system members shall be 42 inches (11 m) plus or minus 3 inches (8 cm) above the walkingworking level [Emphasis added] AnalysisConclusion The General Industry directive permits the use of existing permanently-installed guardrails that have a 36-inch top rail The rationale for that policy as reflected in the preamble for General Industrys proposed rule on Walking and Working Surfaces is that employee safety is not compromised by the use of such existing permanent guardrails and employee exposure to fall hazards would be increased by requiring the replacement of these guardrails
In contrast construction activities often include carrying tools and materials that are heavy awkward to handle and in the case of large materials can sometimes block the employees view In addition unlike the general industry employer a construction employer is not faced with the choice of leaving the permanent guardrails in place or replacing them Instead because construction work is by its nature temporary construction employers typically install temporary guardrails These guardrail systems are designed for temporary use under varied worksite conditions
For example some of these systems would allow a construction employer to erect a temporary guardrail system adjacent to the permanent guardrail system or to attach a temporary top rail to the permanent guardrail system to meet the applicable requirements in Subpart M In addition unlike the permanent guardrail systems in and on structures addressed in STD 01-01-010 these temporary guardrail systems are designed to facilitate repeated installation and removal Consequently the concerns regarding unjustified additional hazard exposure involved in replacing permanent guardrails is not applicable to the construction employees in your scenario In sum when a construction employer protects its employees from falls with a guardrail system that guardrail system must meet the requirements in sect1926502(b) including the top rail height
requirement in sect1926501(b)(1) even where there is a permanent guardrail with a 36-inch top rail that pursuant to STD 01-01-010 is acceptable for General Industry work If you need additional assistance please contact us by fax or e-mail
1 It is our understanding that STD-01-01-010 was adopted in light of pre-OSHA General Industry practices Specifically in the Preamble of a proposed rulemaking for General Industrys Walking and Working Surfaces standard (Volume 55 of the Federal Register page 13373 (Apr 10 1999)) OSHA offered the following explanation OSHA issued the directive because it recognized that employers with guardrails as low as 36 inches (91 cm) might have installed their systems in compliance with pre-OSHA
building codes The Agency was also concerned that employers would be unreasonably burdened by the cost of replacing their guardrail systems with new guardrail systems that were a nominal 42 inches (11 m) high
4 The employer effectively implements a work rule prohibiting the employees from going past the warning line
Therefore where these conditions are met you may use a warning line 15 feet back from the edge to protect the HVAC workers Applying the policy to your mixed-trades scenario The fact that the HVAC workers are working on the roof at the same time as the roofing workers does not alter the fact that the standard does not permit the HVAC workers to rely on a warning line at 6 feet from the edge for fall protection If you believe that use of two warning lines - one at 6 feet and one at 15 feet -- would be confusing or otherwise unworkable you can protect the
HVAC workers with conventional fall protection equipment and dispense with the 15-feet warning line If you need further clarification on this subject please contact us by fax at US Department of Labor Directorate of Construction [Office of Construction Standards and Guidance] 202-6931689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue N W Washington DC 20210 although due to continuing anthrax decontamination procedures there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence Sincerely
Russell B Swanson Directorate of Construction Enclosure
August 28 2000 Mr Mark Troxell Construction Team Leader The PMA Insurance Group
107 Ponderosa Drive Blandon PA 19510 Re 1926501(b)(3) and 1926502(b) Dear Mr Troxell This responds to your June 1 1999 letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requesting information on wire rope and Crosby clips used around the perimeter of buildings as a guardrail You also requested clarification on when employees must tie-off when a
guardrail system is removed to facilitate hoisting operations We apologize for the long delay in providing this response Question 1 How many Crosby clips are required to be used when setting up a wire rope guardrail Is it permissible to splice two wire ropes by overlapping or must the connections be turned back into eyelets and properly secured Answer For construction work covered by 29 CFR 1926 Subpart M sect1926502(b) sets forth the criteria that must be met when using wire rope as a guardrail The standard requires guardrails
to meet several specific criteria For example 1926502(b)(3) states that the guardrail shall be capable of withstanding without failure a force of at least 200 pounds applied within 2 inches of the top edge in any outward or downward direction at any point along the top edge Section 1926502(b)(4) states that when the 200 pound test load noted in sect1926502(b)(3) is applied in a downward direction the top edge of the guardrail shall not deflect to a height less than 39 inches above the walkingworking level Section 1926502(b)(9) states that the top rail and mid-rails shall be at least frac14-inch nominal diameter or thickness to prevent cuts and lacerations These and other criteria must be met when using wire rope as a guardrail around the perimeter of a building
The OSHA standard does not specify a minimum number of clips when using wire rope as a guardrail However as a practical matter it is unlikely you could meet the specific requirements under sect1926502(b) unless you follow the manufacturers recommendations for the number of clips to be used on wire ropes of different diameters (for example the Crosby Group Inc general catalog 2000 edition has tables showing their recommendations for their clips) Also note that OSHAs standard for rigging equipment used for material handling 29 CFR sect1926251 has a table for the number of clips required for wire rope frac12-inch and greater Although that standard does not apply to wire rope used for guardrails when you design a rope system to meet the sect1926502 requirements following those tables will normally ensure that you have enough clips
Question 2 What are the requirements for tying-off employees when a guardrail system is removed to facilitate hoisting operations 29 CFR sect1926501(b)(3) states that when guardrails are removed to facilitate hoisting operations employees who have to lean out over the edge must be tied off What about other employees who do not have to lean outmdashdo they have to be tied-off also Answer Section 1926501(b)(3) states that each employee in a hoist area shall be protected from falls of 6 feet or more by guardrail systems or personal fall arrest systems It also states
that If guardrail systems are removed to facilitate the hoisting operation (eg during landing of materials) and an employee must lean through the access opening or out over the edge of the access opening (to receive or guide equipment and materials for example) that employee shall be protected from fall hazards by a personal fall arrest system (59 FR 40710)
You ask if this means that the only employees who must use fall protection when the guardrails are removed are those who must lean out The answer is no the first sentence of sect1926501(d)(3) requires that all employees in the hoist area be protected by either a guardrail or personal fall arrest system So when all or part of a guardrail has been removed all
employees must be protected by a personal fall arrest system The last sentence of sect1926501(d)(3) which states that employees who must lean out must be protected with personal fall arrest equipment did not create an exception for employees with no need to lean out The requirement that these employees also be protected is reflected in sect1926502(d)(24) It specifically provides that fall arrest systems in hoist areas be rigged to prevent employees from leaning past the edge when a personal fall arrest system is used at hoist areas it shall be rigged to allow the movement of the employee only as far as the edge of the walkingworking surface The Agency explained in the preamble to subpart M that this provision was promulgated to eliminate the tendency for employees to lean out over the edge at
hoist areas (see volume 59 No152 of the Federal Register page 40685 August 9 1994) Although inartfully drafted the purpose of the last sentence of sect1926501(b)(3) is to require that personal fall arrest equipment be used even when the necessity of leaning out makes compliance with sect1926502(d)(24) infeasible If you need additional information please contact us by fax at US Department of Labor OSHA Directorate of Construction Office of Construction Standards and Guidance fax 202-693-1689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving
correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
August 28 2000
MEMORANDUM FOR Ed Kassak
David Herstedt Region VIII
FROM Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
This memorandum responds to your fax dated May 7 1999 in which you ask for assistance in
responding to the Concrete Frame Association(CFA)s letter of May 4 1999 We apologize for the long delay in responding CFA asked whether the fall protection requirements of 29 CFR 1926 Subpart L apply when employees are working from a concrete formwork platform in two scenarios CFA believes that during the erection of individual formwork components of an integrated floor system such as beams drop panels joists and slab panels Subpart L should apply (see scenario submitted by CFA below) At that point workers stand and walk on the individual formwork components In its view Subpart M applies only once the components are tied together and become a continuous
integrated floor system (not pictured) CFA states that in the pictured scenario general contractors are requiring employees to tie-off with personal fall arrest systems They assert that their shoring platform is only about 85 feet above the ground level and that if a fall were to occur it would not be arrested prior to the employee contacting the level below
Which standard applies Subpart M or Subpart L
Classification of the formworkshoring as a walkingworking surface under Subpart M or as a work platform under Subpart L is significant because these standards have different thresholds for requiring fall protection As you know Subpart M requires employees to be protected from falls of 6 feet or more (29 CFR 1926501(b)(1)) It defines a walkingworking surface to mean in part any surface whether horizontal or vertical on which an employee walks or works including but not limited to floors roofs ramps bridges runways formwork and concrete reinforcing steel [emphasis added]
Section 501(b)(1) requires that employees on a walkingworking surface (horizontal and vertical surface) with an unprotected side or edge must be protected Therefore where that walkingworking surface is formwork the employee must be protected Section 1926501(b)(2) requires fall protection for employees constructing leading edges That term is defined in sect500(b) as the edge of a floor roof or formwork for a floor or other walkingworking surface
(such as the deck) which changes location as additional floor roof decking or formwork sections are placed formed or constructed [emphasis added] Therefore under sect501(b)(2) employees constructing formwork leading edges must be protected in accordance with that section Finally sect501(b)(5) requires that employees on the face of formwork must be protected under Subpart M as well OSHAs scaffold standard 29 CFR 1926 Subpart L does not require fall protection for employees until they are exposed to falls in excess of 10 feet as specified in sect1926451(g) Subpart L defines a scaffold to mean any temporary elevated platform (supported or suspended) and its supporting
structure (including points of anchorage) used for supporting employees or materials or both Subpart L addresses formwork in sect1926450(b) under the definition of form scaffold which is defined as a supported scaffold consisting of a platform supported by brackets attached to formwork In the preamble to Subpart L the Agency stated that this type of scaffold is similar to a carpenters bracket scaffold and a top plate bracket scaffold (volume 61 of the Federal Register No 170 page 46033 August 30 1996) Therefore when an employee is supported by a device that attaches to the formwork the scaffold standard applies The scaffold standard would also apply where the formwork is not erected for use as formwork but instead is being
used only as a substitute for scaffold components Otherwise Subpart M applies when an employee stands on the face or the top of the formwork In the two situations described by CFA -- where employees are walking and working on individual formwork sections and on sections joined together Subpart M is the most specifically applicable standard It specifically covers formwork in its definition of walkingworking surfaces and the employees in the submitted scenario are not working on form scaffolds Therefore the requirements of Subpart M apply irrespective of whether the formwork sections stand alone or are joined into an integrated system1 Fall Arrest Distances CFA asserts that the personal fall arrest systems being used by workers on the formwork would not arrest falls at heights of about 8 feet We note that the fall arrest distance is determined by many factors and that there are often ways to rig systems to limit falls to very short distances
For the narrow walkingworking surface pictured above (see right side of illustration) guardrails may be the most useful approach Please feel free to contact us if you need further clarification on this issue
May 21 2003 Ms Deborah Caldwell 5071 Butler Rd Caldwell Electrical Contractors
Gainesville Georgia 30506 Re Ladders fall protection working on top of equipment Dear Ms Caldwell This is in response to your letter of November 22 2002 in which you ask for guidance regarding OSHAs fall protection requirements for construction work We apologize for the delay in providing this response
We have paraphrased your question as follows Question Scenario to complete a construction project a worker places a portable ladder on top of a piece of equipment or on the roof of a structure that is inside a large building The top of the equipment or structure is at least 10 x 10 and at least 10 above the ground It is stable level and sufficiently strong to support the loads imposed by the worker materials and tools needed for the job The worker will then do the construction task while on the ladder Is fall protection required for this worker
Answer We will answer your question in two parts first with respect to whether fall protection is required for a worker while on the surfaces you describe second with respect to whether fall protection is required while the worker is on the ladder 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart M (Fall protection) contains fall protection requirements for protecting an employee working on walkingworking surface (sect1926501(b)(1)) A walkingworking surface is defined in sect1926500(b) as follows Any surface whether horizontal or vertical on which an employee walks or works including but
not limited to floors roofs ramps bridges runways formwork and concrete reinforcing steel but not ladders vehicles or trailers on which employees must be located in order to perform their duties The 10 x 10 top surface of the equipment and the roof the structure that is inside the large building both meet this definition and would be considered a walkingworking surface The requirements of Subpart M would apply to a worker who is on those surfaces Section 1926501(b)(1) states Unprotected sides and edges Each employee on a walkingworking surface (horizontal and vertical surface) with an unprotected side or edge which is 6 feet or more above a lower level
shall be protected from falling by the use of guardrail systems safety net systems or personal fall arrest systems Since these surfaces are at or over 6 feet above the next lowest level fall protection is required while the worker is on those surfaces Fall protection can be accomplished by using guardrails a personal fall arrest system a fall restraint device or safety net system However with respect to fall protection requirements for a worker on the ladder sect1926500(a)(2)(vii) states Requirements relating to fall protection for employees working on stairways and ladders are
provided in Subpart X Subpart X (29 CFR 19261050 et seq) does not require fall protection for a worker on a portable ladder Therefore no additional fall protection is required while the worker is on the ladder The fact that the ladder is on either of the surfaces you describe rather than on the ground does not
alter this conclusion Recommendation Although not an OSHA requirement we recommend the use of a scaffold scissor lift or aerial device instead of a ladder in the scenario you describe where practicable
If you have further concerns or questions please feel free to contact us again by fax at US Department of Labor OSHA Directorate of Construction [Office of Construction Standards and Guidance] fax 202-693-1689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely
Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
March 12 2004 Mr Randy Stahl Safety Manager Korellis Roofing Inc
1333 169th Street Hammond IN 46324-2008 Re Is fall protection required during small roofing repairs that take minimal time to complete Dear Mr Stahl This is in response to your letter dated December 16 2003 to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) We have paraphrased your question as follows
Question 1 Scenario We do roofing inspections in order to identify where repairs are needed on pre-existing roofing systems Often the repairs needed are small in scale and worker exposure to a fall hazard is minimal in terms of time The fall hazard exposure time for the installation and removal of fall protection systems from the roof exceeds the exposure time for completing these roofing repair jobs In this circumstance in non-residential roofing work is fall protection required by 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart M
Answer First Part 1926 Subpart M does not require fall protection for those conducting the initial inspection of the roof to determine what work needs to be done Section 1926500(a) states This subpart sets forth requirements and criteria for fall protection in construction workplaces covered under 29 CFR Part 1926 Exception The provisions of this subpart do not apply when employees are making an inspection investigation or assessment of workplace conditions prior to the actual start of construction work or after all construction work has been completed [Emphasis added] With regard to fall protection requirements applicable to the construction work itself
sect1926501(b)(10) (low slope roofs) requires conventional fall protection a combination of a monitoring system and warning line or on roofs of 50 feet or less in width a monitoring system alone (ie without a warning line) be used Under the standard the requirement for fall protection for this work does not depend on the duration of the fall hazard exposure In contrast the Agency found in the rulemaking that the short duration of hazard exposure was part of the basis for creating the exception for the inspection-only activity But another basis for the exception was the concept that in inspections before and after the work is done there is no on-going construction work to divert the inspectors attention from the fall hazard Once there is construction activity the risk goes up by virtue of that diversion of attention Consequently in
the preamble to the rule OSHA stated that the exception does not apply if the inspection activity takes place at the same time the construction work is on-going [I]f inspections are made while construction operations are underway all employees who are exposed to fall hazards while performing inspections must be protected as required by Subpart M1 Therefore apart from inspections the Agency in the rulemaking rejected short duration of the exposure as an exception to the fall protection requirement for construction work Note though that the use of warning lines without a monitor is acceptable where the warning
lines are at least 15 feet back from the edge and all of the following are met (1) A warning line is used 15 feet or more from the edge (or nearest edge of a hole) (2) The warning line meets or exceeds the requirements in sect1926502(f)(2) (3) No work or work-related activity is to take place in the area between the warning line and the
hole or edge and (4) The employer effectively implements a work rule prohibiting the employees from going past the warning line2 If you need additional information please contact us by fax (202-693-1689) at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance You can also contact us by mail
at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
April 17 2006
MEMORANDUM FOR Kenneth Gereke
Regional Administrator Region III
ATTN John McFee Construction Coordinator Region III
FROM Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
SUBJECT Guardrail height requirements for construction activities in General Industry Facilities
This is in response to your e-mail submitted April 7 2005 You ask for compliance guidance with regard to the application of Subpart M Fall Protection requirements for construction activities in a General Industry facility We apologize for the long delay in providing this response
We have paraphrased your question as follows Question Scenario Employees are engaged in construction activities on a walkingworking surface at a General Industry worksite The guardrails on that site have a top rail that is 36 inches from the walkingworking surface Under OSHA Directive STD 01-01-010 and subsequent proposed rulemaking the use of such a guardrail by General Industry employees is only a technical violation of the General Industry standard 29 CFR 191023(e)(1) which otherwise requires a nominal vertical height of 42 inches
Would the construction employer be in violation of sect1926502(b)(1) (Subpart M) of the construction standards which requires the use of guardrails with a top rail that is 39 to 45 inches above the walkingworking surface level Answer Yes it would be a violation of Subpart M if construction work were performed on an elevated walkingworking surface that is guarded by a permanent guardrail system with a 36-inch top rail even though that top rail height is permitted for General Industry work under STD 01-01-010
Background Section 191023(e)(1) (Subpart D mdash Walking-Working Surfaces) of the General Industry standards states Railing toe boards and cover specifications (1) A standard railing shall consist of top rail intermediate rail and posts and shall have a vertical height of 42 inches nominal from upper surface of top rail to floor platform runway or ramp level [Emphasis added] However OSHA Directive STD-01-01-010 mdash Height of Guardrails in General Industry Applications notes
C Action OSHA Regional AdministratorsArea Directors shall classify technical violations of 29 CFR 191023(e)(1) as de minimis violations where the employer has provided guardrails which meet the following specifications (1) Existing guardrailing shall consist of a top rail intermediate rail and posts or equivalent and shall have a minimum vertical height of 36 inches to 44 inches from the upper surface of the top rail to the floor platform runway or ramp level [Emphasis added] E Background A Field Information Memorandum was previously issued regarding the
height of guardrails The intended revision [of Subpart D of 29 CFR 1910] is not yet available therefore to provide equitable enforcement which does not place unnecessary cost burdens upon employers or have a direct or immediate effect upon the safety or health of employees this instruction reissues the previous policy 1 In addition under General Industrys proposed rule on Walking and Working Surfaces (55
Federal Register 13360) guardrail systems with top rails that are 36 inches in height would similarly be grandfathered2 In support of that provision OSHA noted in the preamble that continuing to tolerate the use of guardrails as low as 36 inches (91 cm) would not unacceptably reduce employee protection and that the hazard to which to which employees would be exposed in replacing those guardrails would be greater than that from allowing the existing guardrails to remain in place (55 Federal Register 13374) [Emphasis added] The applicable construction provision sect1926502(b)(1) (Subpart M-Fall Protection) provides in part Guardrail systems Guardrail systems and their use shall comply with the following provisions
(1) Top edge height of top rails or equivalent guardrail system members shall be 42 inches (11 m) plus or minus 3 inches (8 cm) above the walkingworking level [Emphasis added] AnalysisConclusion The General Industry directive permits the use of existing permanently-installed guardrails that have a 36-inch top rail The rationale for that policy as reflected in the preamble for General Industrys proposed rule on Walking and Working Surfaces is that employee safety is not compromised by the use of such existing permanent guardrails and employee exposure to fall hazards would be increased by requiring the replacement of these guardrails
In contrast construction activities often include carrying tools and materials that are heavy awkward to handle and in the case of large materials can sometimes block the employees view In addition unlike the general industry employer a construction employer is not faced with the choice of leaving the permanent guardrails in place or replacing them Instead because construction work is by its nature temporary construction employers typically install temporary guardrails These guardrail systems are designed for temporary use under varied worksite conditions
For example some of these systems would allow a construction employer to erect a temporary guardrail system adjacent to the permanent guardrail system or to attach a temporary top rail to the permanent guardrail system to meet the applicable requirements in Subpart M In addition unlike the permanent guardrail systems in and on structures addressed in STD 01-01-010 these temporary guardrail systems are designed to facilitate repeated installation and removal Consequently the concerns regarding unjustified additional hazard exposure involved in replacing permanent guardrails is not applicable to the construction employees in your scenario In sum when a construction employer protects its employees from falls with a guardrail system that guardrail system must meet the requirements in sect1926502(b) including the top rail height
requirement in sect1926501(b)(1) even where there is a permanent guardrail with a 36-inch top rail that pursuant to STD 01-01-010 is acceptable for General Industry work If you need additional assistance please contact us by fax or e-mail
1 It is our understanding that STD-01-01-010 was adopted in light of pre-OSHA General Industry practices Specifically in the Preamble of a proposed rulemaking for General Industrys Walking and Working Surfaces standard (Volume 55 of the Federal Register page 13373 (Apr 10 1999)) OSHA offered the following explanation OSHA issued the directive because it recognized that employers with guardrails as low as 36 inches (91 cm) might have installed their systems in compliance with pre-OSHA
building codes The Agency was also concerned that employers would be unreasonably burdened by the cost of replacing their guardrail systems with new guardrail systems that were a nominal 42 inches (11 m) high
August 28 2000 Mr Mark Troxell Construction Team Leader The PMA Insurance Group
107 Ponderosa Drive Blandon PA 19510 Re 1926501(b)(3) and 1926502(b) Dear Mr Troxell This responds to your June 1 1999 letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requesting information on wire rope and Crosby clips used around the perimeter of buildings as a guardrail You also requested clarification on when employees must tie-off when a
guardrail system is removed to facilitate hoisting operations We apologize for the long delay in providing this response Question 1 How many Crosby clips are required to be used when setting up a wire rope guardrail Is it permissible to splice two wire ropes by overlapping or must the connections be turned back into eyelets and properly secured Answer For construction work covered by 29 CFR 1926 Subpart M sect1926502(b) sets forth the criteria that must be met when using wire rope as a guardrail The standard requires guardrails
to meet several specific criteria For example 1926502(b)(3) states that the guardrail shall be capable of withstanding without failure a force of at least 200 pounds applied within 2 inches of the top edge in any outward or downward direction at any point along the top edge Section 1926502(b)(4) states that when the 200 pound test load noted in sect1926502(b)(3) is applied in a downward direction the top edge of the guardrail shall not deflect to a height less than 39 inches above the walkingworking level Section 1926502(b)(9) states that the top rail and mid-rails shall be at least frac14-inch nominal diameter or thickness to prevent cuts and lacerations These and other criteria must be met when using wire rope as a guardrail around the perimeter of a building
The OSHA standard does not specify a minimum number of clips when using wire rope as a guardrail However as a practical matter it is unlikely you could meet the specific requirements under sect1926502(b) unless you follow the manufacturers recommendations for the number of clips to be used on wire ropes of different diameters (for example the Crosby Group Inc general catalog 2000 edition has tables showing their recommendations for their clips) Also note that OSHAs standard for rigging equipment used for material handling 29 CFR sect1926251 has a table for the number of clips required for wire rope frac12-inch and greater Although that standard does not apply to wire rope used for guardrails when you design a rope system to meet the sect1926502 requirements following those tables will normally ensure that you have enough clips
Question 2 What are the requirements for tying-off employees when a guardrail system is removed to facilitate hoisting operations 29 CFR sect1926501(b)(3) states that when guardrails are removed to facilitate hoisting operations employees who have to lean out over the edge must be tied off What about other employees who do not have to lean outmdashdo they have to be tied-off also Answer Section 1926501(b)(3) states that each employee in a hoist area shall be protected from falls of 6 feet or more by guardrail systems or personal fall arrest systems It also states
that If guardrail systems are removed to facilitate the hoisting operation (eg during landing of materials) and an employee must lean through the access opening or out over the edge of the access opening (to receive or guide equipment and materials for example) that employee shall be protected from fall hazards by a personal fall arrest system (59 FR 40710)
You ask if this means that the only employees who must use fall protection when the guardrails are removed are those who must lean out The answer is no the first sentence of sect1926501(d)(3) requires that all employees in the hoist area be protected by either a guardrail or personal fall arrest system So when all or part of a guardrail has been removed all
employees must be protected by a personal fall arrest system The last sentence of sect1926501(d)(3) which states that employees who must lean out must be protected with personal fall arrest equipment did not create an exception for employees with no need to lean out The requirement that these employees also be protected is reflected in sect1926502(d)(24) It specifically provides that fall arrest systems in hoist areas be rigged to prevent employees from leaning past the edge when a personal fall arrest system is used at hoist areas it shall be rigged to allow the movement of the employee only as far as the edge of the walkingworking surface The Agency explained in the preamble to subpart M that this provision was promulgated to eliminate the tendency for employees to lean out over the edge at
hoist areas (see volume 59 No152 of the Federal Register page 40685 August 9 1994) Although inartfully drafted the purpose of the last sentence of sect1926501(b)(3) is to require that personal fall arrest equipment be used even when the necessity of leaning out makes compliance with sect1926502(d)(24) infeasible If you need additional information please contact us by fax at US Department of Labor OSHA Directorate of Construction Office of Construction Standards and Guidance fax 202-693-1689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving
correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
August 28 2000
MEMORANDUM FOR Ed Kassak
David Herstedt Region VIII
FROM Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
This memorandum responds to your fax dated May 7 1999 in which you ask for assistance in
responding to the Concrete Frame Association(CFA)s letter of May 4 1999 We apologize for the long delay in responding CFA asked whether the fall protection requirements of 29 CFR 1926 Subpart L apply when employees are working from a concrete formwork platform in two scenarios CFA believes that during the erection of individual formwork components of an integrated floor system such as beams drop panels joists and slab panels Subpart L should apply (see scenario submitted by CFA below) At that point workers stand and walk on the individual formwork components In its view Subpart M applies only once the components are tied together and become a continuous
integrated floor system (not pictured) CFA states that in the pictured scenario general contractors are requiring employees to tie-off with personal fall arrest systems They assert that their shoring platform is only about 85 feet above the ground level and that if a fall were to occur it would not be arrested prior to the employee contacting the level below
Which standard applies Subpart M or Subpart L
Classification of the formworkshoring as a walkingworking surface under Subpart M or as a work platform under Subpart L is significant because these standards have different thresholds for requiring fall protection As you know Subpart M requires employees to be protected from falls of 6 feet or more (29 CFR 1926501(b)(1)) It defines a walkingworking surface to mean in part any surface whether horizontal or vertical on which an employee walks or works including but not limited to floors roofs ramps bridges runways formwork and concrete reinforcing steel [emphasis added]
Section 501(b)(1) requires that employees on a walkingworking surface (horizontal and vertical surface) with an unprotected side or edge must be protected Therefore where that walkingworking surface is formwork the employee must be protected Section 1926501(b)(2) requires fall protection for employees constructing leading edges That term is defined in sect500(b) as the edge of a floor roof or formwork for a floor or other walkingworking surface
(such as the deck) which changes location as additional floor roof decking or formwork sections are placed formed or constructed [emphasis added] Therefore under sect501(b)(2) employees constructing formwork leading edges must be protected in accordance with that section Finally sect501(b)(5) requires that employees on the face of formwork must be protected under Subpart M as well OSHAs scaffold standard 29 CFR 1926 Subpart L does not require fall protection for employees until they are exposed to falls in excess of 10 feet as specified in sect1926451(g) Subpart L defines a scaffold to mean any temporary elevated platform (supported or suspended) and its supporting
structure (including points of anchorage) used for supporting employees or materials or both Subpart L addresses formwork in sect1926450(b) under the definition of form scaffold which is defined as a supported scaffold consisting of a platform supported by brackets attached to formwork In the preamble to Subpart L the Agency stated that this type of scaffold is similar to a carpenters bracket scaffold and a top plate bracket scaffold (volume 61 of the Federal Register No 170 page 46033 August 30 1996) Therefore when an employee is supported by a device that attaches to the formwork the scaffold standard applies The scaffold standard would also apply where the formwork is not erected for use as formwork but instead is being
used only as a substitute for scaffold components Otherwise Subpart M applies when an employee stands on the face or the top of the formwork In the two situations described by CFA -- where employees are walking and working on individual formwork sections and on sections joined together Subpart M is the most specifically applicable standard It specifically covers formwork in its definition of walkingworking surfaces and the employees in the submitted scenario are not working on form scaffolds Therefore the requirements of Subpart M apply irrespective of whether the formwork sections stand alone or are joined into an integrated system1 Fall Arrest Distances CFA asserts that the personal fall arrest systems being used by workers on the formwork would not arrest falls at heights of about 8 feet We note that the fall arrest distance is determined by many factors and that there are often ways to rig systems to limit falls to very short distances
For the narrow walkingworking surface pictured above (see right side of illustration) guardrails may be the most useful approach Please feel free to contact us if you need further clarification on this issue
May 21 2003 Ms Deborah Caldwell 5071 Butler Rd Caldwell Electrical Contractors
Gainesville Georgia 30506 Re Ladders fall protection working on top of equipment Dear Ms Caldwell This is in response to your letter of November 22 2002 in which you ask for guidance regarding OSHAs fall protection requirements for construction work We apologize for the delay in providing this response
We have paraphrased your question as follows Question Scenario to complete a construction project a worker places a portable ladder on top of a piece of equipment or on the roof of a structure that is inside a large building The top of the equipment or structure is at least 10 x 10 and at least 10 above the ground It is stable level and sufficiently strong to support the loads imposed by the worker materials and tools needed for the job The worker will then do the construction task while on the ladder Is fall protection required for this worker
Answer We will answer your question in two parts first with respect to whether fall protection is required for a worker while on the surfaces you describe second with respect to whether fall protection is required while the worker is on the ladder 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart M (Fall protection) contains fall protection requirements for protecting an employee working on walkingworking surface (sect1926501(b)(1)) A walkingworking surface is defined in sect1926500(b) as follows Any surface whether horizontal or vertical on which an employee walks or works including but
not limited to floors roofs ramps bridges runways formwork and concrete reinforcing steel but not ladders vehicles or trailers on which employees must be located in order to perform their duties The 10 x 10 top surface of the equipment and the roof the structure that is inside the large building both meet this definition and would be considered a walkingworking surface The requirements of Subpart M would apply to a worker who is on those surfaces Section 1926501(b)(1) states Unprotected sides and edges Each employee on a walkingworking surface (horizontal and vertical surface) with an unprotected side or edge which is 6 feet or more above a lower level
shall be protected from falling by the use of guardrail systems safety net systems or personal fall arrest systems Since these surfaces are at or over 6 feet above the next lowest level fall protection is required while the worker is on those surfaces Fall protection can be accomplished by using guardrails a personal fall arrest system a fall restraint device or safety net system However with respect to fall protection requirements for a worker on the ladder sect1926500(a)(2)(vii) states Requirements relating to fall protection for employees working on stairways and ladders are
provided in Subpart X Subpart X (29 CFR 19261050 et seq) does not require fall protection for a worker on a portable ladder Therefore no additional fall protection is required while the worker is on the ladder The fact that the ladder is on either of the surfaces you describe rather than on the ground does not
alter this conclusion Recommendation Although not an OSHA requirement we recommend the use of a scaffold scissor lift or aerial device instead of a ladder in the scenario you describe where practicable
If you have further concerns or questions please feel free to contact us again by fax at US Department of Labor OSHA Directorate of Construction [Office of Construction Standards and Guidance] fax 202-693-1689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely
Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
March 12 2004 Mr Randy Stahl Safety Manager Korellis Roofing Inc
1333 169th Street Hammond IN 46324-2008 Re Is fall protection required during small roofing repairs that take minimal time to complete Dear Mr Stahl This is in response to your letter dated December 16 2003 to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) We have paraphrased your question as follows
Question 1 Scenario We do roofing inspections in order to identify where repairs are needed on pre-existing roofing systems Often the repairs needed are small in scale and worker exposure to a fall hazard is minimal in terms of time The fall hazard exposure time for the installation and removal of fall protection systems from the roof exceeds the exposure time for completing these roofing repair jobs In this circumstance in non-residential roofing work is fall protection required by 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart M
Answer First Part 1926 Subpart M does not require fall protection for those conducting the initial inspection of the roof to determine what work needs to be done Section 1926500(a) states This subpart sets forth requirements and criteria for fall protection in construction workplaces covered under 29 CFR Part 1926 Exception The provisions of this subpart do not apply when employees are making an inspection investigation or assessment of workplace conditions prior to the actual start of construction work or after all construction work has been completed [Emphasis added] With regard to fall protection requirements applicable to the construction work itself
sect1926501(b)(10) (low slope roofs) requires conventional fall protection a combination of a monitoring system and warning line or on roofs of 50 feet or less in width a monitoring system alone (ie without a warning line) be used Under the standard the requirement for fall protection for this work does not depend on the duration of the fall hazard exposure In contrast the Agency found in the rulemaking that the short duration of hazard exposure was part of the basis for creating the exception for the inspection-only activity But another basis for the exception was the concept that in inspections before and after the work is done there is no on-going construction work to divert the inspectors attention from the fall hazard Once there is construction activity the risk goes up by virtue of that diversion of attention Consequently in
the preamble to the rule OSHA stated that the exception does not apply if the inspection activity takes place at the same time the construction work is on-going [I]f inspections are made while construction operations are underway all employees who are exposed to fall hazards while performing inspections must be protected as required by Subpart M1 Therefore apart from inspections the Agency in the rulemaking rejected short duration of the exposure as an exception to the fall protection requirement for construction work Note though that the use of warning lines without a monitor is acceptable where the warning
lines are at least 15 feet back from the edge and all of the following are met (1) A warning line is used 15 feet or more from the edge (or nearest edge of a hole) (2) The warning line meets or exceeds the requirements in sect1926502(f)(2) (3) No work or work-related activity is to take place in the area between the warning line and the
hole or edge and (4) The employer effectively implements a work rule prohibiting the employees from going past the warning line2 If you need additional information please contact us by fax (202-693-1689) at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance You can also contact us by mail
at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
April 17 2006
MEMORANDUM FOR Kenneth Gereke
Regional Administrator Region III
ATTN John McFee Construction Coordinator Region III
FROM Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
SUBJECT Guardrail height requirements for construction activities in General Industry Facilities
This is in response to your e-mail submitted April 7 2005 You ask for compliance guidance with regard to the application of Subpart M Fall Protection requirements for construction activities in a General Industry facility We apologize for the long delay in providing this response
We have paraphrased your question as follows Question Scenario Employees are engaged in construction activities on a walkingworking surface at a General Industry worksite The guardrails on that site have a top rail that is 36 inches from the walkingworking surface Under OSHA Directive STD 01-01-010 and subsequent proposed rulemaking the use of such a guardrail by General Industry employees is only a technical violation of the General Industry standard 29 CFR 191023(e)(1) which otherwise requires a nominal vertical height of 42 inches
Would the construction employer be in violation of sect1926502(b)(1) (Subpart M) of the construction standards which requires the use of guardrails with a top rail that is 39 to 45 inches above the walkingworking surface level Answer Yes it would be a violation of Subpart M if construction work were performed on an elevated walkingworking surface that is guarded by a permanent guardrail system with a 36-inch top rail even though that top rail height is permitted for General Industry work under STD 01-01-010
Background Section 191023(e)(1) (Subpart D mdash Walking-Working Surfaces) of the General Industry standards states Railing toe boards and cover specifications (1) A standard railing shall consist of top rail intermediate rail and posts and shall have a vertical height of 42 inches nominal from upper surface of top rail to floor platform runway or ramp level [Emphasis added] However OSHA Directive STD-01-01-010 mdash Height of Guardrails in General Industry Applications notes
C Action OSHA Regional AdministratorsArea Directors shall classify technical violations of 29 CFR 191023(e)(1) as de minimis violations where the employer has provided guardrails which meet the following specifications (1) Existing guardrailing shall consist of a top rail intermediate rail and posts or equivalent and shall have a minimum vertical height of 36 inches to 44 inches from the upper surface of the top rail to the floor platform runway or ramp level [Emphasis added] E Background A Field Information Memorandum was previously issued regarding the
height of guardrails The intended revision [of Subpart D of 29 CFR 1910] is not yet available therefore to provide equitable enforcement which does not place unnecessary cost burdens upon employers or have a direct or immediate effect upon the safety or health of employees this instruction reissues the previous policy 1 In addition under General Industrys proposed rule on Walking and Working Surfaces (55
Federal Register 13360) guardrail systems with top rails that are 36 inches in height would similarly be grandfathered2 In support of that provision OSHA noted in the preamble that continuing to tolerate the use of guardrails as low as 36 inches (91 cm) would not unacceptably reduce employee protection and that the hazard to which to which employees would be exposed in replacing those guardrails would be greater than that from allowing the existing guardrails to remain in place (55 Federal Register 13374) [Emphasis added] The applicable construction provision sect1926502(b)(1) (Subpart M-Fall Protection) provides in part Guardrail systems Guardrail systems and their use shall comply with the following provisions
(1) Top edge height of top rails or equivalent guardrail system members shall be 42 inches (11 m) plus or minus 3 inches (8 cm) above the walkingworking level [Emphasis added] AnalysisConclusion The General Industry directive permits the use of existing permanently-installed guardrails that have a 36-inch top rail The rationale for that policy as reflected in the preamble for General Industrys proposed rule on Walking and Working Surfaces is that employee safety is not compromised by the use of such existing permanent guardrails and employee exposure to fall hazards would be increased by requiring the replacement of these guardrails
In contrast construction activities often include carrying tools and materials that are heavy awkward to handle and in the case of large materials can sometimes block the employees view In addition unlike the general industry employer a construction employer is not faced with the choice of leaving the permanent guardrails in place or replacing them Instead because construction work is by its nature temporary construction employers typically install temporary guardrails These guardrail systems are designed for temporary use under varied worksite conditions
For example some of these systems would allow a construction employer to erect a temporary guardrail system adjacent to the permanent guardrail system or to attach a temporary top rail to the permanent guardrail system to meet the applicable requirements in Subpart M In addition unlike the permanent guardrail systems in and on structures addressed in STD 01-01-010 these temporary guardrail systems are designed to facilitate repeated installation and removal Consequently the concerns regarding unjustified additional hazard exposure involved in replacing permanent guardrails is not applicable to the construction employees in your scenario In sum when a construction employer protects its employees from falls with a guardrail system that guardrail system must meet the requirements in sect1926502(b) including the top rail height
requirement in sect1926501(b)(1) even where there is a permanent guardrail with a 36-inch top rail that pursuant to STD 01-01-010 is acceptable for General Industry work If you need additional assistance please contact us by fax or e-mail
1 It is our understanding that STD-01-01-010 was adopted in light of pre-OSHA General Industry practices Specifically in the Preamble of a proposed rulemaking for General Industrys Walking and Working Surfaces standard (Volume 55 of the Federal Register page 13373 (Apr 10 1999)) OSHA offered the following explanation OSHA issued the directive because it recognized that employers with guardrails as low as 36 inches (91 cm) might have installed their systems in compliance with pre-OSHA
building codes The Agency was also concerned that employers would be unreasonably burdened by the cost of replacing their guardrail systems with new guardrail systems that were a nominal 42 inches (11 m) high
You ask if this means that the only employees who must use fall protection when the guardrails are removed are those who must lean out The answer is no the first sentence of sect1926501(d)(3) requires that all employees in the hoist area be protected by either a guardrail or personal fall arrest system So when all or part of a guardrail has been removed all
employees must be protected by a personal fall arrest system The last sentence of sect1926501(d)(3) which states that employees who must lean out must be protected with personal fall arrest equipment did not create an exception for employees with no need to lean out The requirement that these employees also be protected is reflected in sect1926502(d)(24) It specifically provides that fall arrest systems in hoist areas be rigged to prevent employees from leaning past the edge when a personal fall arrest system is used at hoist areas it shall be rigged to allow the movement of the employee only as far as the edge of the walkingworking surface The Agency explained in the preamble to subpart M that this provision was promulgated to eliminate the tendency for employees to lean out over the edge at
hoist areas (see volume 59 No152 of the Federal Register page 40685 August 9 1994) Although inartfully drafted the purpose of the last sentence of sect1926501(b)(3) is to require that personal fall arrest equipment be used even when the necessity of leaning out makes compliance with sect1926502(d)(24) infeasible If you need additional information please contact us by fax at US Department of Labor OSHA Directorate of Construction Office of Construction Standards and Guidance fax 202-693-1689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving
correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
August 28 2000
MEMORANDUM FOR Ed Kassak
David Herstedt Region VIII
FROM Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
This memorandum responds to your fax dated May 7 1999 in which you ask for assistance in
responding to the Concrete Frame Association(CFA)s letter of May 4 1999 We apologize for the long delay in responding CFA asked whether the fall protection requirements of 29 CFR 1926 Subpart L apply when employees are working from a concrete formwork platform in two scenarios CFA believes that during the erection of individual formwork components of an integrated floor system such as beams drop panels joists and slab panels Subpart L should apply (see scenario submitted by CFA below) At that point workers stand and walk on the individual formwork components In its view Subpart M applies only once the components are tied together and become a continuous
integrated floor system (not pictured) CFA states that in the pictured scenario general contractors are requiring employees to tie-off with personal fall arrest systems They assert that their shoring platform is only about 85 feet above the ground level and that if a fall were to occur it would not be arrested prior to the employee contacting the level below
Which standard applies Subpart M or Subpart L
Classification of the formworkshoring as a walkingworking surface under Subpart M or as a work platform under Subpart L is significant because these standards have different thresholds for requiring fall protection As you know Subpart M requires employees to be protected from falls of 6 feet or more (29 CFR 1926501(b)(1)) It defines a walkingworking surface to mean in part any surface whether horizontal or vertical on which an employee walks or works including but not limited to floors roofs ramps bridges runways formwork and concrete reinforcing steel [emphasis added]
Section 501(b)(1) requires that employees on a walkingworking surface (horizontal and vertical surface) with an unprotected side or edge must be protected Therefore where that walkingworking surface is formwork the employee must be protected Section 1926501(b)(2) requires fall protection for employees constructing leading edges That term is defined in sect500(b) as the edge of a floor roof or formwork for a floor or other walkingworking surface
(such as the deck) which changes location as additional floor roof decking or formwork sections are placed formed or constructed [emphasis added] Therefore under sect501(b)(2) employees constructing formwork leading edges must be protected in accordance with that section Finally sect501(b)(5) requires that employees on the face of formwork must be protected under Subpart M as well OSHAs scaffold standard 29 CFR 1926 Subpart L does not require fall protection for employees until they are exposed to falls in excess of 10 feet as specified in sect1926451(g) Subpart L defines a scaffold to mean any temporary elevated platform (supported or suspended) and its supporting
structure (including points of anchorage) used for supporting employees or materials or both Subpart L addresses formwork in sect1926450(b) under the definition of form scaffold which is defined as a supported scaffold consisting of a platform supported by brackets attached to formwork In the preamble to Subpart L the Agency stated that this type of scaffold is similar to a carpenters bracket scaffold and a top plate bracket scaffold (volume 61 of the Federal Register No 170 page 46033 August 30 1996) Therefore when an employee is supported by a device that attaches to the formwork the scaffold standard applies The scaffold standard would also apply where the formwork is not erected for use as formwork but instead is being
used only as a substitute for scaffold components Otherwise Subpart M applies when an employee stands on the face or the top of the formwork In the two situations described by CFA -- where employees are walking and working on individual formwork sections and on sections joined together Subpart M is the most specifically applicable standard It specifically covers formwork in its definition of walkingworking surfaces and the employees in the submitted scenario are not working on form scaffolds Therefore the requirements of Subpart M apply irrespective of whether the formwork sections stand alone or are joined into an integrated system1 Fall Arrest Distances CFA asserts that the personal fall arrest systems being used by workers on the formwork would not arrest falls at heights of about 8 feet We note that the fall arrest distance is determined by many factors and that there are often ways to rig systems to limit falls to very short distances
For the narrow walkingworking surface pictured above (see right side of illustration) guardrails may be the most useful approach Please feel free to contact us if you need further clarification on this issue
May 21 2003 Ms Deborah Caldwell 5071 Butler Rd Caldwell Electrical Contractors
Gainesville Georgia 30506 Re Ladders fall protection working on top of equipment Dear Ms Caldwell This is in response to your letter of November 22 2002 in which you ask for guidance regarding OSHAs fall protection requirements for construction work We apologize for the delay in providing this response
We have paraphrased your question as follows Question Scenario to complete a construction project a worker places a portable ladder on top of a piece of equipment or on the roof of a structure that is inside a large building The top of the equipment or structure is at least 10 x 10 and at least 10 above the ground It is stable level and sufficiently strong to support the loads imposed by the worker materials and tools needed for the job The worker will then do the construction task while on the ladder Is fall protection required for this worker
Answer We will answer your question in two parts first with respect to whether fall protection is required for a worker while on the surfaces you describe second with respect to whether fall protection is required while the worker is on the ladder 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart M (Fall protection) contains fall protection requirements for protecting an employee working on walkingworking surface (sect1926501(b)(1)) A walkingworking surface is defined in sect1926500(b) as follows Any surface whether horizontal or vertical on which an employee walks or works including but
not limited to floors roofs ramps bridges runways formwork and concrete reinforcing steel but not ladders vehicles or trailers on which employees must be located in order to perform their duties The 10 x 10 top surface of the equipment and the roof the structure that is inside the large building both meet this definition and would be considered a walkingworking surface The requirements of Subpart M would apply to a worker who is on those surfaces Section 1926501(b)(1) states Unprotected sides and edges Each employee on a walkingworking surface (horizontal and vertical surface) with an unprotected side or edge which is 6 feet or more above a lower level
shall be protected from falling by the use of guardrail systems safety net systems or personal fall arrest systems Since these surfaces are at or over 6 feet above the next lowest level fall protection is required while the worker is on those surfaces Fall protection can be accomplished by using guardrails a personal fall arrest system a fall restraint device or safety net system However with respect to fall protection requirements for a worker on the ladder sect1926500(a)(2)(vii) states Requirements relating to fall protection for employees working on stairways and ladders are
provided in Subpart X Subpart X (29 CFR 19261050 et seq) does not require fall protection for a worker on a portable ladder Therefore no additional fall protection is required while the worker is on the ladder The fact that the ladder is on either of the surfaces you describe rather than on the ground does not
alter this conclusion Recommendation Although not an OSHA requirement we recommend the use of a scaffold scissor lift or aerial device instead of a ladder in the scenario you describe where practicable
If you have further concerns or questions please feel free to contact us again by fax at US Department of Labor OSHA Directorate of Construction [Office of Construction Standards and Guidance] fax 202-693-1689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely
Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
March 12 2004 Mr Randy Stahl Safety Manager Korellis Roofing Inc
1333 169th Street Hammond IN 46324-2008 Re Is fall protection required during small roofing repairs that take minimal time to complete Dear Mr Stahl This is in response to your letter dated December 16 2003 to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) We have paraphrased your question as follows
Question 1 Scenario We do roofing inspections in order to identify where repairs are needed on pre-existing roofing systems Often the repairs needed are small in scale and worker exposure to a fall hazard is minimal in terms of time The fall hazard exposure time for the installation and removal of fall protection systems from the roof exceeds the exposure time for completing these roofing repair jobs In this circumstance in non-residential roofing work is fall protection required by 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart M
Answer First Part 1926 Subpart M does not require fall protection for those conducting the initial inspection of the roof to determine what work needs to be done Section 1926500(a) states This subpart sets forth requirements and criteria for fall protection in construction workplaces covered under 29 CFR Part 1926 Exception The provisions of this subpart do not apply when employees are making an inspection investigation or assessment of workplace conditions prior to the actual start of construction work or after all construction work has been completed [Emphasis added] With regard to fall protection requirements applicable to the construction work itself
sect1926501(b)(10) (low slope roofs) requires conventional fall protection a combination of a monitoring system and warning line or on roofs of 50 feet or less in width a monitoring system alone (ie without a warning line) be used Under the standard the requirement for fall protection for this work does not depend on the duration of the fall hazard exposure In contrast the Agency found in the rulemaking that the short duration of hazard exposure was part of the basis for creating the exception for the inspection-only activity But another basis for the exception was the concept that in inspections before and after the work is done there is no on-going construction work to divert the inspectors attention from the fall hazard Once there is construction activity the risk goes up by virtue of that diversion of attention Consequently in
the preamble to the rule OSHA stated that the exception does not apply if the inspection activity takes place at the same time the construction work is on-going [I]f inspections are made while construction operations are underway all employees who are exposed to fall hazards while performing inspections must be protected as required by Subpart M1 Therefore apart from inspections the Agency in the rulemaking rejected short duration of the exposure as an exception to the fall protection requirement for construction work Note though that the use of warning lines without a monitor is acceptable where the warning
lines are at least 15 feet back from the edge and all of the following are met (1) A warning line is used 15 feet or more from the edge (or nearest edge of a hole) (2) The warning line meets or exceeds the requirements in sect1926502(f)(2) (3) No work or work-related activity is to take place in the area between the warning line and the
hole or edge and (4) The employer effectively implements a work rule prohibiting the employees from going past the warning line2 If you need additional information please contact us by fax (202-693-1689) at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance You can also contact us by mail
at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
April 17 2006
MEMORANDUM FOR Kenneth Gereke
Regional Administrator Region III
ATTN John McFee Construction Coordinator Region III
FROM Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
SUBJECT Guardrail height requirements for construction activities in General Industry Facilities
This is in response to your e-mail submitted April 7 2005 You ask for compliance guidance with regard to the application of Subpart M Fall Protection requirements for construction activities in a General Industry facility We apologize for the long delay in providing this response
We have paraphrased your question as follows Question Scenario Employees are engaged in construction activities on a walkingworking surface at a General Industry worksite The guardrails on that site have a top rail that is 36 inches from the walkingworking surface Under OSHA Directive STD 01-01-010 and subsequent proposed rulemaking the use of such a guardrail by General Industry employees is only a technical violation of the General Industry standard 29 CFR 191023(e)(1) which otherwise requires a nominal vertical height of 42 inches
Would the construction employer be in violation of sect1926502(b)(1) (Subpart M) of the construction standards which requires the use of guardrails with a top rail that is 39 to 45 inches above the walkingworking surface level Answer Yes it would be a violation of Subpart M if construction work were performed on an elevated walkingworking surface that is guarded by a permanent guardrail system with a 36-inch top rail even though that top rail height is permitted for General Industry work under STD 01-01-010
Background Section 191023(e)(1) (Subpart D mdash Walking-Working Surfaces) of the General Industry standards states Railing toe boards and cover specifications (1) A standard railing shall consist of top rail intermediate rail and posts and shall have a vertical height of 42 inches nominal from upper surface of top rail to floor platform runway or ramp level [Emphasis added] However OSHA Directive STD-01-01-010 mdash Height of Guardrails in General Industry Applications notes
C Action OSHA Regional AdministratorsArea Directors shall classify technical violations of 29 CFR 191023(e)(1) as de minimis violations where the employer has provided guardrails which meet the following specifications (1) Existing guardrailing shall consist of a top rail intermediate rail and posts or equivalent and shall have a minimum vertical height of 36 inches to 44 inches from the upper surface of the top rail to the floor platform runway or ramp level [Emphasis added] E Background A Field Information Memorandum was previously issued regarding the
height of guardrails The intended revision [of Subpart D of 29 CFR 1910] is not yet available therefore to provide equitable enforcement which does not place unnecessary cost burdens upon employers or have a direct or immediate effect upon the safety or health of employees this instruction reissues the previous policy 1 In addition under General Industrys proposed rule on Walking and Working Surfaces (55
Federal Register 13360) guardrail systems with top rails that are 36 inches in height would similarly be grandfathered2 In support of that provision OSHA noted in the preamble that continuing to tolerate the use of guardrails as low as 36 inches (91 cm) would not unacceptably reduce employee protection and that the hazard to which to which employees would be exposed in replacing those guardrails would be greater than that from allowing the existing guardrails to remain in place (55 Federal Register 13374) [Emphasis added] The applicable construction provision sect1926502(b)(1) (Subpart M-Fall Protection) provides in part Guardrail systems Guardrail systems and their use shall comply with the following provisions
(1) Top edge height of top rails or equivalent guardrail system members shall be 42 inches (11 m) plus or minus 3 inches (8 cm) above the walkingworking level [Emphasis added] AnalysisConclusion The General Industry directive permits the use of existing permanently-installed guardrails that have a 36-inch top rail The rationale for that policy as reflected in the preamble for General Industrys proposed rule on Walking and Working Surfaces is that employee safety is not compromised by the use of such existing permanent guardrails and employee exposure to fall hazards would be increased by requiring the replacement of these guardrails
In contrast construction activities often include carrying tools and materials that are heavy awkward to handle and in the case of large materials can sometimes block the employees view In addition unlike the general industry employer a construction employer is not faced with the choice of leaving the permanent guardrails in place or replacing them Instead because construction work is by its nature temporary construction employers typically install temporary guardrails These guardrail systems are designed for temporary use under varied worksite conditions
For example some of these systems would allow a construction employer to erect a temporary guardrail system adjacent to the permanent guardrail system or to attach a temporary top rail to the permanent guardrail system to meet the applicable requirements in Subpart M In addition unlike the permanent guardrail systems in and on structures addressed in STD 01-01-010 these temporary guardrail systems are designed to facilitate repeated installation and removal Consequently the concerns regarding unjustified additional hazard exposure involved in replacing permanent guardrails is not applicable to the construction employees in your scenario In sum when a construction employer protects its employees from falls with a guardrail system that guardrail system must meet the requirements in sect1926502(b) including the top rail height
requirement in sect1926501(b)(1) even where there is a permanent guardrail with a 36-inch top rail that pursuant to STD 01-01-010 is acceptable for General Industry work If you need additional assistance please contact us by fax or e-mail
1 It is our understanding that STD-01-01-010 was adopted in light of pre-OSHA General Industry practices Specifically in the Preamble of a proposed rulemaking for General Industrys Walking and Working Surfaces standard (Volume 55 of the Federal Register page 13373 (Apr 10 1999)) OSHA offered the following explanation OSHA issued the directive because it recognized that employers with guardrails as low as 36 inches (91 cm) might have installed their systems in compliance with pre-OSHA
building codes The Agency was also concerned that employers would be unreasonably burdened by the cost of replacing their guardrail systems with new guardrail systems that were a nominal 42 inches (11 m) high
August 28 2000
MEMORANDUM FOR Ed Kassak
David Herstedt Region VIII
FROM Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
This memorandum responds to your fax dated May 7 1999 in which you ask for assistance in
responding to the Concrete Frame Association(CFA)s letter of May 4 1999 We apologize for the long delay in responding CFA asked whether the fall protection requirements of 29 CFR 1926 Subpart L apply when employees are working from a concrete formwork platform in two scenarios CFA believes that during the erection of individual formwork components of an integrated floor system such as beams drop panels joists and slab panels Subpart L should apply (see scenario submitted by CFA below) At that point workers stand and walk on the individual formwork components In its view Subpart M applies only once the components are tied together and become a continuous
integrated floor system (not pictured) CFA states that in the pictured scenario general contractors are requiring employees to tie-off with personal fall arrest systems They assert that their shoring platform is only about 85 feet above the ground level and that if a fall were to occur it would not be arrested prior to the employee contacting the level below
Which standard applies Subpart M or Subpart L
Classification of the formworkshoring as a walkingworking surface under Subpart M or as a work platform under Subpart L is significant because these standards have different thresholds for requiring fall protection As you know Subpart M requires employees to be protected from falls of 6 feet or more (29 CFR 1926501(b)(1)) It defines a walkingworking surface to mean in part any surface whether horizontal or vertical on which an employee walks or works including but not limited to floors roofs ramps bridges runways formwork and concrete reinforcing steel [emphasis added]
Section 501(b)(1) requires that employees on a walkingworking surface (horizontal and vertical surface) with an unprotected side or edge must be protected Therefore where that walkingworking surface is formwork the employee must be protected Section 1926501(b)(2) requires fall protection for employees constructing leading edges That term is defined in sect500(b) as the edge of a floor roof or formwork for a floor or other walkingworking surface
(such as the deck) which changes location as additional floor roof decking or formwork sections are placed formed or constructed [emphasis added] Therefore under sect501(b)(2) employees constructing formwork leading edges must be protected in accordance with that section Finally sect501(b)(5) requires that employees on the face of formwork must be protected under Subpart M as well OSHAs scaffold standard 29 CFR 1926 Subpart L does not require fall protection for employees until they are exposed to falls in excess of 10 feet as specified in sect1926451(g) Subpart L defines a scaffold to mean any temporary elevated platform (supported or suspended) and its supporting
structure (including points of anchorage) used for supporting employees or materials or both Subpart L addresses formwork in sect1926450(b) under the definition of form scaffold which is defined as a supported scaffold consisting of a platform supported by brackets attached to formwork In the preamble to Subpart L the Agency stated that this type of scaffold is similar to a carpenters bracket scaffold and a top plate bracket scaffold (volume 61 of the Federal Register No 170 page 46033 August 30 1996) Therefore when an employee is supported by a device that attaches to the formwork the scaffold standard applies The scaffold standard would also apply where the formwork is not erected for use as formwork but instead is being
used only as a substitute for scaffold components Otherwise Subpart M applies when an employee stands on the face or the top of the formwork In the two situations described by CFA -- where employees are walking and working on individual formwork sections and on sections joined together Subpart M is the most specifically applicable standard It specifically covers formwork in its definition of walkingworking surfaces and the employees in the submitted scenario are not working on form scaffolds Therefore the requirements of Subpart M apply irrespective of whether the formwork sections stand alone or are joined into an integrated system1 Fall Arrest Distances CFA asserts that the personal fall arrest systems being used by workers on the formwork would not arrest falls at heights of about 8 feet We note that the fall arrest distance is determined by many factors and that there are often ways to rig systems to limit falls to very short distances
For the narrow walkingworking surface pictured above (see right side of illustration) guardrails may be the most useful approach Please feel free to contact us if you need further clarification on this issue
May 21 2003 Ms Deborah Caldwell 5071 Butler Rd Caldwell Electrical Contractors
Gainesville Georgia 30506 Re Ladders fall protection working on top of equipment Dear Ms Caldwell This is in response to your letter of November 22 2002 in which you ask for guidance regarding OSHAs fall protection requirements for construction work We apologize for the delay in providing this response
We have paraphrased your question as follows Question Scenario to complete a construction project a worker places a portable ladder on top of a piece of equipment or on the roof of a structure that is inside a large building The top of the equipment or structure is at least 10 x 10 and at least 10 above the ground It is stable level and sufficiently strong to support the loads imposed by the worker materials and tools needed for the job The worker will then do the construction task while on the ladder Is fall protection required for this worker
Answer We will answer your question in two parts first with respect to whether fall protection is required for a worker while on the surfaces you describe second with respect to whether fall protection is required while the worker is on the ladder 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart M (Fall protection) contains fall protection requirements for protecting an employee working on walkingworking surface (sect1926501(b)(1)) A walkingworking surface is defined in sect1926500(b) as follows Any surface whether horizontal or vertical on which an employee walks or works including but
not limited to floors roofs ramps bridges runways formwork and concrete reinforcing steel but not ladders vehicles or trailers on which employees must be located in order to perform their duties The 10 x 10 top surface of the equipment and the roof the structure that is inside the large building both meet this definition and would be considered a walkingworking surface The requirements of Subpart M would apply to a worker who is on those surfaces Section 1926501(b)(1) states Unprotected sides and edges Each employee on a walkingworking surface (horizontal and vertical surface) with an unprotected side or edge which is 6 feet or more above a lower level
shall be protected from falling by the use of guardrail systems safety net systems or personal fall arrest systems Since these surfaces are at or over 6 feet above the next lowest level fall protection is required while the worker is on those surfaces Fall protection can be accomplished by using guardrails a personal fall arrest system a fall restraint device or safety net system However with respect to fall protection requirements for a worker on the ladder sect1926500(a)(2)(vii) states Requirements relating to fall protection for employees working on stairways and ladders are
provided in Subpart X Subpart X (29 CFR 19261050 et seq) does not require fall protection for a worker on a portable ladder Therefore no additional fall protection is required while the worker is on the ladder The fact that the ladder is on either of the surfaces you describe rather than on the ground does not
alter this conclusion Recommendation Although not an OSHA requirement we recommend the use of a scaffold scissor lift or aerial device instead of a ladder in the scenario you describe where practicable
If you have further concerns or questions please feel free to contact us again by fax at US Department of Labor OSHA Directorate of Construction [Office of Construction Standards and Guidance] fax 202-693-1689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely
Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
March 12 2004 Mr Randy Stahl Safety Manager Korellis Roofing Inc
1333 169th Street Hammond IN 46324-2008 Re Is fall protection required during small roofing repairs that take minimal time to complete Dear Mr Stahl This is in response to your letter dated December 16 2003 to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) We have paraphrased your question as follows
Question 1 Scenario We do roofing inspections in order to identify where repairs are needed on pre-existing roofing systems Often the repairs needed are small in scale and worker exposure to a fall hazard is minimal in terms of time The fall hazard exposure time for the installation and removal of fall protection systems from the roof exceeds the exposure time for completing these roofing repair jobs In this circumstance in non-residential roofing work is fall protection required by 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart M
Answer First Part 1926 Subpart M does not require fall protection for those conducting the initial inspection of the roof to determine what work needs to be done Section 1926500(a) states This subpart sets forth requirements and criteria for fall protection in construction workplaces covered under 29 CFR Part 1926 Exception The provisions of this subpart do not apply when employees are making an inspection investigation or assessment of workplace conditions prior to the actual start of construction work or after all construction work has been completed [Emphasis added] With regard to fall protection requirements applicable to the construction work itself
sect1926501(b)(10) (low slope roofs) requires conventional fall protection a combination of a monitoring system and warning line or on roofs of 50 feet or less in width a monitoring system alone (ie without a warning line) be used Under the standard the requirement for fall protection for this work does not depend on the duration of the fall hazard exposure In contrast the Agency found in the rulemaking that the short duration of hazard exposure was part of the basis for creating the exception for the inspection-only activity But another basis for the exception was the concept that in inspections before and after the work is done there is no on-going construction work to divert the inspectors attention from the fall hazard Once there is construction activity the risk goes up by virtue of that diversion of attention Consequently in
the preamble to the rule OSHA stated that the exception does not apply if the inspection activity takes place at the same time the construction work is on-going [I]f inspections are made while construction operations are underway all employees who are exposed to fall hazards while performing inspections must be protected as required by Subpart M1 Therefore apart from inspections the Agency in the rulemaking rejected short duration of the exposure as an exception to the fall protection requirement for construction work Note though that the use of warning lines without a monitor is acceptable where the warning
lines are at least 15 feet back from the edge and all of the following are met (1) A warning line is used 15 feet or more from the edge (or nearest edge of a hole) (2) The warning line meets or exceeds the requirements in sect1926502(f)(2) (3) No work or work-related activity is to take place in the area between the warning line and the
hole or edge and (4) The employer effectively implements a work rule prohibiting the employees from going past the warning line2 If you need additional information please contact us by fax (202-693-1689) at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance You can also contact us by mail
at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
April 17 2006
MEMORANDUM FOR Kenneth Gereke
Regional Administrator Region III
ATTN John McFee Construction Coordinator Region III
FROM Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
SUBJECT Guardrail height requirements for construction activities in General Industry Facilities
This is in response to your e-mail submitted April 7 2005 You ask for compliance guidance with regard to the application of Subpart M Fall Protection requirements for construction activities in a General Industry facility We apologize for the long delay in providing this response
We have paraphrased your question as follows Question Scenario Employees are engaged in construction activities on a walkingworking surface at a General Industry worksite The guardrails on that site have a top rail that is 36 inches from the walkingworking surface Under OSHA Directive STD 01-01-010 and subsequent proposed rulemaking the use of such a guardrail by General Industry employees is only a technical violation of the General Industry standard 29 CFR 191023(e)(1) which otherwise requires a nominal vertical height of 42 inches
Would the construction employer be in violation of sect1926502(b)(1) (Subpart M) of the construction standards which requires the use of guardrails with a top rail that is 39 to 45 inches above the walkingworking surface level Answer Yes it would be a violation of Subpart M if construction work were performed on an elevated walkingworking surface that is guarded by a permanent guardrail system with a 36-inch top rail even though that top rail height is permitted for General Industry work under STD 01-01-010
Background Section 191023(e)(1) (Subpart D mdash Walking-Working Surfaces) of the General Industry standards states Railing toe boards and cover specifications (1) A standard railing shall consist of top rail intermediate rail and posts and shall have a vertical height of 42 inches nominal from upper surface of top rail to floor platform runway or ramp level [Emphasis added] However OSHA Directive STD-01-01-010 mdash Height of Guardrails in General Industry Applications notes
C Action OSHA Regional AdministratorsArea Directors shall classify technical violations of 29 CFR 191023(e)(1) as de minimis violations where the employer has provided guardrails which meet the following specifications (1) Existing guardrailing shall consist of a top rail intermediate rail and posts or equivalent and shall have a minimum vertical height of 36 inches to 44 inches from the upper surface of the top rail to the floor platform runway or ramp level [Emphasis added] E Background A Field Information Memorandum was previously issued regarding the
height of guardrails The intended revision [of Subpart D of 29 CFR 1910] is not yet available therefore to provide equitable enforcement which does not place unnecessary cost burdens upon employers or have a direct or immediate effect upon the safety or health of employees this instruction reissues the previous policy 1 In addition under General Industrys proposed rule on Walking and Working Surfaces (55
Federal Register 13360) guardrail systems with top rails that are 36 inches in height would similarly be grandfathered2 In support of that provision OSHA noted in the preamble that continuing to tolerate the use of guardrails as low as 36 inches (91 cm) would not unacceptably reduce employee protection and that the hazard to which to which employees would be exposed in replacing those guardrails would be greater than that from allowing the existing guardrails to remain in place (55 Federal Register 13374) [Emphasis added] The applicable construction provision sect1926502(b)(1) (Subpart M-Fall Protection) provides in part Guardrail systems Guardrail systems and their use shall comply with the following provisions
(1) Top edge height of top rails or equivalent guardrail system members shall be 42 inches (11 m) plus or minus 3 inches (8 cm) above the walkingworking level [Emphasis added] AnalysisConclusion The General Industry directive permits the use of existing permanently-installed guardrails that have a 36-inch top rail The rationale for that policy as reflected in the preamble for General Industrys proposed rule on Walking and Working Surfaces is that employee safety is not compromised by the use of such existing permanent guardrails and employee exposure to fall hazards would be increased by requiring the replacement of these guardrails
In contrast construction activities often include carrying tools and materials that are heavy awkward to handle and in the case of large materials can sometimes block the employees view In addition unlike the general industry employer a construction employer is not faced with the choice of leaving the permanent guardrails in place or replacing them Instead because construction work is by its nature temporary construction employers typically install temporary guardrails These guardrail systems are designed for temporary use under varied worksite conditions
For example some of these systems would allow a construction employer to erect a temporary guardrail system adjacent to the permanent guardrail system or to attach a temporary top rail to the permanent guardrail system to meet the applicable requirements in Subpart M In addition unlike the permanent guardrail systems in and on structures addressed in STD 01-01-010 these temporary guardrail systems are designed to facilitate repeated installation and removal Consequently the concerns regarding unjustified additional hazard exposure involved in replacing permanent guardrails is not applicable to the construction employees in your scenario In sum when a construction employer protects its employees from falls with a guardrail system that guardrail system must meet the requirements in sect1926502(b) including the top rail height
requirement in sect1926501(b)(1) even where there is a permanent guardrail with a 36-inch top rail that pursuant to STD 01-01-010 is acceptable for General Industry work If you need additional assistance please contact us by fax or e-mail
1 It is our understanding that STD-01-01-010 was adopted in light of pre-OSHA General Industry practices Specifically in the Preamble of a proposed rulemaking for General Industrys Walking and Working Surfaces standard (Volume 55 of the Federal Register page 13373 (Apr 10 1999)) OSHA offered the following explanation OSHA issued the directive because it recognized that employers with guardrails as low as 36 inches (91 cm) might have installed their systems in compliance with pre-OSHA
building codes The Agency was also concerned that employers would be unreasonably burdened by the cost of replacing their guardrail systems with new guardrail systems that were a nominal 42 inches (11 m) high
Section 501(b)(1) requires that employees on a walkingworking surface (horizontal and vertical surface) with an unprotected side or edge must be protected Therefore where that walkingworking surface is formwork the employee must be protected Section 1926501(b)(2) requires fall protection for employees constructing leading edges That term is defined in sect500(b) as the edge of a floor roof or formwork for a floor or other walkingworking surface
(such as the deck) which changes location as additional floor roof decking or formwork sections are placed formed or constructed [emphasis added] Therefore under sect501(b)(2) employees constructing formwork leading edges must be protected in accordance with that section Finally sect501(b)(5) requires that employees on the face of formwork must be protected under Subpart M as well OSHAs scaffold standard 29 CFR 1926 Subpart L does not require fall protection for employees until they are exposed to falls in excess of 10 feet as specified in sect1926451(g) Subpart L defines a scaffold to mean any temporary elevated platform (supported or suspended) and its supporting
structure (including points of anchorage) used for supporting employees or materials or both Subpart L addresses formwork in sect1926450(b) under the definition of form scaffold which is defined as a supported scaffold consisting of a platform supported by brackets attached to formwork In the preamble to Subpart L the Agency stated that this type of scaffold is similar to a carpenters bracket scaffold and a top plate bracket scaffold (volume 61 of the Federal Register No 170 page 46033 August 30 1996) Therefore when an employee is supported by a device that attaches to the formwork the scaffold standard applies The scaffold standard would also apply where the formwork is not erected for use as formwork but instead is being
used only as a substitute for scaffold components Otherwise Subpart M applies when an employee stands on the face or the top of the formwork In the two situations described by CFA -- where employees are walking and working on individual formwork sections and on sections joined together Subpart M is the most specifically applicable standard It specifically covers formwork in its definition of walkingworking surfaces and the employees in the submitted scenario are not working on form scaffolds Therefore the requirements of Subpart M apply irrespective of whether the formwork sections stand alone or are joined into an integrated system1 Fall Arrest Distances CFA asserts that the personal fall arrest systems being used by workers on the formwork would not arrest falls at heights of about 8 feet We note that the fall arrest distance is determined by many factors and that there are often ways to rig systems to limit falls to very short distances
For the narrow walkingworking surface pictured above (see right side of illustration) guardrails may be the most useful approach Please feel free to contact us if you need further clarification on this issue
May 21 2003 Ms Deborah Caldwell 5071 Butler Rd Caldwell Electrical Contractors
Gainesville Georgia 30506 Re Ladders fall protection working on top of equipment Dear Ms Caldwell This is in response to your letter of November 22 2002 in which you ask for guidance regarding OSHAs fall protection requirements for construction work We apologize for the delay in providing this response
We have paraphrased your question as follows Question Scenario to complete a construction project a worker places a portable ladder on top of a piece of equipment or on the roof of a structure that is inside a large building The top of the equipment or structure is at least 10 x 10 and at least 10 above the ground It is stable level and sufficiently strong to support the loads imposed by the worker materials and tools needed for the job The worker will then do the construction task while on the ladder Is fall protection required for this worker
Answer We will answer your question in two parts first with respect to whether fall protection is required for a worker while on the surfaces you describe second with respect to whether fall protection is required while the worker is on the ladder 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart M (Fall protection) contains fall protection requirements for protecting an employee working on walkingworking surface (sect1926501(b)(1)) A walkingworking surface is defined in sect1926500(b) as follows Any surface whether horizontal or vertical on which an employee walks or works including but
not limited to floors roofs ramps bridges runways formwork and concrete reinforcing steel but not ladders vehicles or trailers on which employees must be located in order to perform their duties The 10 x 10 top surface of the equipment and the roof the structure that is inside the large building both meet this definition and would be considered a walkingworking surface The requirements of Subpart M would apply to a worker who is on those surfaces Section 1926501(b)(1) states Unprotected sides and edges Each employee on a walkingworking surface (horizontal and vertical surface) with an unprotected side or edge which is 6 feet or more above a lower level
shall be protected from falling by the use of guardrail systems safety net systems or personal fall arrest systems Since these surfaces are at or over 6 feet above the next lowest level fall protection is required while the worker is on those surfaces Fall protection can be accomplished by using guardrails a personal fall arrest system a fall restraint device or safety net system However with respect to fall protection requirements for a worker on the ladder sect1926500(a)(2)(vii) states Requirements relating to fall protection for employees working on stairways and ladders are
provided in Subpart X Subpart X (29 CFR 19261050 et seq) does not require fall protection for a worker on a portable ladder Therefore no additional fall protection is required while the worker is on the ladder The fact that the ladder is on either of the surfaces you describe rather than on the ground does not
alter this conclusion Recommendation Although not an OSHA requirement we recommend the use of a scaffold scissor lift or aerial device instead of a ladder in the scenario you describe where practicable
If you have further concerns or questions please feel free to contact us again by fax at US Department of Labor OSHA Directorate of Construction [Office of Construction Standards and Guidance] fax 202-693-1689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely
Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
March 12 2004 Mr Randy Stahl Safety Manager Korellis Roofing Inc
1333 169th Street Hammond IN 46324-2008 Re Is fall protection required during small roofing repairs that take minimal time to complete Dear Mr Stahl This is in response to your letter dated December 16 2003 to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) We have paraphrased your question as follows
Question 1 Scenario We do roofing inspections in order to identify where repairs are needed on pre-existing roofing systems Often the repairs needed are small in scale and worker exposure to a fall hazard is minimal in terms of time The fall hazard exposure time for the installation and removal of fall protection systems from the roof exceeds the exposure time for completing these roofing repair jobs In this circumstance in non-residential roofing work is fall protection required by 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart M
Answer First Part 1926 Subpart M does not require fall protection for those conducting the initial inspection of the roof to determine what work needs to be done Section 1926500(a) states This subpart sets forth requirements and criteria for fall protection in construction workplaces covered under 29 CFR Part 1926 Exception The provisions of this subpart do not apply when employees are making an inspection investigation or assessment of workplace conditions prior to the actual start of construction work or after all construction work has been completed [Emphasis added] With regard to fall protection requirements applicable to the construction work itself
sect1926501(b)(10) (low slope roofs) requires conventional fall protection a combination of a monitoring system and warning line or on roofs of 50 feet or less in width a monitoring system alone (ie without a warning line) be used Under the standard the requirement for fall protection for this work does not depend on the duration of the fall hazard exposure In contrast the Agency found in the rulemaking that the short duration of hazard exposure was part of the basis for creating the exception for the inspection-only activity But another basis for the exception was the concept that in inspections before and after the work is done there is no on-going construction work to divert the inspectors attention from the fall hazard Once there is construction activity the risk goes up by virtue of that diversion of attention Consequently in
the preamble to the rule OSHA stated that the exception does not apply if the inspection activity takes place at the same time the construction work is on-going [I]f inspections are made while construction operations are underway all employees who are exposed to fall hazards while performing inspections must be protected as required by Subpart M1 Therefore apart from inspections the Agency in the rulemaking rejected short duration of the exposure as an exception to the fall protection requirement for construction work Note though that the use of warning lines without a monitor is acceptable where the warning
lines are at least 15 feet back from the edge and all of the following are met (1) A warning line is used 15 feet or more from the edge (or nearest edge of a hole) (2) The warning line meets or exceeds the requirements in sect1926502(f)(2) (3) No work or work-related activity is to take place in the area between the warning line and the
hole or edge and (4) The employer effectively implements a work rule prohibiting the employees from going past the warning line2 If you need additional information please contact us by fax (202-693-1689) at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance You can also contact us by mail
at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
April 17 2006
MEMORANDUM FOR Kenneth Gereke
Regional Administrator Region III
ATTN John McFee Construction Coordinator Region III
FROM Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
SUBJECT Guardrail height requirements for construction activities in General Industry Facilities
This is in response to your e-mail submitted April 7 2005 You ask for compliance guidance with regard to the application of Subpart M Fall Protection requirements for construction activities in a General Industry facility We apologize for the long delay in providing this response
We have paraphrased your question as follows Question Scenario Employees are engaged in construction activities on a walkingworking surface at a General Industry worksite The guardrails on that site have a top rail that is 36 inches from the walkingworking surface Under OSHA Directive STD 01-01-010 and subsequent proposed rulemaking the use of such a guardrail by General Industry employees is only a technical violation of the General Industry standard 29 CFR 191023(e)(1) which otherwise requires a nominal vertical height of 42 inches
Would the construction employer be in violation of sect1926502(b)(1) (Subpart M) of the construction standards which requires the use of guardrails with a top rail that is 39 to 45 inches above the walkingworking surface level Answer Yes it would be a violation of Subpart M if construction work were performed on an elevated walkingworking surface that is guarded by a permanent guardrail system with a 36-inch top rail even though that top rail height is permitted for General Industry work under STD 01-01-010
Background Section 191023(e)(1) (Subpart D mdash Walking-Working Surfaces) of the General Industry standards states Railing toe boards and cover specifications (1) A standard railing shall consist of top rail intermediate rail and posts and shall have a vertical height of 42 inches nominal from upper surface of top rail to floor platform runway or ramp level [Emphasis added] However OSHA Directive STD-01-01-010 mdash Height of Guardrails in General Industry Applications notes
C Action OSHA Regional AdministratorsArea Directors shall classify technical violations of 29 CFR 191023(e)(1) as de minimis violations where the employer has provided guardrails which meet the following specifications (1) Existing guardrailing shall consist of a top rail intermediate rail and posts or equivalent and shall have a minimum vertical height of 36 inches to 44 inches from the upper surface of the top rail to the floor platform runway or ramp level [Emphasis added] E Background A Field Information Memorandum was previously issued regarding the
height of guardrails The intended revision [of Subpart D of 29 CFR 1910] is not yet available therefore to provide equitable enforcement which does not place unnecessary cost burdens upon employers or have a direct or immediate effect upon the safety or health of employees this instruction reissues the previous policy 1 In addition under General Industrys proposed rule on Walking and Working Surfaces (55
Federal Register 13360) guardrail systems with top rails that are 36 inches in height would similarly be grandfathered2 In support of that provision OSHA noted in the preamble that continuing to tolerate the use of guardrails as low as 36 inches (91 cm) would not unacceptably reduce employee protection and that the hazard to which to which employees would be exposed in replacing those guardrails would be greater than that from allowing the existing guardrails to remain in place (55 Federal Register 13374) [Emphasis added] The applicable construction provision sect1926502(b)(1) (Subpart M-Fall Protection) provides in part Guardrail systems Guardrail systems and their use shall comply with the following provisions
(1) Top edge height of top rails or equivalent guardrail system members shall be 42 inches (11 m) plus or minus 3 inches (8 cm) above the walkingworking level [Emphasis added] AnalysisConclusion The General Industry directive permits the use of existing permanently-installed guardrails that have a 36-inch top rail The rationale for that policy as reflected in the preamble for General Industrys proposed rule on Walking and Working Surfaces is that employee safety is not compromised by the use of such existing permanent guardrails and employee exposure to fall hazards would be increased by requiring the replacement of these guardrails
In contrast construction activities often include carrying tools and materials that are heavy awkward to handle and in the case of large materials can sometimes block the employees view In addition unlike the general industry employer a construction employer is not faced with the choice of leaving the permanent guardrails in place or replacing them Instead because construction work is by its nature temporary construction employers typically install temporary guardrails These guardrail systems are designed for temporary use under varied worksite conditions
For example some of these systems would allow a construction employer to erect a temporary guardrail system adjacent to the permanent guardrail system or to attach a temporary top rail to the permanent guardrail system to meet the applicable requirements in Subpart M In addition unlike the permanent guardrail systems in and on structures addressed in STD 01-01-010 these temporary guardrail systems are designed to facilitate repeated installation and removal Consequently the concerns regarding unjustified additional hazard exposure involved in replacing permanent guardrails is not applicable to the construction employees in your scenario In sum when a construction employer protects its employees from falls with a guardrail system that guardrail system must meet the requirements in sect1926502(b) including the top rail height
requirement in sect1926501(b)(1) even where there is a permanent guardrail with a 36-inch top rail that pursuant to STD 01-01-010 is acceptable for General Industry work If you need additional assistance please contact us by fax or e-mail
1 It is our understanding that STD-01-01-010 was adopted in light of pre-OSHA General Industry practices Specifically in the Preamble of a proposed rulemaking for General Industrys Walking and Working Surfaces standard (Volume 55 of the Federal Register page 13373 (Apr 10 1999)) OSHA offered the following explanation OSHA issued the directive because it recognized that employers with guardrails as low as 36 inches (91 cm) might have installed their systems in compliance with pre-OSHA
building codes The Agency was also concerned that employers would be unreasonably burdened by the cost of replacing their guardrail systems with new guardrail systems that were a nominal 42 inches (11 m) high
May 21 2003 Ms Deborah Caldwell 5071 Butler Rd Caldwell Electrical Contractors
Gainesville Georgia 30506 Re Ladders fall protection working on top of equipment Dear Ms Caldwell This is in response to your letter of November 22 2002 in which you ask for guidance regarding OSHAs fall protection requirements for construction work We apologize for the delay in providing this response
We have paraphrased your question as follows Question Scenario to complete a construction project a worker places a portable ladder on top of a piece of equipment or on the roof of a structure that is inside a large building The top of the equipment or structure is at least 10 x 10 and at least 10 above the ground It is stable level and sufficiently strong to support the loads imposed by the worker materials and tools needed for the job The worker will then do the construction task while on the ladder Is fall protection required for this worker
Answer We will answer your question in two parts first with respect to whether fall protection is required for a worker while on the surfaces you describe second with respect to whether fall protection is required while the worker is on the ladder 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart M (Fall protection) contains fall protection requirements for protecting an employee working on walkingworking surface (sect1926501(b)(1)) A walkingworking surface is defined in sect1926500(b) as follows Any surface whether horizontal or vertical on which an employee walks or works including but
not limited to floors roofs ramps bridges runways formwork and concrete reinforcing steel but not ladders vehicles or trailers on which employees must be located in order to perform their duties The 10 x 10 top surface of the equipment and the roof the structure that is inside the large building both meet this definition and would be considered a walkingworking surface The requirements of Subpart M would apply to a worker who is on those surfaces Section 1926501(b)(1) states Unprotected sides and edges Each employee on a walkingworking surface (horizontal and vertical surface) with an unprotected side or edge which is 6 feet or more above a lower level
shall be protected from falling by the use of guardrail systems safety net systems or personal fall arrest systems Since these surfaces are at or over 6 feet above the next lowest level fall protection is required while the worker is on those surfaces Fall protection can be accomplished by using guardrails a personal fall arrest system a fall restraint device or safety net system However with respect to fall protection requirements for a worker on the ladder sect1926500(a)(2)(vii) states Requirements relating to fall protection for employees working on stairways and ladders are
provided in Subpart X Subpart X (29 CFR 19261050 et seq) does not require fall protection for a worker on a portable ladder Therefore no additional fall protection is required while the worker is on the ladder The fact that the ladder is on either of the surfaces you describe rather than on the ground does not
alter this conclusion Recommendation Although not an OSHA requirement we recommend the use of a scaffold scissor lift or aerial device instead of a ladder in the scenario you describe where practicable
If you have further concerns or questions please feel free to contact us again by fax at US Department of Labor OSHA Directorate of Construction [Office of Construction Standards and Guidance] fax 202-693-1689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely
Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
March 12 2004 Mr Randy Stahl Safety Manager Korellis Roofing Inc
1333 169th Street Hammond IN 46324-2008 Re Is fall protection required during small roofing repairs that take minimal time to complete Dear Mr Stahl This is in response to your letter dated December 16 2003 to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) We have paraphrased your question as follows
Question 1 Scenario We do roofing inspections in order to identify where repairs are needed on pre-existing roofing systems Often the repairs needed are small in scale and worker exposure to a fall hazard is minimal in terms of time The fall hazard exposure time for the installation and removal of fall protection systems from the roof exceeds the exposure time for completing these roofing repair jobs In this circumstance in non-residential roofing work is fall protection required by 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart M
Answer First Part 1926 Subpart M does not require fall protection for those conducting the initial inspection of the roof to determine what work needs to be done Section 1926500(a) states This subpart sets forth requirements and criteria for fall protection in construction workplaces covered under 29 CFR Part 1926 Exception The provisions of this subpart do not apply when employees are making an inspection investigation or assessment of workplace conditions prior to the actual start of construction work or after all construction work has been completed [Emphasis added] With regard to fall protection requirements applicable to the construction work itself
sect1926501(b)(10) (low slope roofs) requires conventional fall protection a combination of a monitoring system and warning line or on roofs of 50 feet or less in width a monitoring system alone (ie without a warning line) be used Under the standard the requirement for fall protection for this work does not depend on the duration of the fall hazard exposure In contrast the Agency found in the rulemaking that the short duration of hazard exposure was part of the basis for creating the exception for the inspection-only activity But another basis for the exception was the concept that in inspections before and after the work is done there is no on-going construction work to divert the inspectors attention from the fall hazard Once there is construction activity the risk goes up by virtue of that diversion of attention Consequently in
the preamble to the rule OSHA stated that the exception does not apply if the inspection activity takes place at the same time the construction work is on-going [I]f inspections are made while construction operations are underway all employees who are exposed to fall hazards while performing inspections must be protected as required by Subpart M1 Therefore apart from inspections the Agency in the rulemaking rejected short duration of the exposure as an exception to the fall protection requirement for construction work Note though that the use of warning lines without a monitor is acceptable where the warning
lines are at least 15 feet back from the edge and all of the following are met (1) A warning line is used 15 feet or more from the edge (or nearest edge of a hole) (2) The warning line meets or exceeds the requirements in sect1926502(f)(2) (3) No work or work-related activity is to take place in the area between the warning line and the
hole or edge and (4) The employer effectively implements a work rule prohibiting the employees from going past the warning line2 If you need additional information please contact us by fax (202-693-1689) at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance You can also contact us by mail
at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
April 17 2006
MEMORANDUM FOR Kenneth Gereke
Regional Administrator Region III
ATTN John McFee Construction Coordinator Region III
FROM Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
SUBJECT Guardrail height requirements for construction activities in General Industry Facilities
This is in response to your e-mail submitted April 7 2005 You ask for compliance guidance with regard to the application of Subpart M Fall Protection requirements for construction activities in a General Industry facility We apologize for the long delay in providing this response
We have paraphrased your question as follows Question Scenario Employees are engaged in construction activities on a walkingworking surface at a General Industry worksite The guardrails on that site have a top rail that is 36 inches from the walkingworking surface Under OSHA Directive STD 01-01-010 and subsequent proposed rulemaking the use of such a guardrail by General Industry employees is only a technical violation of the General Industry standard 29 CFR 191023(e)(1) which otherwise requires a nominal vertical height of 42 inches
Would the construction employer be in violation of sect1926502(b)(1) (Subpart M) of the construction standards which requires the use of guardrails with a top rail that is 39 to 45 inches above the walkingworking surface level Answer Yes it would be a violation of Subpart M if construction work were performed on an elevated walkingworking surface that is guarded by a permanent guardrail system with a 36-inch top rail even though that top rail height is permitted for General Industry work under STD 01-01-010
Background Section 191023(e)(1) (Subpart D mdash Walking-Working Surfaces) of the General Industry standards states Railing toe boards and cover specifications (1) A standard railing shall consist of top rail intermediate rail and posts and shall have a vertical height of 42 inches nominal from upper surface of top rail to floor platform runway or ramp level [Emphasis added] However OSHA Directive STD-01-01-010 mdash Height of Guardrails in General Industry Applications notes
C Action OSHA Regional AdministratorsArea Directors shall classify technical violations of 29 CFR 191023(e)(1) as de minimis violations where the employer has provided guardrails which meet the following specifications (1) Existing guardrailing shall consist of a top rail intermediate rail and posts or equivalent and shall have a minimum vertical height of 36 inches to 44 inches from the upper surface of the top rail to the floor platform runway or ramp level [Emphasis added] E Background A Field Information Memorandum was previously issued regarding the
height of guardrails The intended revision [of Subpart D of 29 CFR 1910] is not yet available therefore to provide equitable enforcement which does not place unnecessary cost burdens upon employers or have a direct or immediate effect upon the safety or health of employees this instruction reissues the previous policy 1 In addition under General Industrys proposed rule on Walking and Working Surfaces (55
Federal Register 13360) guardrail systems with top rails that are 36 inches in height would similarly be grandfathered2 In support of that provision OSHA noted in the preamble that continuing to tolerate the use of guardrails as low as 36 inches (91 cm) would not unacceptably reduce employee protection and that the hazard to which to which employees would be exposed in replacing those guardrails would be greater than that from allowing the existing guardrails to remain in place (55 Federal Register 13374) [Emphasis added] The applicable construction provision sect1926502(b)(1) (Subpart M-Fall Protection) provides in part Guardrail systems Guardrail systems and their use shall comply with the following provisions
(1) Top edge height of top rails or equivalent guardrail system members shall be 42 inches (11 m) plus or minus 3 inches (8 cm) above the walkingworking level [Emphasis added] AnalysisConclusion The General Industry directive permits the use of existing permanently-installed guardrails that have a 36-inch top rail The rationale for that policy as reflected in the preamble for General Industrys proposed rule on Walking and Working Surfaces is that employee safety is not compromised by the use of such existing permanent guardrails and employee exposure to fall hazards would be increased by requiring the replacement of these guardrails
In contrast construction activities often include carrying tools and materials that are heavy awkward to handle and in the case of large materials can sometimes block the employees view In addition unlike the general industry employer a construction employer is not faced with the choice of leaving the permanent guardrails in place or replacing them Instead because construction work is by its nature temporary construction employers typically install temporary guardrails These guardrail systems are designed for temporary use under varied worksite conditions
For example some of these systems would allow a construction employer to erect a temporary guardrail system adjacent to the permanent guardrail system or to attach a temporary top rail to the permanent guardrail system to meet the applicable requirements in Subpart M In addition unlike the permanent guardrail systems in and on structures addressed in STD 01-01-010 these temporary guardrail systems are designed to facilitate repeated installation and removal Consequently the concerns regarding unjustified additional hazard exposure involved in replacing permanent guardrails is not applicable to the construction employees in your scenario In sum when a construction employer protects its employees from falls with a guardrail system that guardrail system must meet the requirements in sect1926502(b) including the top rail height
requirement in sect1926501(b)(1) even where there is a permanent guardrail with a 36-inch top rail that pursuant to STD 01-01-010 is acceptable for General Industry work If you need additional assistance please contact us by fax or e-mail
1 It is our understanding that STD-01-01-010 was adopted in light of pre-OSHA General Industry practices Specifically in the Preamble of a proposed rulemaking for General Industrys Walking and Working Surfaces standard (Volume 55 of the Federal Register page 13373 (Apr 10 1999)) OSHA offered the following explanation OSHA issued the directive because it recognized that employers with guardrails as low as 36 inches (91 cm) might have installed their systems in compliance with pre-OSHA
building codes The Agency was also concerned that employers would be unreasonably burdened by the cost of replacing their guardrail systems with new guardrail systems that were a nominal 42 inches (11 m) high
alter this conclusion Recommendation Although not an OSHA requirement we recommend the use of a scaffold scissor lift or aerial device instead of a ladder in the scenario you describe where practicable
If you have further concerns or questions please feel free to contact us again by fax at US Department of Labor OSHA Directorate of Construction [Office of Construction Standards and Guidance] fax 202-693-1689 You can also contact us by mail at the above office Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely
Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
March 12 2004 Mr Randy Stahl Safety Manager Korellis Roofing Inc
1333 169th Street Hammond IN 46324-2008 Re Is fall protection required during small roofing repairs that take minimal time to complete Dear Mr Stahl This is in response to your letter dated December 16 2003 to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) We have paraphrased your question as follows
Question 1 Scenario We do roofing inspections in order to identify where repairs are needed on pre-existing roofing systems Often the repairs needed are small in scale and worker exposure to a fall hazard is minimal in terms of time The fall hazard exposure time for the installation and removal of fall protection systems from the roof exceeds the exposure time for completing these roofing repair jobs In this circumstance in non-residential roofing work is fall protection required by 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart M
Answer First Part 1926 Subpart M does not require fall protection for those conducting the initial inspection of the roof to determine what work needs to be done Section 1926500(a) states This subpart sets forth requirements and criteria for fall protection in construction workplaces covered under 29 CFR Part 1926 Exception The provisions of this subpart do not apply when employees are making an inspection investigation or assessment of workplace conditions prior to the actual start of construction work or after all construction work has been completed [Emphasis added] With regard to fall protection requirements applicable to the construction work itself
sect1926501(b)(10) (low slope roofs) requires conventional fall protection a combination of a monitoring system and warning line or on roofs of 50 feet or less in width a monitoring system alone (ie without a warning line) be used Under the standard the requirement for fall protection for this work does not depend on the duration of the fall hazard exposure In contrast the Agency found in the rulemaking that the short duration of hazard exposure was part of the basis for creating the exception for the inspection-only activity But another basis for the exception was the concept that in inspections before and after the work is done there is no on-going construction work to divert the inspectors attention from the fall hazard Once there is construction activity the risk goes up by virtue of that diversion of attention Consequently in
the preamble to the rule OSHA stated that the exception does not apply if the inspection activity takes place at the same time the construction work is on-going [I]f inspections are made while construction operations are underway all employees who are exposed to fall hazards while performing inspections must be protected as required by Subpart M1 Therefore apart from inspections the Agency in the rulemaking rejected short duration of the exposure as an exception to the fall protection requirement for construction work Note though that the use of warning lines without a monitor is acceptable where the warning
lines are at least 15 feet back from the edge and all of the following are met (1) A warning line is used 15 feet or more from the edge (or nearest edge of a hole) (2) The warning line meets or exceeds the requirements in sect1926502(f)(2) (3) No work or work-related activity is to take place in the area between the warning line and the
hole or edge and (4) The employer effectively implements a work rule prohibiting the employees from going past the warning line2 If you need additional information please contact us by fax (202-693-1689) at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance You can also contact us by mail
at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
April 17 2006
MEMORANDUM FOR Kenneth Gereke
Regional Administrator Region III
ATTN John McFee Construction Coordinator Region III
FROM Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
SUBJECT Guardrail height requirements for construction activities in General Industry Facilities
This is in response to your e-mail submitted April 7 2005 You ask for compliance guidance with regard to the application of Subpart M Fall Protection requirements for construction activities in a General Industry facility We apologize for the long delay in providing this response
We have paraphrased your question as follows Question Scenario Employees are engaged in construction activities on a walkingworking surface at a General Industry worksite The guardrails on that site have a top rail that is 36 inches from the walkingworking surface Under OSHA Directive STD 01-01-010 and subsequent proposed rulemaking the use of such a guardrail by General Industry employees is only a technical violation of the General Industry standard 29 CFR 191023(e)(1) which otherwise requires a nominal vertical height of 42 inches
Would the construction employer be in violation of sect1926502(b)(1) (Subpart M) of the construction standards which requires the use of guardrails with a top rail that is 39 to 45 inches above the walkingworking surface level Answer Yes it would be a violation of Subpart M if construction work were performed on an elevated walkingworking surface that is guarded by a permanent guardrail system with a 36-inch top rail even though that top rail height is permitted for General Industry work under STD 01-01-010
Background Section 191023(e)(1) (Subpart D mdash Walking-Working Surfaces) of the General Industry standards states Railing toe boards and cover specifications (1) A standard railing shall consist of top rail intermediate rail and posts and shall have a vertical height of 42 inches nominal from upper surface of top rail to floor platform runway or ramp level [Emphasis added] However OSHA Directive STD-01-01-010 mdash Height of Guardrails in General Industry Applications notes
C Action OSHA Regional AdministratorsArea Directors shall classify technical violations of 29 CFR 191023(e)(1) as de minimis violations where the employer has provided guardrails which meet the following specifications (1) Existing guardrailing shall consist of a top rail intermediate rail and posts or equivalent and shall have a minimum vertical height of 36 inches to 44 inches from the upper surface of the top rail to the floor platform runway or ramp level [Emphasis added] E Background A Field Information Memorandum was previously issued regarding the
height of guardrails The intended revision [of Subpart D of 29 CFR 1910] is not yet available therefore to provide equitable enforcement which does not place unnecessary cost burdens upon employers or have a direct or immediate effect upon the safety or health of employees this instruction reissues the previous policy 1 In addition under General Industrys proposed rule on Walking and Working Surfaces (55
Federal Register 13360) guardrail systems with top rails that are 36 inches in height would similarly be grandfathered2 In support of that provision OSHA noted in the preamble that continuing to tolerate the use of guardrails as low as 36 inches (91 cm) would not unacceptably reduce employee protection and that the hazard to which to which employees would be exposed in replacing those guardrails would be greater than that from allowing the existing guardrails to remain in place (55 Federal Register 13374) [Emphasis added] The applicable construction provision sect1926502(b)(1) (Subpart M-Fall Protection) provides in part Guardrail systems Guardrail systems and their use shall comply with the following provisions
(1) Top edge height of top rails or equivalent guardrail system members shall be 42 inches (11 m) plus or minus 3 inches (8 cm) above the walkingworking level [Emphasis added] AnalysisConclusion The General Industry directive permits the use of existing permanently-installed guardrails that have a 36-inch top rail The rationale for that policy as reflected in the preamble for General Industrys proposed rule on Walking and Working Surfaces is that employee safety is not compromised by the use of such existing permanent guardrails and employee exposure to fall hazards would be increased by requiring the replacement of these guardrails
In contrast construction activities often include carrying tools and materials that are heavy awkward to handle and in the case of large materials can sometimes block the employees view In addition unlike the general industry employer a construction employer is not faced with the choice of leaving the permanent guardrails in place or replacing them Instead because construction work is by its nature temporary construction employers typically install temporary guardrails These guardrail systems are designed for temporary use under varied worksite conditions
For example some of these systems would allow a construction employer to erect a temporary guardrail system adjacent to the permanent guardrail system or to attach a temporary top rail to the permanent guardrail system to meet the applicable requirements in Subpart M In addition unlike the permanent guardrail systems in and on structures addressed in STD 01-01-010 these temporary guardrail systems are designed to facilitate repeated installation and removal Consequently the concerns regarding unjustified additional hazard exposure involved in replacing permanent guardrails is not applicable to the construction employees in your scenario In sum when a construction employer protects its employees from falls with a guardrail system that guardrail system must meet the requirements in sect1926502(b) including the top rail height
requirement in sect1926501(b)(1) even where there is a permanent guardrail with a 36-inch top rail that pursuant to STD 01-01-010 is acceptable for General Industry work If you need additional assistance please contact us by fax or e-mail
1 It is our understanding that STD-01-01-010 was adopted in light of pre-OSHA General Industry practices Specifically in the Preamble of a proposed rulemaking for General Industrys Walking and Working Surfaces standard (Volume 55 of the Federal Register page 13373 (Apr 10 1999)) OSHA offered the following explanation OSHA issued the directive because it recognized that employers with guardrails as low as 36 inches (91 cm) might have installed their systems in compliance with pre-OSHA
building codes The Agency was also concerned that employers would be unreasonably burdened by the cost of replacing their guardrail systems with new guardrail systems that were a nominal 42 inches (11 m) high
March 12 2004 Mr Randy Stahl Safety Manager Korellis Roofing Inc
1333 169th Street Hammond IN 46324-2008 Re Is fall protection required during small roofing repairs that take minimal time to complete Dear Mr Stahl This is in response to your letter dated December 16 2003 to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) We have paraphrased your question as follows
Question 1 Scenario We do roofing inspections in order to identify where repairs are needed on pre-existing roofing systems Often the repairs needed are small in scale and worker exposure to a fall hazard is minimal in terms of time The fall hazard exposure time for the installation and removal of fall protection systems from the roof exceeds the exposure time for completing these roofing repair jobs In this circumstance in non-residential roofing work is fall protection required by 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart M
Answer First Part 1926 Subpart M does not require fall protection for those conducting the initial inspection of the roof to determine what work needs to be done Section 1926500(a) states This subpart sets forth requirements and criteria for fall protection in construction workplaces covered under 29 CFR Part 1926 Exception The provisions of this subpart do not apply when employees are making an inspection investigation or assessment of workplace conditions prior to the actual start of construction work or after all construction work has been completed [Emphasis added] With regard to fall protection requirements applicable to the construction work itself
sect1926501(b)(10) (low slope roofs) requires conventional fall protection a combination of a monitoring system and warning line or on roofs of 50 feet or less in width a monitoring system alone (ie without a warning line) be used Under the standard the requirement for fall protection for this work does not depend on the duration of the fall hazard exposure In contrast the Agency found in the rulemaking that the short duration of hazard exposure was part of the basis for creating the exception for the inspection-only activity But another basis for the exception was the concept that in inspections before and after the work is done there is no on-going construction work to divert the inspectors attention from the fall hazard Once there is construction activity the risk goes up by virtue of that diversion of attention Consequently in
the preamble to the rule OSHA stated that the exception does not apply if the inspection activity takes place at the same time the construction work is on-going [I]f inspections are made while construction operations are underway all employees who are exposed to fall hazards while performing inspections must be protected as required by Subpart M1 Therefore apart from inspections the Agency in the rulemaking rejected short duration of the exposure as an exception to the fall protection requirement for construction work Note though that the use of warning lines without a monitor is acceptable where the warning
lines are at least 15 feet back from the edge and all of the following are met (1) A warning line is used 15 feet or more from the edge (or nearest edge of a hole) (2) The warning line meets or exceeds the requirements in sect1926502(f)(2) (3) No work or work-related activity is to take place in the area between the warning line and the
hole or edge and (4) The employer effectively implements a work rule prohibiting the employees from going past the warning line2 If you need additional information please contact us by fax (202-693-1689) at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance You can also contact us by mail
at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
April 17 2006
MEMORANDUM FOR Kenneth Gereke
Regional Administrator Region III
ATTN John McFee Construction Coordinator Region III
FROM Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
SUBJECT Guardrail height requirements for construction activities in General Industry Facilities
This is in response to your e-mail submitted April 7 2005 You ask for compliance guidance with regard to the application of Subpart M Fall Protection requirements for construction activities in a General Industry facility We apologize for the long delay in providing this response
We have paraphrased your question as follows Question Scenario Employees are engaged in construction activities on a walkingworking surface at a General Industry worksite The guardrails on that site have a top rail that is 36 inches from the walkingworking surface Under OSHA Directive STD 01-01-010 and subsequent proposed rulemaking the use of such a guardrail by General Industry employees is only a technical violation of the General Industry standard 29 CFR 191023(e)(1) which otherwise requires a nominal vertical height of 42 inches
Would the construction employer be in violation of sect1926502(b)(1) (Subpart M) of the construction standards which requires the use of guardrails with a top rail that is 39 to 45 inches above the walkingworking surface level Answer Yes it would be a violation of Subpart M if construction work were performed on an elevated walkingworking surface that is guarded by a permanent guardrail system with a 36-inch top rail even though that top rail height is permitted for General Industry work under STD 01-01-010
Background Section 191023(e)(1) (Subpart D mdash Walking-Working Surfaces) of the General Industry standards states Railing toe boards and cover specifications (1) A standard railing shall consist of top rail intermediate rail and posts and shall have a vertical height of 42 inches nominal from upper surface of top rail to floor platform runway or ramp level [Emphasis added] However OSHA Directive STD-01-01-010 mdash Height of Guardrails in General Industry Applications notes
C Action OSHA Regional AdministratorsArea Directors shall classify technical violations of 29 CFR 191023(e)(1) as de minimis violations where the employer has provided guardrails which meet the following specifications (1) Existing guardrailing shall consist of a top rail intermediate rail and posts or equivalent and shall have a minimum vertical height of 36 inches to 44 inches from the upper surface of the top rail to the floor platform runway or ramp level [Emphasis added] E Background A Field Information Memorandum was previously issued regarding the
height of guardrails The intended revision [of Subpart D of 29 CFR 1910] is not yet available therefore to provide equitable enforcement which does not place unnecessary cost burdens upon employers or have a direct or immediate effect upon the safety or health of employees this instruction reissues the previous policy 1 In addition under General Industrys proposed rule on Walking and Working Surfaces (55
Federal Register 13360) guardrail systems with top rails that are 36 inches in height would similarly be grandfathered2 In support of that provision OSHA noted in the preamble that continuing to tolerate the use of guardrails as low as 36 inches (91 cm) would not unacceptably reduce employee protection and that the hazard to which to which employees would be exposed in replacing those guardrails would be greater than that from allowing the existing guardrails to remain in place (55 Federal Register 13374) [Emphasis added] The applicable construction provision sect1926502(b)(1) (Subpart M-Fall Protection) provides in part Guardrail systems Guardrail systems and their use shall comply with the following provisions
(1) Top edge height of top rails or equivalent guardrail system members shall be 42 inches (11 m) plus or minus 3 inches (8 cm) above the walkingworking level [Emphasis added] AnalysisConclusion The General Industry directive permits the use of existing permanently-installed guardrails that have a 36-inch top rail The rationale for that policy as reflected in the preamble for General Industrys proposed rule on Walking and Working Surfaces is that employee safety is not compromised by the use of such existing permanent guardrails and employee exposure to fall hazards would be increased by requiring the replacement of these guardrails
In contrast construction activities often include carrying tools and materials that are heavy awkward to handle and in the case of large materials can sometimes block the employees view In addition unlike the general industry employer a construction employer is not faced with the choice of leaving the permanent guardrails in place or replacing them Instead because construction work is by its nature temporary construction employers typically install temporary guardrails These guardrail systems are designed for temporary use under varied worksite conditions
For example some of these systems would allow a construction employer to erect a temporary guardrail system adjacent to the permanent guardrail system or to attach a temporary top rail to the permanent guardrail system to meet the applicable requirements in Subpart M In addition unlike the permanent guardrail systems in and on structures addressed in STD 01-01-010 these temporary guardrail systems are designed to facilitate repeated installation and removal Consequently the concerns regarding unjustified additional hazard exposure involved in replacing permanent guardrails is not applicable to the construction employees in your scenario In sum when a construction employer protects its employees from falls with a guardrail system that guardrail system must meet the requirements in sect1926502(b) including the top rail height
requirement in sect1926501(b)(1) even where there is a permanent guardrail with a 36-inch top rail that pursuant to STD 01-01-010 is acceptable for General Industry work If you need additional assistance please contact us by fax or e-mail
1 It is our understanding that STD-01-01-010 was adopted in light of pre-OSHA General Industry practices Specifically in the Preamble of a proposed rulemaking for General Industrys Walking and Working Surfaces standard (Volume 55 of the Federal Register page 13373 (Apr 10 1999)) OSHA offered the following explanation OSHA issued the directive because it recognized that employers with guardrails as low as 36 inches (91 cm) might have installed their systems in compliance with pre-OSHA
building codes The Agency was also concerned that employers would be unreasonably burdened by the cost of replacing their guardrail systems with new guardrail systems that were a nominal 42 inches (11 m) high
hole or edge and (4) The employer effectively implements a work rule prohibiting the employees from going past the warning line2 If you need additional information please contact us by fax (202-693-1689) at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance You can also contact us by mail
at US Department of Labor OSHA Office of Construction Standards and Guidance Room N3468 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20210 although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail Sincerely Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
April 17 2006
MEMORANDUM FOR Kenneth Gereke
Regional Administrator Region III
ATTN John McFee Construction Coordinator Region III
FROM Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
SUBJECT Guardrail height requirements for construction activities in General Industry Facilities
This is in response to your e-mail submitted April 7 2005 You ask for compliance guidance with regard to the application of Subpart M Fall Protection requirements for construction activities in a General Industry facility We apologize for the long delay in providing this response
We have paraphrased your question as follows Question Scenario Employees are engaged in construction activities on a walkingworking surface at a General Industry worksite The guardrails on that site have a top rail that is 36 inches from the walkingworking surface Under OSHA Directive STD 01-01-010 and subsequent proposed rulemaking the use of such a guardrail by General Industry employees is only a technical violation of the General Industry standard 29 CFR 191023(e)(1) which otherwise requires a nominal vertical height of 42 inches
Would the construction employer be in violation of sect1926502(b)(1) (Subpart M) of the construction standards which requires the use of guardrails with a top rail that is 39 to 45 inches above the walkingworking surface level Answer Yes it would be a violation of Subpart M if construction work were performed on an elevated walkingworking surface that is guarded by a permanent guardrail system with a 36-inch top rail even though that top rail height is permitted for General Industry work under STD 01-01-010
Background Section 191023(e)(1) (Subpart D mdash Walking-Working Surfaces) of the General Industry standards states Railing toe boards and cover specifications (1) A standard railing shall consist of top rail intermediate rail and posts and shall have a vertical height of 42 inches nominal from upper surface of top rail to floor platform runway or ramp level [Emphasis added] However OSHA Directive STD-01-01-010 mdash Height of Guardrails in General Industry Applications notes
C Action OSHA Regional AdministratorsArea Directors shall classify technical violations of 29 CFR 191023(e)(1) as de minimis violations where the employer has provided guardrails which meet the following specifications (1) Existing guardrailing shall consist of a top rail intermediate rail and posts or equivalent and shall have a minimum vertical height of 36 inches to 44 inches from the upper surface of the top rail to the floor platform runway or ramp level [Emphasis added] E Background A Field Information Memorandum was previously issued regarding the
height of guardrails The intended revision [of Subpart D of 29 CFR 1910] is not yet available therefore to provide equitable enforcement which does not place unnecessary cost burdens upon employers or have a direct or immediate effect upon the safety or health of employees this instruction reissues the previous policy 1 In addition under General Industrys proposed rule on Walking and Working Surfaces (55
Federal Register 13360) guardrail systems with top rails that are 36 inches in height would similarly be grandfathered2 In support of that provision OSHA noted in the preamble that continuing to tolerate the use of guardrails as low as 36 inches (91 cm) would not unacceptably reduce employee protection and that the hazard to which to which employees would be exposed in replacing those guardrails would be greater than that from allowing the existing guardrails to remain in place (55 Federal Register 13374) [Emphasis added] The applicable construction provision sect1926502(b)(1) (Subpart M-Fall Protection) provides in part Guardrail systems Guardrail systems and their use shall comply with the following provisions
(1) Top edge height of top rails or equivalent guardrail system members shall be 42 inches (11 m) plus or minus 3 inches (8 cm) above the walkingworking level [Emphasis added] AnalysisConclusion The General Industry directive permits the use of existing permanently-installed guardrails that have a 36-inch top rail The rationale for that policy as reflected in the preamble for General Industrys proposed rule on Walking and Working Surfaces is that employee safety is not compromised by the use of such existing permanent guardrails and employee exposure to fall hazards would be increased by requiring the replacement of these guardrails
In contrast construction activities often include carrying tools and materials that are heavy awkward to handle and in the case of large materials can sometimes block the employees view In addition unlike the general industry employer a construction employer is not faced with the choice of leaving the permanent guardrails in place or replacing them Instead because construction work is by its nature temporary construction employers typically install temporary guardrails These guardrail systems are designed for temporary use under varied worksite conditions
For example some of these systems would allow a construction employer to erect a temporary guardrail system adjacent to the permanent guardrail system or to attach a temporary top rail to the permanent guardrail system to meet the applicable requirements in Subpart M In addition unlike the permanent guardrail systems in and on structures addressed in STD 01-01-010 these temporary guardrail systems are designed to facilitate repeated installation and removal Consequently the concerns regarding unjustified additional hazard exposure involved in replacing permanent guardrails is not applicable to the construction employees in your scenario In sum when a construction employer protects its employees from falls with a guardrail system that guardrail system must meet the requirements in sect1926502(b) including the top rail height
requirement in sect1926501(b)(1) even where there is a permanent guardrail with a 36-inch top rail that pursuant to STD 01-01-010 is acceptable for General Industry work If you need additional assistance please contact us by fax or e-mail
1 It is our understanding that STD-01-01-010 was adopted in light of pre-OSHA General Industry practices Specifically in the Preamble of a proposed rulemaking for General Industrys Walking and Working Surfaces standard (Volume 55 of the Federal Register page 13373 (Apr 10 1999)) OSHA offered the following explanation OSHA issued the directive because it recognized that employers with guardrails as low as 36 inches (91 cm) might have installed their systems in compliance with pre-OSHA
building codes The Agency was also concerned that employers would be unreasonably burdened by the cost of replacing their guardrail systems with new guardrail systems that were a nominal 42 inches (11 m) high
April 17 2006
MEMORANDUM FOR Kenneth Gereke
Regional Administrator Region III
ATTN John McFee Construction Coordinator Region III
FROM Russell B Swanson Director Directorate of Construction
SUBJECT Guardrail height requirements for construction activities in General Industry Facilities
This is in response to your e-mail submitted April 7 2005 You ask for compliance guidance with regard to the application of Subpart M Fall Protection requirements for construction activities in a General Industry facility We apologize for the long delay in providing this response
We have paraphrased your question as follows Question Scenario Employees are engaged in construction activities on a walkingworking surface at a General Industry worksite The guardrails on that site have a top rail that is 36 inches from the walkingworking surface Under OSHA Directive STD 01-01-010 and subsequent proposed rulemaking the use of such a guardrail by General Industry employees is only a technical violation of the General Industry standard 29 CFR 191023(e)(1) which otherwise requires a nominal vertical height of 42 inches
Would the construction employer be in violation of sect1926502(b)(1) (Subpart M) of the construction standards which requires the use of guardrails with a top rail that is 39 to 45 inches above the walkingworking surface level Answer Yes it would be a violation of Subpart M if construction work were performed on an elevated walkingworking surface that is guarded by a permanent guardrail system with a 36-inch top rail even though that top rail height is permitted for General Industry work under STD 01-01-010
Background Section 191023(e)(1) (Subpart D mdash Walking-Working Surfaces) of the General Industry standards states Railing toe boards and cover specifications (1) A standard railing shall consist of top rail intermediate rail and posts and shall have a vertical height of 42 inches nominal from upper surface of top rail to floor platform runway or ramp level [Emphasis added] However OSHA Directive STD-01-01-010 mdash Height of Guardrails in General Industry Applications notes
C Action OSHA Regional AdministratorsArea Directors shall classify technical violations of 29 CFR 191023(e)(1) as de minimis violations where the employer has provided guardrails which meet the following specifications (1) Existing guardrailing shall consist of a top rail intermediate rail and posts or equivalent and shall have a minimum vertical height of 36 inches to 44 inches from the upper surface of the top rail to the floor platform runway or ramp level [Emphasis added] E Background A Field Information Memorandum was previously issued regarding the
height of guardrails The intended revision [of Subpart D of 29 CFR 1910] is not yet available therefore to provide equitable enforcement which does not place unnecessary cost burdens upon employers or have a direct or immediate effect upon the safety or health of employees this instruction reissues the previous policy 1 In addition under General Industrys proposed rule on Walking and Working Surfaces (55
Federal Register 13360) guardrail systems with top rails that are 36 inches in height would similarly be grandfathered2 In support of that provision OSHA noted in the preamble that continuing to tolerate the use of guardrails as low as 36 inches (91 cm) would not unacceptably reduce employee protection and that the hazard to which to which employees would be exposed in replacing those guardrails would be greater than that from allowing the existing guardrails to remain in place (55 Federal Register 13374) [Emphasis added] The applicable construction provision sect1926502(b)(1) (Subpart M-Fall Protection) provides in part Guardrail systems Guardrail systems and their use shall comply with the following provisions
(1) Top edge height of top rails or equivalent guardrail system members shall be 42 inches (11 m) plus or minus 3 inches (8 cm) above the walkingworking level [Emphasis added] AnalysisConclusion The General Industry directive permits the use of existing permanently-installed guardrails that have a 36-inch top rail The rationale for that policy as reflected in the preamble for General Industrys proposed rule on Walking and Working Surfaces is that employee safety is not compromised by the use of such existing permanent guardrails and employee exposure to fall hazards would be increased by requiring the replacement of these guardrails
In contrast construction activities often include carrying tools and materials that are heavy awkward to handle and in the case of large materials can sometimes block the employees view In addition unlike the general industry employer a construction employer is not faced with the choice of leaving the permanent guardrails in place or replacing them Instead because construction work is by its nature temporary construction employers typically install temporary guardrails These guardrail systems are designed for temporary use under varied worksite conditions
For example some of these systems would allow a construction employer to erect a temporary guardrail system adjacent to the permanent guardrail system or to attach a temporary top rail to the permanent guardrail system to meet the applicable requirements in Subpart M In addition unlike the permanent guardrail systems in and on structures addressed in STD 01-01-010 these temporary guardrail systems are designed to facilitate repeated installation and removal Consequently the concerns regarding unjustified additional hazard exposure involved in replacing permanent guardrails is not applicable to the construction employees in your scenario In sum when a construction employer protects its employees from falls with a guardrail system that guardrail system must meet the requirements in sect1926502(b) including the top rail height
requirement in sect1926501(b)(1) even where there is a permanent guardrail with a 36-inch top rail that pursuant to STD 01-01-010 is acceptable for General Industry work If you need additional assistance please contact us by fax or e-mail
1 It is our understanding that STD-01-01-010 was adopted in light of pre-OSHA General Industry practices Specifically in the Preamble of a proposed rulemaking for General Industrys Walking and Working Surfaces standard (Volume 55 of the Federal Register page 13373 (Apr 10 1999)) OSHA offered the following explanation OSHA issued the directive because it recognized that employers with guardrails as low as 36 inches (91 cm) might have installed their systems in compliance with pre-OSHA
building codes The Agency was also concerned that employers would be unreasonably burdened by the cost of replacing their guardrail systems with new guardrail systems that were a nominal 42 inches (11 m) high
height of guardrails The intended revision [of Subpart D of 29 CFR 1910] is not yet available therefore to provide equitable enforcement which does not place unnecessary cost burdens upon employers or have a direct or immediate effect upon the safety or health of employees this instruction reissues the previous policy 1 In addition under General Industrys proposed rule on Walking and Working Surfaces (55
Federal Register 13360) guardrail systems with top rails that are 36 inches in height would similarly be grandfathered2 In support of that provision OSHA noted in the preamble that continuing to tolerate the use of guardrails as low as 36 inches (91 cm) would not unacceptably reduce employee protection and that the hazard to which to which employees would be exposed in replacing those guardrails would be greater than that from allowing the existing guardrails to remain in place (55 Federal Register 13374) [Emphasis added] The applicable construction provision sect1926502(b)(1) (Subpart M-Fall Protection) provides in part Guardrail systems Guardrail systems and their use shall comply with the following provisions
(1) Top edge height of top rails or equivalent guardrail system members shall be 42 inches (11 m) plus or minus 3 inches (8 cm) above the walkingworking level [Emphasis added] AnalysisConclusion The General Industry directive permits the use of existing permanently-installed guardrails that have a 36-inch top rail The rationale for that policy as reflected in the preamble for General Industrys proposed rule on Walking and Working Surfaces is that employee safety is not compromised by the use of such existing permanent guardrails and employee exposure to fall hazards would be increased by requiring the replacement of these guardrails
In contrast construction activities often include carrying tools and materials that are heavy awkward to handle and in the case of large materials can sometimes block the employees view In addition unlike the general industry employer a construction employer is not faced with the choice of leaving the permanent guardrails in place or replacing them Instead because construction work is by its nature temporary construction employers typically install temporary guardrails These guardrail systems are designed for temporary use under varied worksite conditions
For example some of these systems would allow a construction employer to erect a temporary guardrail system adjacent to the permanent guardrail system or to attach a temporary top rail to the permanent guardrail system to meet the applicable requirements in Subpart M In addition unlike the permanent guardrail systems in and on structures addressed in STD 01-01-010 these temporary guardrail systems are designed to facilitate repeated installation and removal Consequently the concerns regarding unjustified additional hazard exposure involved in replacing permanent guardrails is not applicable to the construction employees in your scenario In sum when a construction employer protects its employees from falls with a guardrail system that guardrail system must meet the requirements in sect1926502(b) including the top rail height
requirement in sect1926501(b)(1) even where there is a permanent guardrail with a 36-inch top rail that pursuant to STD 01-01-010 is acceptable for General Industry work If you need additional assistance please contact us by fax or e-mail
1 It is our understanding that STD-01-01-010 was adopted in light of pre-OSHA General Industry practices Specifically in the Preamble of a proposed rulemaking for General Industrys Walking and Working Surfaces standard (Volume 55 of the Federal Register page 13373 (Apr 10 1999)) OSHA offered the following explanation OSHA issued the directive because it recognized that employers with guardrails as low as 36 inches (91 cm) might have installed their systems in compliance with pre-OSHA
building codes The Agency was also concerned that employers would be unreasonably burdened by the cost of replacing their guardrail systems with new guardrail systems that were a nominal 42 inches (11 m) high
building codes The Agency was also concerned that employers would be unreasonably burdened by the cost of replacing their guardrail systems with new guardrail systems that were a nominal 42 inches (11 m) high
