[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 152 (Tuesday, August 9, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-19000]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: August 9, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of Labor
_______________________________________________________________________
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1926
Safety Standards for Fall Protection in the Construction Industry;
Final Rule
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1926
RIN 1218-AA66
[Docket No. S-206]
Safety Standards for Fall Protection in the Construction Industry
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department
of Labor.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
hereby revises the construction industry safety standards which
regulate fall protection systems and procedures. These systems and
procedures are intended to prevent employees from falling off, onto or
through working levels and to protect employees from falling objects.
The final rule corrects problems which have arisen during
enforcement of the existing standards. In this final rule, OSHA either
maintains or increases the requirements for protection from those
hazards, but does so using more performance-oriented criteria where
possible, rather than specification-oriented language. The final rule
also consolidates and simplifies many of the existing provisions. This
rulemaking is another step in OSHA's plan to review its safety
standards and to revise them as necessary to provide safer working
conditions without imposing unnecessary burdens.
In addition, the final rule makes one change to a provision in the
Occupational Safety and Health Standards for General Industry. In
particular, Sec. 1910.269--Electric Power Generation, Transmission and
Distribution; Electrical Protective Equipment which contains a
requirement in paragraph (f)(2) that personal fall arrest equipment
meet the requirements of subpart E of Part 1926. That provision has
been revised to require the equipment to meet the requirements of
revised subpart M of Part 1926.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule becomes effective February 6, 1995.
ADDRESSES: In compliance with 28 U.S.C. 2112(a), the Agency designates
for receipt of petitions for review of the standard, the Associate
Solicitor for Occupational Safety and Health, Office of the Solicitor,
Room S-4004, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James Foster, U.S. Department of
Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Office of
Information and Consumer Affairs, Room N3647, 200 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20210, Telephone (202) 219-8148.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The principal authors of this final rule are
Barbara J. Bielaski, project officer, Office of Construction and Civil
Engineering Safety Standards; Jens Svenson, Office of Regulatory
Analysis; Stephen Jones, Office of the Solicitor.
I. Background
Congress amended the Contract Work Hours Standards Act (40 U.S.C.
327 et seq.) in 1969 by adding a new section 107 (40 U.S.C. 333) to
provide employees in the construction industry with a safer work
environment and to reduce the frequency and severity of construction
accidents and injuries. The amendment, commonly known as the
Construction Safety Act (CSA) [P.L. 91-54; August 9, 1969],
significantly strengthened employee protection by requiring the
promulgation of occupational safety and health standards for employees
of the building trades and construction industry working on Federally-
financed or Federally-assisted construction projects. Accordingly, the
Secretary of Labor issued Safety and Health Regulations for
Construction in 29 CFR Part 1518 (36 FR 7340, April 17, 1971) pursuant
to section 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act.
The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) (84 Stat. 1590; 29
U.S.C. 651 et seq.), was enacted by Congress in 1970 and authorized the
Secretary of Labor to adopt established Federal standards issued under
other statutes, including the Construction Safety Act, as occupational
safety and health standards. Accordingly, the Secretary of Labor
adopted those Construction Standards, which had been issued under the
Construction Safety Act in 29 CFR Part 1518, as OSHA standards in
accordance with section 6(a) of the OSH Act (36 FR 10466, May 29,
1971). The Safety and Health Regulations for Construction were
redesignated as Part 1926 later in 1971 (36 FR 25232, December 30,
1971).
OSHA adopted several regulations related to fall protection under
section 6(a) of the OSH Act. In particular, the Agency adopted the
standards which currently appear in subpart E, Personal Protective
Equipment, (including Sec. 1926.104--Safety Belts, Lifelines, and
Lanyards and Sec. 1926.105--Safety Nets) and in subpart M, Floor and
Wall Openings and Stairways. Subpart M has been amended several times
under section 6(b) of the OSH Act.
As part of OSHA's continuing standards evaluation program, and in
response to public comments, a complete review of subpart M was begun
in 1977. Since then, the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and
Health (ACCSH) has reviewed draft revisions of subpart M a number of
times and has made many suggestions regarding the draft regulatory
language. The transcripts of the ACCSH meetings where draft revisions
to subpart M were discussed are part of the public record (Exhibit 1).
The ACCSH recommendations, and those of other interested parties, have
been carefully analyzed in connection with the present rulemaking. Many
of the changes in the revised standard reflect the suggestions of the
ACCSH and other interested persons. Specific ACCSH recommendations are
discussed in the appropriate sections of the Summary and Explanation,
below. Committee discussions that either were inconclusive or did not
produce a specific recommendation have also been considered, but are
not discussed in this preamble.
On November 25, 1986, OSHA proposed to revise virtually all of the
fall protection provisions of the construction industry standards and
to consolidate those requirements, except where specifically provided
otherwise, in subpart M [51 FR 42718]. The proposal set a period,
ending February 23, 1987, during which interested parties could submit
written comments and request a hearing. The Agency twice granted
commenters' requests for more time to submit comments and hearing
requests. OSHA first extended the comment and hearing request period to
June 1, 1987 [52 FR 5790, February 26, 1987] and then extended that
period to August 14, 1987 [52 FR 20616, June 2, 1987]. The Agency
received 162 comments on the proposal and several requests for a
hearing.
On January 26, 1988, OSHA announced that it would convene an
informal public hearing beginning on March 22, 1988, to elicit
additional information on specific issues related to fall protection,
scaffolds and stairways and ladders [53 FR 2048]. The hearing notice
also reopened the comment period regarding proposed subpart M until
March 8, 1988, for the limited purpose of obtaining additional
information on appropriate fall protection coverage for employees
engaged in steel erection activities. The Agency noted that the
information obtained would be used in development of a separate
proposed rule covering steel erection. OSHA received 22 comments in
response to the limited reopening of the comment period.
The informal public hearings were conducted on March 22-23, 1988,
with Administrative Law Judge Joel Williams presiding. At the close of
the hearings, Judge Williams set a period, ending May 9, 1988, for
hearing participants to submit additional comments and information.
OSHA received 15 submissions, including testimony and documentary
evidence, at the hearing. On August 11, 1989, Judge Williams certified
the rulemaking record, including the hearing transcript and all written
submissions to the docket, thereby closing the record for this
proceeding.
On August 5, 1992, OSHA reopened the rulemaking record (57 FR
34656) to consider new information submitted by the Precast/Prestressed
Concrete Institute (PCI) regarding the fall protection needs of
employees engaged in precast concrete construction. The PCI submissions
(Exs. 25-4 and 25-6) described some characteristic precast concrete
construction situations and alternative measures PCI believed employers
could take to provide fall protection for their employees in those
situations. The Agency solicited input on whether OSHA should allow
precast concrete construction employers to protect employees from fall
hazards by means other than guardrail systems, personal fall arrest
systems or safety net systems. The Agency also sought comments
regarding what criteria OSHA should set to determine the
appropriateness of using alternative measures and to determine if the
alternative measures are effectively minimizing fall hazards. The
comment period, which ended November 3, 1992, elicited 14 comments.
On March 29, 1993, the Agency again reopened the rulemaking record
(58 FR 16515) to provide additional time for the precast concrete
construction industry to comment on the issues raised in the August 5,
1992, notice. The March 29 notice also discussed the fall protection
needs of employees involved in residential construction, focusing on
the feasibility of protecting employees erecting roof trusses and
exterior wall panels with guardrails, personal fall arrest systems or
safety net systems. OSHA requested information regarding alternative
measures, or safe work practices, residential construction employers
can use to minimize fall hazards. The limited comment period, which
ended on May 28, 1993, elicited 28 comments.
A wide range of employees, businesses, trade associations, state
governments, and other interested parties contributed to the
development of this record. The Agency appreciates these efforts to
help OSHA develop a rulemaking record that provides a sound basis for
the promulgation of this final rule.
The Agency believes that, while the means of providing fall
protection are continually improving, there may be circumstances where
employers can demonstrate that compliance with certain fall protection
requirements would be infeasible; i.e., it would be impossible to
accomplish the work using conventional fall protection systems or it is
technologically impossible to use conventional fall protection systems,
or that those systems would create a greater hazard to employees. OSHA
has determined that revised subpart M is needed to address those
circumstances, encourage greater compliance by employers and employees,
and maximize employee protection from fall hazards. OSHA believes that
the clarified and revised language of the final rule will help
employers to understand and implement the requirements of subpart M,
resulting in improved employee protection. In addition, much of the
final rule has been written in more performance-oriented language. This
will make it easier for employers to provide the necessary protection
for their employees, since they will be able to select fall protection
measures which are compatible with the type of work being performed.
This project has been coordinated with other ongoing projects for
the revision of related general industry standards in 29 CFR Part 1910,
subpart D--Walking/Working Surfaces, [proposed rule published at 55 FR
13360, April 10, 1990] and 29 CFR Part 1910 subpart I--Personal
Protective Equipment (Fall Protection Systems), [proposed rule
published at 55 FR 13423, April 10, 1990] and with the proposed
rulemaking for the Shipyard Industry in 29 CFR 1915 subpart M--Fall
Protection [proposed rule published at 53 FR 48168, November 29, 1988].
Where appropriate, the 1910, 1915, and 1926 requirements will use the
same language to address similar hazards so employers will have clear
and consistent direction as to what is necessary to protect employees
from fall hazards.
In developing this final rule, OSHA has focused on requiring
employers to provide construction employees with a positive method of
protection against fall hazards wherever possible. At the same time,
the Agency has taken steps to allow alternatives to traditional,
conventional fall protection methods in situations where conventional
methods can be shown to be inappropriate or unreasonable. Some of the
alternative methods prescribed in revised subpart M represent
innovations which are necessary to deal with unique workplace
conditions. The record of this rulemaking indicates that these methods
have not been used long enough or widely enough to enable the Agency to
determine just how effective they will be throughout the construction
industry.
In this regard, OSHA intends to monitor the effectiveness of these
provisions carefully for the next several years, to make sure that they
are providing the necessary protection for construction workers. The
Agency will carefully review and examine its enforcement data, together
with any investigative reports and other information on accidents which
involve fall hazards. In addition, OSHA intends to work closely with
NIOSH in performing such data collection and analysis. Should the
available data indicate that the alternative methods are not providing
adequate fall protection to employees, the Agency will reevaluate the
standards and determine what changes, if any, are warranted.
II. Hazards Involved
Fall accidents resulting in injuries and fatalities continue to
occur at construction sites despite the promulgation of the OSHA
Construction Standards in 1971. OSHA's initial review of accident data
indicated that compliance with existing OSHA standards would have, in
general, prevented the mishaps. After a more complete review of
information derived from enforcement experience and public comments,
OSHA decided that certain existing provisions needed to be updated and
clarified, in order to improve employee protection. In addition, OSHA
decided to reorganize the existing fall protection requirements so that
employers could more readily determine what requirements they must
follow.
Precise fall hazard accident data for the entire construction
industry are not available. Falls are generally recorded by OSHA
according to the nature of the injury and the surface involved, but the
two categories have not been uniformly cross-referenced. However, based
upon the data which have been compiled, OSHA estimates that there are
at least 68,000 injuries due to falls from elevations covered under
subpart M occur every year, and 95 fatalities (Regulatory Impact and
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, Section III).
The U.S. Department of Labor, based on data from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, has listed falls as one of the leading causes of
traumatic occupational death, accounting for 8% of all occupational
fatalities in 1986. Data from NIOSH showed that from 1980-1985, falls
represented about 10% of all traumatic occupational deaths for which a
cause was identified, and that falls were shown to be one of the major
causes of injuries to construction workers. A NIOSH analysis of death
certificates from work related injuries over a 10-year period has made
it clear that falls are the leading cause of work related injury death
among construction workers (E. Lynn Jenkins, S.M. Kisner, D.E.
Fosbroke, et al. Fatal Injuries to Workers in the United States, 1980-
89; A Decade of Surveillance--National Profile, DHHS, NIOSH, 93-108,
August 1993).
An OSHA study involving 99 fall-related fatalities (Ex. 3-3)
suggests that virtually all of those deaths could have been prevented
by the use of guardrails, body belts, body harnesses, safety nets,
covers, or other means which would reduce employee exposure to the fall
hazard.
OSHA recognizes that such accidents are, generally, complex events,
involving a combination of factors. Accordingly, the Agency notes that
a number of human and equipment-related issues must be addressed to
protect employees from fall hazards. Among those issues are the
following:
The need to know where protection is required;
The selection of fall protection systems which are appropriate
for given situations;
The proper construction and installation of safety systems;
The proper supervision of employees;
The implementation of safe work procedures; and
The proper training in the selection, use, and maintenance of
fall protection systems.
Each of these topics is covered in revised subpart M. The final
rule requires employers to identify and evaluate fall hazards, and it
includes specific training requirements that clarify the existing
general training provisions of Sec. 1926.21 as they apply to fall
protection. The final rule also makes it clear what an employer must do
to provide fall protection for employees. Finally, the final rule
relocates fall protection requirements from other subparts in the
construction regulations, and places them in subpart M. For example,
fall protection for workers on steep roofs was addressed by provisions
in existing subpart L, but now will be addressed in revised subpart M.
Based on its review of the incident data, OSHA has concluded that
fall hazards pose a significant risk of death or serious injury for
construction employees and that compliance with the requirements of
revised subpart M is reasonably necessary to protect employees from
those hazards. For a further discussion of accident rates and the
significance of fall hazards in construction employment, see Section
IV. Summary of the Regulatory Impact Analysis and Section V. Statutory
Considerations.
Certain proposed provisions have been reorganized in the final
rule. The reorganized provisions are as follows:
Reorganization Table
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Sec. no. and/or
paragraph Proposed Sec. no. and/or paragraph
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1926.501
(b)(11) (c)
(b)(12)
(b)(13)
(b)(14) (d)
(b)(15)
(c) (e)
Sec. 1926.502
(b)(10) (b)(11)
(b)(11) (b)(12)
(b)(12) (b)(13)
(b)(13) (b)(14)
(b)(14) (b)(15)
(b)(15)
(d)(1) (d)(9)
(d)(2) (d)(10)
(d)(3) (d)(16)
(d)(4)
(d)(5)
(d)(6) (d)(17), (18) and (19)
(d)(7)
(d)(8) (d)(14)
(d)(9) (d)(13) and (15)
(d)(10) (d)(11)
(d)(11) (d)(3)
(d)(12) (d)(13) partial
(d)(13) (d)(13) partial
(d)(14)
(d)(15) (d)(12)
(d)(16) (d)(4), (5), and (6)
(d)(17) (d)(7)
(d)(18) (d)(1)
(d)(19) (d)(2)
(d)(20)
(d)(21) (d)(20)
(d)(22) (d)(8)
(d)(23) (d)(21)
(d)(24) (d)(22)
(e)(2) (e)(3)
(e)(3)
(e)(4) (e)(2)
(e)(5) (e)(4)
(e)(6)
(e)(7)
(e)(8)
(e)(9) (e)(5)
(e)(10)
(g)(1) (g)(1) and (g)(5)
(g)(2) (g)(2) and (g)(5)
(h)(4)
(i)(4)
(j)(8)
(k)(1)-(10)
Sec. 1926.503
(b)
(c) (a)(2)
Appendix D
Appendix E
------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule
The following discussion explains how the final rule corresponds to
or differs from the proposed and the existing standards, and how the
comments and testimony presented on each provision influenced the
drafting of the final rule. Except where otherwise indicated, proposed
provisions which did not elicit comment have been promulgated as
proposed, for the reasons stated in the preamble to the proposed rule.
Subpart M--Fall Protection
OSHA has changed the title of subpart M from ``Floor and Wall
Openings, and Stairways'' to ``Fall Protection.'' The revised title
reflects both the relocation of the provisions for stairways to subpart
X, which was published as a final rule on November 14, 1990 (55 FR
47660), and the Agency's decision to consolidate most requirements for
fall protection in construction in revised subpart M. OSHA has made
subpart M the comprehensive reference for construction fall protection
standards by revising and relocating the general requirements in
existing Sec. 1926.104--Safety belts, lifelines, and lanyards; existing
Sec. 1926.105--Safety nets; and the pertinent definitions in existing
Sec. 1926.107 to subpart M.
OSHA is also deleting Sec. 1926.651(l)(2), which requires fall
protection at ``remotely located excavations,'' and
Sec. 1926.701(f)(2), which requires fall protection for employees
installing reinforcing steel more than 6 feet (1.8m) above adjacent
working surfaces, because the pertinent hazards are covered by
Secs. 1926.501(b)(7) and (b)(5), respectively. Another excavation
provision, Sec. 1926.651(l)(1), is being revised to be consistent with
Sec. 1926.501(b)(6) of the final rule. All three of the provisions
noted above pertain to fall protection. In addition, the provision of
existing Sec. 1926.105(a), has been relocated to Sec. 1926.753 of
subpart R (steel erection) to maintain existing coverage pending
rulemaking to revise the fall protection requirements for steel
erection work. A more complete discussion of the revised and relocated
provisions is provided later in this document.
Sec. 1926.500 Scope, Application, and definitions Applicable to This
Subpart
Paragraph (a) of Sec. 1926.500 states the scope and application of
subpart M. Paragraph (a)(1) states that the fall protection
requirements of subpart M apply to all construction workplaces, except
where another subpart of part 1926 specifies what fall protection
systems must be used and sets the criteria for those fall protection
systems. OSHA notes there are some activities that will be classified
as either general industry or construction depending on other
activities occurring at the same time or same site. For example, when
surface preparation work and sandblasting work are being performed in
connection with painting activities or other construction activities,
then these two activities are considered construction work and
employers engaged in these activities must follow the requirements of
subpart M as it pertains to fall hazards associated with surface
preparation and sandblasting. On the other hand, when these activities
are conducted as part of general maintenance work, the fall protection
requirements of the general industry standards (part 1910) would apply.
Paragraph (a)(1), which is essentially the same as proposed
Sec. 1926.500(a)(1), also states that the provisions of subpart M do
not apply when the employer establishes that employees are only
inspecting, investigating, or assessing workplace conditions prior to
the actual start of the work or after work has been completed. OSHA has
set this exception because employees engaged in inspecting,
investigating and assessing workplace conditions before the actual work
begins or after work has been completed are exposed to fall hazards for
very short durations, if at all, since they most likely would be able
to accomplish their work without going near the danger zone. Also, the
Agency's experience is that such individuals who are not continually or
routinely exposed to fall hazards tend to be very focused on their
footing, ever alert and aware of the hazards associated with falling.
These practical considerations would make it unreasonable, the Agency
believes, to require the installation of fall protection systems either
prior to the start of construction work or after such work has been
completed. Such requirements would impose an unreasonable burden on
employers without demonstrable benefits.
OSHA notes that the operations covered by paragraph (a)(1) are
normally conducted in good weather, that the nature of such work
normally exposes the employee to the fall hazard only for a short time,
if at all, and that requiring the installation of fall protection
systems under such circumstances would expose the employee who installs
those systems to falling hazards for a longer time than the person
performing an inspection or similar work. In addition, OSHA anticipates
that employees who inspect, investigate or assess workplace conditions
will be more aware of their proximity to an unprotected edge than, for
example, a roofer who is moving backwards while operating a felt laying
machine, or a plumber whose attention is on overhead pipe and not on
the floor edge.
Some commenters (Exs. 2-15, 2-31, and 2-56) expressed concern
regarding the proposed exception. In particular, one commenter (Ex. 2-
31) said ``the exception . . . will create havoc for enforcement
agencies.'' The commenter further stated that ``superintendents,
foremen, and other company officials will never have to be protected
during the entire job, because they will say that they are only
inspecting.'' Another commenter (Ex. 2-15) suggested that OSHA grant
only a conditional exception. It would then allow the exception only
where exposures to falling are minimal at most or nonexistent. In
addition, only experienced, responsible persons trained in the hazards
associated with inspections, investigations, etc., would be allowed to
work without fall protection. One commenter (Ex. 2-56) disagreed with
the proposed exclusion, saying:
These employees are exposed to unique hazards since their
functions are to determine if protection systems are adequate,
deteriorated, etc. To allow such employees to work unprotected will
promote the not wearing or using such protection by others.
Based on the comments received, OSHA recognizes that proposed
Sec. 1926.500(a)(1) requires clarification. Therefore, OSHA has decided
to reword the provision to make it clear that the exclusion only
applies when the employer establishes that employees are inspecting,
investigating, or assessing workplace conditions prior to the actual
start of work or after the work has been completed. It was OSHA's
intent when it proposed this provision that the exclusion would only
apply at the two times stated above, not during the period when
construction work is being performed. As explained in the preamble to
the proposed rule, the exception would apply where an employee goes
onto a roof in need of repair to inspect the roof and to estimate what
work is needed. During such an inspection, guardrails, body belts, body
harnesses, safety nets, or other safety systems would not be required.
However, if inspections are made while construction operations are
underway, all employees who are exposed to fall hazards while
performing these inspections must be protected as required by subpart
M. The intent of the provision is also to recognize that after all work
has been completed, and workers have left the area, there may be a need
for building inspectors, owners, etc. to inspect the work. OSHA
recognizes that in these situations, all fall protection equipment,
such as perimeter guardrail systems, may have been removed. OSHA is not
requiring the installation of the systems for a second time for
inspectors, because the Agency recognizes it would be unreasonably
burdensome to require the reinstallation of fall protection equipment
after all the work has been completed.
Paragraph (a)(2), like the proposal, notes that some subparts
within part 1926 aside from subpart M contain fall protection
requirements. Those other provisions, however, are not comprehensive.
Therefore, when an employee is exposed to a falling hazard, such as
that of falling more than 6 feet to a lower level, which is not
specifically addressed in another subpart, OSHA intends that the
general provisions of subpart M apply. For example, while subpart N
contains requirements for fall protection when certain cranes are used,
it does not address other equipment or workplace conditions otherwise
covered by subpart N which may also expose employees to a fall hazard.
Also, paragraph (a)(3) provides that if another subpart requires the
use of specified fall protection systems but does not set criteria
which those systems must meet, the criteria set in subpart M apply. For
example, subpart L--Scaffolds, requires that employers provide
guardrails and safety belts (body belts) when employees are working on
scaffolds. Subpart L sets criteria for the use of guardrail systems on
scaffolds, but does not set criteria for the use of body belts. Under
those circumstances, body belts used by employees working on scaffolds
must satisfy the criteria in subpart M, while guardrails would be
required to meet the criteria in subpart L.
Aside from subpart L, the subparts in part 1926 that address the
subject of fall protection are subparts N, R, S, V and X.
A brief summary of the fall protection topics covered for each of
the above-mentioned subparts is listed below.
Subpart N--Cranes and Derricks. Requirements to have fall
protection for employees working on certain cranes and derricks are
contained in subpart N.
Subpart R--Steel Erection. Requirements to have fall
protection for employees engaged in the construction of skeleton steel
buildings are contained in subpart R.
Subpart S--Underground Construction, Caissons, Cofferdams,
and Compressed Air. Requirements to have fall protection on specified
pieces of equipment used in under-ground construction operations are
contained in subpart S.
Subpart V--Power Transmission and Distribution.
Requirements to have fall protection for employees engaged in the
construction of electric transmission and distribution lines and
equipment are contained in subpart V.
Subpart X--Stairways and Ladders. Requirements to have
fall protection for employees working on stairways and fixed ladders
are contained in subpart X. Subpart X already references the current
fall protection criteria set out in subpart M, and that reference will
now incorporate the revised criteria in Sec. 1926.502 of this final
rule.
OSHA notes that the proposed rule also identified subpart O as
containing requirements for fall protection for employees on pile
driving equipment. OSHA has not included this exclusion in the final
rule because subpart O does not actually contain a requirement to have
fall protection equipment; rather, it only contains a requirement that
attachment points be provided to facilitate attachment of personal fall
arrest equipment.
OSHA received several comments related to proposed paragraph
(a)(2). Two commenters (Exs. 2-19 and 2-56) indicated some confusion
regarding the extent to which employees engaged in steel erection
activities would be covered by the requirements of proposed subpart M.
Based on the apparent confusion and the Agency's recognition that a
complete revision of subpart R--Steel Erection, was needed, OSHA
decided to defer consideration of changing current fall protection
requirements as they apply to steel erection of buildings to the
subpart R rulemaking. However, as noted in the hearing notice (53 FR
2048) information gathered through the subpart M rulemaking on fall
protection for steel erection will be used to help the Agency develop
proposed revisions to subpart R. Therefore, pending completion of the
subpart R rulemaking, OSHA will continue to apply the existing fall
protection requirements of part 1926 to steel erection operations. To
this end, as noted above, OSHA is relocating existing Sec. 1926.105(a)
to subpart R as Sec. 1926.753. This provision will remain in subpart R
until a final rule for revised subpart R becomes effective. In this
way, OSHA ensures that employers engaged in steel erection activities
currently covered by the existing, unrevised fall protection
requirements remain covered until the rulemaking on subpart R is
completed.
Section 1926.500(b) lists and defines all major terms used in the
final rule. Many of the proposed terms and definitions have been
promulgated unchanged or with only editorial revisions. These terms
include ``dangerous equipment,'' ``equivalent,'' ``failure,''
``guardrail system,'' ``hole,'' ``low-slope roofs,'' ``mechanical
equipment,'' ``opening,'' ``overhand bricklaying and related work,''
``positioning device system,'' ``roof,'' ``safety monitoring system,''
``steep roof,'' ``work area.'' The proposed terms and definitions which
did not elicit comment and which are being promulgated without change
or with only editorial changes are not discussed below. However, all
other terms and definitions, including any revisions, additions, and
deletions, are discussed below.
Also, OSHA notes that several commenters indicated that they had
already provided comments on terms used in relation to personal fall
arrest systems and positioning device systems covered by OSHA's
proposed rule for powered platforms (Docket S-700A), and requested that
OSHA consider their comments in regard to the proposed terms and fall
protection requirements of subpart M. Those commenters included the
Industrial Safety Equipment Association (ISEA), Research and Trading
Corporation (RTC), and the ANSI Z359 Committee Chairman (testifying on
behalf of the U.S. Technical Advisory Group, an advisory group
representing Government and private interests on personal equipment for
protection against falling, ISO/TC94/SC4 (USTAG) in the powered
platform rulemaking) (Exs. 2-23, 2-36, 2-50, and 3-13).
OSHA has considered those comments and has reviewed the powered
platforms rulemaking record (final rule, Sec. 1910.66, published July
28, 1989; 54 FR 31408), in general, for information relating to fall
protection. Based on that review, OSHA has decided that those terms
defined in the powered platforms rule which relate to personal fall
arrest systems will also be defined in subpart M, where such terms are
used in the final rule. Consequently, definitions for the following
terms have been added to subpart M: ``anchorage,'' ``buckle,''
``connector,'' ``free fall,'' ``rope grab,'' ``self-retracting
lifeline/lanyard,'' and ``snap-hook.'' These terms were used in the
proposed rule and had the same meaning as provided in the definitions
used in this final rule. OSHA believes this action will promote
consistency throughout OSHA standards with regard to fall protection
and OSHA intends to use the same terminology and definitions in its
rules covering the same type of equipment. The newly defined terms and
proposed terms that elicited comment are discussed below.
``Anchorage.'' This term is defined to be a secure point of
attachment for lifelines, lanyards, or deceleration devices.
``Body belt/harness system.'' The term ``body belt/harness system''
has been changed to ``personal fall arrest system'' for the sake of
uniformity with the general industry standard for powered platforms.
The term ``personal fall arrest system'' is discussed in detail below.
``Body harness.'' Although there were no comments on the proposed
definition of this term, OSHA has reworded the definition so that it is
identical to the definition of ``body harness'' in the final rule on
powered platforms.
Again, the purpose of this rewording is to promote consistency in
the OSHA regulations. The rewording does not alter the meaning of the
term as proposed.
``Buckle.'' This term is defined to mean any device for holding the
body belt or body harness closed around the employee's body. The ISEA
(Ex. 2-23) suggested that a definition for the term buckle was needed.
OSHA agrees and has defined the term in this final rule, using the
language from the final rule on powered platforms. In the final rule on
powered platforms, OSHA stated the following, which OSHA believes is
also applicable to this rulemaking (See 54 FR 31446):
One comment was received on the definition of ``buckle''
[citation omitted] which suggested that the term was superfluous and
should be addressed in a separate national consensus standard for
body support systems. OSHA disagrees since the term is used in the
OSHA standard and there is not yet a national consensus standard for
body support systems which includes this term.
``Built-up roofing.'' OSHA proposed to define the term ``built-up
roofing'' to mean a weatherproofing cover, applied over roof decks,
consisting of a liquid-applied system, a single-ply system, or a
multiple-ply system. Liquid-applied systems generally consist of
silicone rubber, plastics, or similar material applied by spray or
roller equipment. Single-ply systems generally consist of a single
layer of synthetic rubber, plastic or similar materials, and often, but
not always, a layer of adhesive. Multiple-ply systems generally consist
of layers of felt and bitumen. Any of the systems may be covered with a
layer of mineral aggregate.
OSHA has removed this term from the definition paragraph because
the Agency has determined, as discussed below in relation to
Sec. 1926.501(b)(10), that there is no need to provide for different
fall protection requirements for low-slope roofs based on the type of
work (e.g., built-up roofing) being performed.
``Connector.'' This term is used in the final rule in place of the
term ``hardware'' which was used in the proposed rule. It is defined to
mean a device which is used to couple (connect) parts of the personal
fall arrest system or positioning device system together. It may be an
independent component of the system, such as a carabiner, or it may be
an integral component of part of the system (such as a buckle or dee-
ring sewn into a body belt or body harness, or a snap-hook spliced or
sewn to a lanyard or self-retracting lanyard). The term and definition
in the final rule are the same as those in the powered platforms final
rule [54 FR 31470], in which OSHA stated the following, which OSHA
believes is applicable to this rulemaking (See 54 FR 31446):
OSHA is replacing the proposed term ``hardware'' with the term
``connector.'' Two commenters stated that ``hardware'' was too broad
and one suggested that the term ``connector'' be used instead
[citations omitted]. OSHA agrees with these suggestions, notes that
``connector'' connotes the specific function at issue, has deleted
the term ``hardware,'' replaced it with the term ``connector'' and
has expanded the definition.
``Controlled access zone'' (CAZ). This term is used to describe a
work area designated and clearly marked in which certain types of work
(such as overhand bricklaying work) may take place without the use of
conventional fall protection systems--guardrail systems, personal fall
arrest systems, or safety net systems--to protect the employees working
in the zone. Access to the zone must be controlled to limit the number
of workers exposed to fall hazards. OSHA observes that safety
monitoring systems may be required where a CAZ is used as part of a
fall protection plan (see Sec. 1926.502(k)). The proposed term
``control zone'' was essentially identical.
One commenter (Ex. 2-157) stated ``the definition of control zone
in [proposed] Sec. 1926.502(g) does not appear to be applicable to
scaffolds. OSHA acknowledges that a controlled access zone would not be
used on a scaffold, although scaffolds might be used within a
controlled access zone. Requirements to have fall protection on
scaffolds both within and outside of controlled access zones are found
in subpart L--Scaffolds.
Another commenter, the Mason Contractors Association of America
(Ex. 2-95), suggested that the term ``control zone system'' used in the
proposal should be changed to ``controlled access zone'' (CAZ) to more
effectively and correctly describe the function of a control zone. OSHA
agrees with the commenter and has changed the term. There were no other
substantive comments on the definition.
OSHA notes that the use of a controlled access zone is permitted
only in Overhand bricklaying and related work, (Sec. 1926.501(b)(9))
and as part of a Fall Protection Plan (see Sec. 1926.502(k) for Leading
edge work (Sec. 1926.502(b)(2)(i)); Precast concrete work
(Sec. 1926.501(b)(12)); or residential construction work
(Sec. 1926.501(b)(13)).
``Deceleration device.'' This term describes a piece of equipment
used to bring a falling employee to a stop without injury. The proposed
definition of ``deceleration device'' has been revised to be consistent
with the definition used in OSHA's final rule on powered platforms [54
FR 31470]. There were several comments received on the proposed
definition and in response to Issue #21. In this issue, OSHA discussed
the use of the term ``deceleration device'' in the proposals for both
the construction fall protection requirements of subpart M and the fall
protection requirements for the general industry standard on powered
platforms, subpart F. Bristol Steel and the NEA (Exs. 2-12 and 2-43)
commented that the term is sufficiently descriptive. The ISEA, the Mine
Safety Appliance Company (MSA), and the SSFI (Exs. 2-23, 2-35, and 2-
89) suggested rewording the definition because they viewed it as
misleading and confusing. Other commenters, including the National
Constructors Association and the BCMALU (Exs. 2-45 and 2-46), suggested
replacing the term with ``shock absorber'' or ``fall arrester,''
respectively. RTC (Ex. 2-36) and the ANSI Z359 Committee/USTAG
representative (Ex. 2-50) referred OSHA to their comments on the
proposal for powered platforms. The following discussion from the final
rule on powered platforms [54 FR 31446] covers those comments:
Comments were received on the definition of ``deceleration
device'' [citations omitted]. It was suggested that this term be
eliminated and replaced with three terms, ``fall arrester,''
``energy absorber,'' and ``self-retracting lifeline/lanyard''
because the examples listed by OSHA in its proposed definition of
deceleration device serve varying combinations of the function of
these three suggested components. In particular, it was pointed out
that a rope grab may or may not serve to dissipate a substantial
amount of energy in and of itself. The distinction that the
commenter was making was that some components of the system were
``fall arresters'' (purpose to stop a fall), others were ``energy
absorbers'' (purpose to brake a fall more comfortably), and others
were ``self-retracting lifeline/lanyards'' (purpose to take slack
out of the lifeline or lanyard to minimize free fall). OSHA notes,
however, that it is difficult to clearly separate all components
into these three suggested categories since fall arrest (stopping)
and energy absorption (braking) are closely related. In addition,
many self-retracting lifeline/lanyards serve all three functions
very well (a condition which the commenter labels as a ``subsystem''
or ``hybrid component''). OSHA believes that the only practical way
to accomplish what is suggested would be to have test methods and
criteria for each of the three component functions. However, at this
time, there are no national consensus standards or other accepted
criteria for any of the three which OSHA could propose to adopt.
In addition, OSHA's approach in the final standard is to address
personal fall arrest equipment on a system basis. Therefore, OSHA
does not have separate requirements for ``fall arrestors,'' ``energy
absorbers'' and ``self-retracting lifeline/lanyards'' because it is
the performance of the complete system, as assembled, which is
regulated by the OSHA standard. OSHA's final standard does not
preclude the voluntary standards writing bodies from developing
design standards for all of the various components and is supportive
of this undertaking * * *.
OSHA has, however, used the commenters' suggestions to clarify
the definition of ``deceleration device,'' as well as further
clarify the test methods applicable to the various assembled systems
* * *.
After a careful review of the comments received and for the reasons
above, OSHA has determined that the term ``deceleration device'' is
appropriate, but the definition has been revised to clarify that
deceleration devices serve to dissipate a substantial amount of the
energy imposed on an employee during fall arrest or otherwise limit the
energy imposed on an employee during fall arrest. The definition
mentions several examples of mechanisms which accomplish this function.
``Deceleration distance.'' This term is used to describe the
distance a falling employee travels (excluding lifeline elongation and
free fall distance). Aside from some editorial revision, the definition
in the final rule is identical to the proposed definition. The ISEA and
the MSA (Exs. 2-23 and 2-35) commented that the proposed definition,
just as the proposed definition in powered platforms, could cause
confusion, such as the mistaken belief that deceleration distance was
the total fall distance. OSHA agrees with the commenters and has
reworded the definition of deceleration distance to remove the point of
confusion. In particular, OSHA has eliminated the words ``excluding
lifeline elongation between those two points'' that appeared in the
subpart M proposed rule. The definition in the final rule is consistent
with the definition in Sec. 1910.66, powered platforms. OSHA has also
considered the comments which were provided to the powered platform
rulemaking record (Ex. 3-13). OSHA's discussion of those comments in
the final rule on powered platforms [54 FR 31447] is applicable here
and appears below:
Several comments were received on the proposed definition for
``deceleration distance'' [citations omitted]. Concern was expressed
by all commenters that it was only possible to evaluate the stopping
distance for the device itself once it was activated. OSHA agrees
with these comments and has revised the definition of deceleration
distance to exclude lifeline elongation and any free fall distance
which occurs before the device is activated. In addition,
suggestions for clarification of the definition were accepted.
``Failure.'' This term describes load refusal, breakage, or
separation of component parts where the ultimate strength has been
exceeded. Four commenters (Exs. 2-16, 2-23, 2-45, and 2-56) expressed
concern regarding the definition of the term ``failure.'' Two of these
commenters, (Exs. 2-16 and 2-23), noted that the term ``failed'' as
used in proposed paragraph (c) of the proposed non-mandatory Appendix
C, was inconsistent with the proposed definition of ``failure.'' OSHA
agrees, and has both deleted the term from the Appendix and reworded
the Appendix to remove the potential for confusion. Additionally, a
commenter (Ex. 2-56) asked, ``what is load Refusal?'' which is a phrase
used as part of the definition of the term ``failure.'' OSHA uses the
phrase in a situation where whatever is supposed to support the load is
refusing to do so--it is not performing its intended purpose. Hence, it
has failed its purpose and is not supporting the load.
OSHA has determined that as clarified above, the proposed
definition of ``failure'' is appropriate for the final rule.
``Force factor.'' The term force factor was defined in the proposed
rule. The term has been deleted in the final rule because, as explained
in the final rule on powered platforms [54 FR 31447], the comments and
testimony suggested that the term ``force factor'' was confusing, even
to systems experts. The Agency also noted that the term would not be
needed if the factor was incorporated into the test methods. OSHA
agreed with those commenters and deleted the term ``force factor'' from
the final rule on powered platforms, while incorporating the concept in
the test methods section. OSHA has taken the same action in this final
rule.
``Free fall'' means the act of falling before the personal fall
arrest system begins to apply force to arrest the fall. OSHA did not
propose a definition for this term. The term and definition in the
final rule are identical to the ones used in the final rule on powered
platforms [54 FR 31470]. OSHA has determined that the inclusion of this
definition is appropriate for purposes of clarity and to provide
guidance consistent with that set in the powered platforms standard.
OSHA believes that the following language which appeared in the final
rule on powered platforms (54 FR 31447) is applicable to this
rulemaking:
One comment was received on the proposed definition of free fall
[citation omitted] suggesting that the phrase ``personal fall arrest
system'' should be used as well as the definition being further
clarified to define when the free fall period ends. OSHA agrees with
this suggestion and has revised the definition of free fall
accordingly.
``Free fall distance.'' This term is used to describe the vertical
distance an employee moves during a fall before a deceleration device
is activated. Although there were no comments on the proposed
definition, OSHA has reworded the definition to be consistent with the
definition used in the final rule for powered platforms [54 FR 31447
and 31470]. The rewording does not substantively alter the meaning of
the term, as proposed.
``Hole.'' This term is used to describe a void or gap 2 inches (5.1
cm) or more in its least dimension in a floor, roof, or other walking/
working surface. The definition of this term is consistent with the
proposed definition, with only minor editorial revision (the words void
or gap are used instead of the words hole or opening). The existing
standard defines holes and openings as separate topics; however, the
treatment of each is essentially the same. The existing rule defines a
floor hole as an opening less than 12 inches but more than 1 inch or
more in its least dimension through which materials may fall; and
defines a floor opening as a hole 12 inches or more in its least
dimension through which persons may fall. To eliminate confusion, OSHA
proposed to use the word ``hole'' to describe all voids and gaps (holes
and openings) in floors, roofs, and other walking/working surfaces. The
word ``opening'' is used later to describe voids and gaps in vertical
surfaces such as walls and partitions.
There were several comments on the proposed definition of
``holes.'' One commenter (Ex. 2-140) thought the proposed definition of
the term ``hole'' was too restrictive, assuming that the ``purpose is
to prevent workers from falling through to lower areas.'' Other
commenters (Exs. 2-16, 2-47, and 2-92) requested that OSHA clarify the
definition of holes because it was unclear whether OSHA's intent was to
regulate holes through which material or persons could fall. OSHA
observes that its intent is to address all hazards associated with
holes, including employees falling through and stepping into holes, as
well the hazards of objects falling through holes onto employees. As
noted in the proposal, OSHA chose the 2-inch least dimension for a
``hole,'' instead of the 1-inch least dimension set in the definition
of the existing term ``floor hole,'' because the Agency believes that
focusing on holes which are at least 2-inches wide addresses the
problems caused by small holes more reasonably.
``Infeasible'' is a new term and as used in this subpart, it means
that it is impossible to perform the construction work while using a
conventional fall protection system, or that it is technologically
impossible to use a conventional system. The conventional systems are
guardrail systems, safety net systems, and personal fall arrest
systems. This term is being added to provide guidance to employers who
believe it is infeasible to use conventional fall protection systems
and wish to raise a defense of infeasibility as the reason for not
using conventional fall protection systems. The definition has evolved
from litigation involving contested citations where employers have
asserted that compliance with an OSHA requirement was ``infeasible'' or
``impossible.'' The discussion of the criteria for implementation of a
fall protection plan (Sec. 1926.501(b)(2) of the final rule), below,
provides further information about how OSHA is applying the new term.
``Lanyard'' means a flexible line of rope, wire rope, or strap
which generally has a connector at each end for connecting the body
belt or body harness to a deceleration device, lifeline, or anchorage.
This definition reflects editorial revision of the proposed language.
Two commenters, the AGC of Florida and the ISEA (Exs. 2-16 and 2-23),
pointed out that the inclusion of ``strap webbing'' in the proposed
definition was redundant because it is a type of flexible line already
in the definition. OSHA has revised the definition, removing the
redundancy. The revised language of the definition is consistent with
the definition used in the final rule on powered platforms [54 FR
31470].
``Lifeline.'' The term ``lifeline'' has been revised in the final
rule so that it is consistent with the definition used in the final
rule for powered platforms [54 FR 31470]. The terms ``drop lines'' and
``trolley lines'' have been deleted. The revised definition more
clearly expresses the function of a lifeline and its use for connecting
other components of a personal fall arrest system. OSHA received two
comments (Exs. 2-12 and 2-35) on the proposed definition. Both
commenters pointed out that the proposed definition was in conflict
with the definition of a lanyard. OSHA agrees with the commenters and
has revised the definition to eliminate the conflict.
``Low-slope roof.'' OSHA is using the term ``low-slope roof'' in
the final rule instead of the proposed term ``low-pitched roof.'' This
change in terminology is merely an editorial correction that uses the
proper expression to make it clear that we are describing the slope of
the roof, not the pitch.
``Personal fall arrest system.'' This term replaces the term ``body
belt/harness systems'' and means a system used to arrest an employee in
a fall from a working level. It consists of an anchorage, connectors, a
body belt or body harness, and may include a lanyard, deceleration
device, lifeline, or suitable combination of these. OSHA has decided to
replace the term ``body belt/harness system'' in an effort to keep all
terms and definitions related to fall protection consistent throughout
the standards. The final rule on powered platforms also contained a
definition for personal fall arrest systems [54 FR 31470] which is
identical to the definition in this final rule. The meaning is
essentially the same as that proposed for body belt/harness systems,
and the phrase ``personal fall arrest systems'' appears in the final
rule wherever the phrase ``body belt/harness systems'' was used in the
proposed rule. There were two comments related to the proposed
definition ``body belt/harness systems.'' The commenters, ISEA and MSA
(Exs. 2-23 and 2-35), both suggested rewording the definition to
indicate that lifelines and deceleration devices are not always
included as a part of a body belt/harness system as the proposed
definition implied. OSHA agrees and has revised the proposed definition
accordingly.
``Positioning device system.'' This term means a body belt or body
harness system rigged to allow an employee to be supported on an
elevated vertical surface, such as a wall, and work with both hands
free while leaning backwards. The proposed definition was identical.
Two commenters (Exs. 2-15 and 2-23) suggested changing the definition
of the term ``positioning device system'' to permit such devices to be
used on surfaces such as small horizontal ledges and steep roofs. OSHA
observes that changing the definition would have no effect on the
requirements to have fall protection at unprotected sides and edges of
walking/working surfaces (e.g., ledges) or of steep roofs. The use of
positioning device systems was not proposed for use in either of these
situations. OSHA has no evidence that would lead it to believe that
positioning device systems offer appropriate protection to workers on
ledges and steep roofs, nor has the commenter provided any substantive
information to that effect. After consideration of the record, OSHA has
determined that the term ``positioning device systems'' is
appropriately defined and that no further revision is necessary.
``Roofing work.'' This is a new term in the final rule. The term is
defined to mean the hoisting, storage, application and removal of
roofing materials and equipment, including related insulation, sheet
metal, and vapor barrier work, but not including the construction of
the roof deck. OSHA proposed to use this definition to define the term
``built-up'' roofing work. However, many commenters pointed out that
OSHA's definition in the proposal was incorrect as it applied to the
term ``built-up.'' The commenters said the definition described all
kinds of roofing work, and it was not just a definition of ``built-up''
roofing work. Many of the commenters represented roofing contractors
(Exs. 2-54, 2-57, 2-68, 2-74, 2-83, 2-85, 2-88, 2-94, 2-109, 2-124, 2-
126, 2-128, 2-130, as well as others) and they wrote to support the
position of the National Roofing Contractors Association (NRCA) (Ex. 2-
162) who pointed out the incorrect terminology.
Other commenters (Exs. 2-91, 2-110, and 2-124) stated that the term
``built-up roofing'' should be replaced with the term ``low-slope
roofing,'' because ``this change will reflect a truer meaning to the
definition to which the standard will apply.'' They also stated that
the term defined in the proposal describes all types of roofing, not
just built-up roofing. The commenters suggested that OSHA define ``low-
slope roofing'' to mean ``the application, installation, and/or removal
of any roofing material or system over a roof deck or existing roof.''
OSHA believes that this term should apply to roof work performed on any
roof, regardless of the slope. Accordingly, OSHA has not made the
suggested change.
OSHA agrees with the commenters who suggest the term ``built-up
roofing'' needs to be deleted from the proposed rule. OSHA also agrees
with the commenters that the proposed definition accurately defines
roofing work in general and is defining the term roofing work as
suggested.
``Rope grab'' means a deceleration device that travels on a
lifeline and automatically engages the lifelines and locks by friction
so as to arrest the fall of an employee. A rope grab usually employs
the principle of inertial locking, cam/level locking, or both. This
term was not defined in the proposed rule. It has been added to this
final rule as in the powered platforms final rule [54 FR 31470], to
state clearly what the Agency means when it uses ``rope grab'' as an
example of a ``deceleration device.''
``Self-retracting lifeline/lanyard'' means a deceleration device
containing a drum-wound line that may be slowly extracted from or
retracted onto the drum under slight tension during normal employee
movement, and that, after onset of a fall, automatically locks the drum
and arrests the fall. This term, like rope grab, was not defined in
proposed Part 1926, subpart M. OSHA, however, has determined that it is
appropriate to define self-retracting lifeline/lanyard so that the term
which is used in the definition of ``deceleration device'' is clearly
understood. OSHA made the same determination in the final rule on
powered platforms [54 FR 31470].
``Snaphook'' means a connector comprised of a hook-shaped member
with a keeper, which is normally closed or similar arrangement. The
``keeper'' opens to permit insertion of other hardware or of a like
object and then, when released, automatically closes to retain the
object. Snaphooks are generally, either locking or non-locking. Both
types are covered in the definition of snaphook. That term was defined
in the proposed rule for powered platforms but not in the proposal for
subpart M.
Note: Effective January 1, 1998, the use of non-locking
snaphooks is prohibited for use as part of personal fall arrest
systems and positioning device systems.
OSHA received one comment (Ex. 2-23) on the subpart M proposal
suggesting that the term ``snaphook'' should be defined. OSHA agrees
with that comment because the Agency believes that the standard should
clearly express what OSHA means when its sets requirements for personal
fall arrest system components. In addition, OSHA notes that some of the
comments (Ex. 3-13) and testimony addressed in the final rule on
powered platforms suggested that the proposed definition of
``snaphook'' should distinguish between locking and non-locking
snaphooks [54 FR 31447]. OSHA agreed with that suggestion in the
powered platform final rule [54 FR 31470] and revised the proposed
definition of ``snaphook'' accordingly. That definition is identical to
the definition used in this final rule.
``Work area.'' The definition is identical to the one proposed.
OSHA notes that this definition applies to all areas where employees
are present.
Sec. 1926.501--Duty To Have Fall Protection
This section specifies the areas and operations where fall
protection systems are required. The criteria to be met by fall
protection systems, and the training necessary to use the systems
properly, are covered in succeeding Secs. 1926.502 and 1926.503,
respectively.
Paragraph (a)(1). This paragraph states that section 1926.501 sets
forth the type of fall protection systems employers must use in various
areas and operations. In addition, it mandates that all fall protection
systems required to be used by Sec. 1926.501 conform to the criteria
and work practices set forth in Sec. 1926.502. OSHA notes that most of
the provisions provide several choices for providing fall protection,
but some provisions limit the choices. For example, only guardrail
systems are permitted to be used to protect employees on ramps and
runways and other walkways. In these situations, OSHA believes
guardrail systems offer the appropriate level of fall protection and
the record supports this conclusion.
There were no comments specific to this paragraph. OSHA has made a
minor editorial change for the sake of clarity. However, OSHA provides
the following discussion to clarify further its intent under this
general provision.
OSHA has consistently maintained that all construction employers
are responsible for obtaining information about the workplace hazards
to which their employees may be exposed and for taking appropriate
action to protect affected employees from any such hazards. ``The
[Occupational Safety and Health Review] Commission has held that an
employer must make a reasonable effort to anticipate the particular
hazards to which its employees may be exposed in the course of their
scheduled work. Specifically, an employer must inspect the area to
determine what hazards exist or may arise during the work before
permitting employees to work in that area, and the employer must then
give specific and appropriate instructions to prevent exposure to
unsafe conditions.'' Automatic Sprinkler Corp. of America, 8 BNA OSHC
1384, 1387, 1980 CCH OSHD 24,495 (No. 76-5089, 1980), cited with
approval in several cases, including Conagra Flour Milling Co., 15 BNA
OSHC 1817, 1823, 1992 CCH OSHD 29,808 (No. 88-2572, 1992).
In addition, it is well established that general contractors must
``apprise themselves of which safety efforts their specialty
subcontractors have chosen to make in completing their assignments.''
Blount Intern. Ltd., 15 BNA 1897, 1900 n. 3, 1992 CCH OSHD 29,854 (No.
89-1394, 1992).
OSHA considers subcontractors to have a reciprocal responsibility
to determine what protective measures the general contractors have
identified as necessary and have implemented. Furthermore, the same
considerations arise at a multi-employer worksite, because each
contractor needs to know about any hazards that other contractors may
confront or create so that contractors can take the appropriate
precautions for employee protection.
OSHA requires employers to protect employees performing
construction work from fall hazards, and sets criteria for the proper
implementation of fall protection through the requirements in subpart M
and the specific standards referenced in Sec. 1926.500(a)(2) and
(a)(3). However, there is much more to workplace safety than an
employer arriving at a work site with a copy of the pertinent standards
in hand. Employers have a duty to anticipate the need to work at
heights and to plan their work activities accordingly. Careful planning
and preparation (e.g., project design that incorporates fall protection
and employee training) lay the necessary groundwork for an accident-
free workplace.
OSHA is aware that many falls have occurred because employers have
not taken fall protection into account when they plan and undertake
construction even when it is known that the work involves employee
exposure to fall hazards. In some cases, an employer has recognized the
hazard and established appropriate fall protection procedures, but has
failed to ensure that employees followed those procedures. In other
cases, employers either misidentified the hazard, selected
inappropriate measures or completely failed to address fall hazards.
The foreseeable consequence is that, as discussed above in the
Background section, falls from elevations account for a large
percentage of construction-related injuries and is the leading cause of
death on construction jobs.
Employers need information about the work they are to perform so
that they can make fall protection an integral part of their projects.
An employer's communication and coordination with customers, other
contractors (particularly at multi-employer worksites) and suppliers
are critical elements of that employer's ability to protect its
employees and to avoid creating hazards for other employees. Initially,
the employer needs to develop or obtain information regarding the work
to be performed, so that all anticipated fall hazards are identified.
The employer would then determine how to protect its employees from
those hazards. For example, many employers are minimizing exposure to
fall hazards by having anchorage points for personal fall arrest
systems fabricated or designed into structural members and by
installing perimeter lines on structural members before those members
are lifted into position.
OSHA anticipates that the trend towards providing ``100 percent
fall protection'' will spur even more effective efforts, from the
design stage through to project completion, to increase employee
protection. To this end, employers will need to reexamine their
``traditional methods'' and, when possible, update them by
incorporating available fall protection technology and design concepts.
OSHA believes that while there may initially be some increased costs
and disruption associated with these efforts, subsequent productivity
gains and reductions in the cost of workers' compensation will clearly
make it highly cost effective in the long run to provide effective fall
protection. (See Regulatory Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,
Section V).
An employer who controls its own construction projects will
generally find it adequate to make its design and equipment decisions
part of the project blueprints and workplan. Where employers are
bidding a contract to perform specified construction work, making fall
protection a bid item gives potential customers a clear idea of how
prospective contractors plan to comply with subpart M. This is a point
at which effective communication between a contractor and a customer is
critical. Prospective contractors must obtain sufficient information
from the customer to enable them to develop responsive bids,
incorporating fall protection that complies with subpart M. By doing
so, the bidding contractor reassures the customer that it has taken
into account the full cost of performing the work in question. Both
parties need to recognize that employee protection is an integral part
of every construction project. Employers will not be permitted to gain
a competitive advantage by exposing their workers to fall hazards.
Paragraph (a)(2) is a new requirement added as a result of comments
on Issue #6. In Issue #6, OSHA requested comment on whether it should
promulgate rules requiring the inspection of work surfaces to determine
their structural integrity prior to employees being required to work on
such surfaces. OSHA explained that there are currently no specific
requirements that address this concern. OSHA notes, however, there are
general requirements in existing Sec. 1926.20(b)(2) which address
inspections of job sites, materials and equipment by a designated
competent person. Issue #6 asked whether or not a specific requirement
should be added to the fall protection section that would require
employers to take some specific action, in addition to complying with
Sec. 1926.20(b)(2), to determine whether or not the work surfaces would
support the weight of workers, equipment and materials, thereby
preventing a collapse that would result in employees falling.
Issue #6 also explained that the inspections would insure that work
surfaces have the requisite strength to prevent collapse under the
weight of employees, tools, and materials. The issue further stated
that OSHA has obtained information (Ex. 3-3) which indicated that it
was appropriate to require such inspection. That study showed that of 8
fatalities of employees falling through ceilings, 4 of the accidents
occurred because the work surface was not capable of supporting the
employee's weight. The study also showed that of 55 fatalities
resulting from falls from roof levels, 8 occurred because the employees
were working on surfaces with insufficient structural strength to
support their weight. OSHA asked for comments on the necessary criteria
for inspection of surfaces, the inspection methods to be used, and the
qualifications of the inspectors.
In response, ACCSH recommended that a competent person certify the
structural integrity of a working surface before employees are allowed
to work on it. (Tr. 6/10/87; p. 109).
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) (Ex. 2-20) stated, ``Work
surfaces should be inspected for their structural integrity prior to
allowing employees on that surface,'' and that a qualified civil or
structural engineer should conduct the inspection.
The Scaffolding, Shoring, & Forming Institute, Inc. (SSFI) (Ex. 2-
89) also commented in support of an inspection provision and
recommended that the inspection by made by a ``qualified'' individual.
Four other commenters agreed that inspection for structural
integrity should be required by OSHA (Exs. 2-6, 2-9, 2-36, 2-50 and 2-
99). The Egan Companies (Ex. 2-9) also recommended that periodic
inspections be conducted in addition to initial inspection.
Other commenters were opposed to OSHA requiring an inspection to
determine structural integrity. For example, the Great Lakes
Fabricators & Erectors Association (GLFEA) (Ex. 2-19) said that such a
requirement was more properly the responsibility of building codes and
building inspectors rather than OSHA. Bristol Steel and the National
Erectors Association (NEA) (Exs. 2-12 and 2-43) commented that the
requirement would be ineffective at reducing the kinds of accidents
regulated by subpart M and that costs would far outweigh the benefits.
The commenters further stated, ``The problem is that persons do not
recognize hazards and respond sensibly to the situation at hand,''
adding that education and training would help. Miller and Long (Ex. 2-
41) stated ``* * * the working surfaces are designed by an engineer and
erected to his specifications.'' The National Constructors Association
(NCA) (Ex. 2-45) commented that inspections should be a part of the
employer's quality assurance/quality control program.
The Boston Cement Masons and Asphalt Layers Union, (BCMALU) Local
No. 545 (Ex. 2-46) noted that work surfaces such as metal decking
should be heavy enough to withstand the workers and equipment. They
also commented that most metal decking jobs around Boston have to be
shored up when concrete is placed.
OSHA observes that the existing regulations in subpart Q (Concrete
and Masonry Construction) and subpart R (Steel Erection) contain
provisions requiring employers to take specific action to eliminate the
hazards identified by the BCMALU. Section 1926.701(a) of subpart Q
prohibits imposing loads on structures until it has been determined
that the structure can support the load, and subpart R requires decking
to be of sufficient strength to carry the working load
(Sec. 1926.752(f)). Those existing provisions directly address the
situations identified by the BCMALU.
After considering all of the comments received on this issue, OSHA
has determined that the record supports adding a new inspection
requirement, more specific than that in Sec. 1926.20(b)(2). As
discussed above, existing Sec. 1926.20(b)(2) requires, in part, that
employers ``* * * provide for frequent and regular inspections of job
sites, materials, and equipment to be made by competent persons
designated by the employer.'' Revised paragraph (a)(2) will require
employers to ensure the structural integrity of walking/working
surfaces before employees are permitted to be on those surfaces.
Paragraph 1926.501(b). Paragraph (b) contains 15 requirements that
set forth the options from which employers may choose to protect
employees exposed to fall hazards when on ``walking/working surfaces,''
as defined in Sec. 1926.500(b). Under paragraph (b), employers are
required to choose and use a fall protection system (or combination of
systems) as provided by paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(15) which address
the fall protection needs of particular walking and working surfaces.
OSHA has used the term ``walking and working surfaces'' instead of
the existing term ``floor'' to indicate clearly that subpart M
addresses all surfaces where employees perform construction work. The
Agency has always maintained that the OSHA construction fall protection
standards cover all walking and working surfaces. The revised rule
reaffirms the existing Agency interpretation and practice and clarifies
the language of the standards in that regard. Also, OSHA has
consistently held that subpart M addresses the hazards of falling from
a walking/working surface to any kind of lower level (e.g., solid,
liquid or colloid). In addition, the Agency has determined that
compliance with revised subpart M will not conflict with Sec. 1926.106,
Working over or near water.
OSHA received three comments on the introductory language of
proposed paragraph (b), including two which were in response to Issue
#2. In Issue #2, OSHA asked if it had been overly restrictive in its
fall protection provisions by limiting options for certain areas or
operations. The Milwaukee Construction Industry Safety Council (MCISC)
(Ex. 2-140) expressed the opinion that warning lines provide
appropriate protection for workers who are not required to go near
unprotected edges. OSHA agrees and observes that the use of warning
lines is permitted as an appropriate method of protecting workers on
low-slope roofs and where no workers are required to go near the
unprotected edges. In particular, OSHA recognizes that there may be
circumstances where the use of a warning line system is appropriate, in
conjunction with a Fall Protection Plan, to protect workers who are not
required to go near unprotected edges.
The Eastern Contractors Association, Inc. (ECA) (Ex. 2-3) commented
that ``The fall protection requirements 6 feet on open sided floors and
10 feet on scaffolds should remain as is,'' and explained that the
situations were different and each presented unique problems. In the
proposed revision to subpart L, Scaffolds, the Agency proposed
(Sec. 1926.451(e)) that employees working on scaffolds more than 10
feet above lower levels be protected from fall hazards (51 FR 42707,
November 25, 1986). The appropriate height threshold for fall
protection on scaffolds will be set in the final rule for subpart L.
The ECA also stated the height at which fall protection is required
should be the same for all trades. OSHA agrees and this final rule
reflects that concern.
On the other hand, the SSFI (Ex. 2-89) recommended that the
proposed and existing height thresholds for fall protection at
unprotected sides and edges, low-pitched floors, roof, etc. be changed
from 6 feet (1.8 m) to 10 feet (3.05 m). Based on the BLS injury and
fatality data, discussed above (Ex. 3-6), OSHA believes that employees
performing construction work on walking and working surfaces 6 feet
(1.8 m) or more above lower levels are exposed to a significant risk of
injury and death. Accordingly, more workers would be injured or killed
if the height threshold for fall protection were raised to 10 feet
(3.05 m). Therefore, OSHA is not making the suggested change.
Paragraph (b)(1) sets forth the requirements for fall protection
from unprotected sides and edges of walking and working surfaces. It
provides that employees must be protected when they are exposed to
falls from unprotected sides and edges of walking/working surfaces
which are 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above lower levels. The options from
which an employer can choose to provide this protection are guardrail
systems, safety net systems, and personal fall arrest systems. OSHA
considers these three types of systems to be ``conventional fall
protection systems.''
Paragraph (b)(1), as promulgated, differs from proposed paragraph
(b)(1) in several respects. In proposed paragraph (b)(1), OSHA
distinguished between unprotected sides and edges that were at least 18
inches (.5 m) in width, and those that were less than 18 inches (.5 m)
in width. In particular, the proposed rule required employers to
protect employees by the use of guardrails when the floor, roof or
other walking and working surface was at least 18 inches (.5 m) in
width. Where the unprotected sides and edges were less than 18 inches
(.5 m) wide, OSHA proposed to provide more flexibility as to the method
of fall protection by allowing employers to use personal fall arrest
systems (body belt/harness systems) or safety net systems instead of
guardrail systems. OSHA proposed these options because it recognized
the feasibility problems associated with erecting guardrails on a
surface that was less than 18 inches (.5 m) wide and, therefore,
proposed alternative methods of protecting workers from falls. The
proposed 18-inch (.5 m) threshold was consistent with existing
Sec. 1926.500(d)(3) which addresses ramps and runways. In addition, the
Agency notes that the proposed requirement that walking and working
surfaces over 18 inches (.5 m) wide be protected at the edge with
guardrail systems was also consistent with existing Sec. 1926.500(d)(1)
which requires a guardrail system to be erected at every open-sided
floor or platform, which would include the floor perimeter. Thus, the
proposed rule and the existing rule contained essentially the same
requirement.
Three commenters (Exs. 2-1, 2-15, and 2-140) contended that
proposed paragraph (b)(1) was either inappropriate or too restrictive.
Two of the commenters cited situations where, they believed, guardrail
systems would not be the most appropriate form of protection, and
stated that using a personal fall arrest system is sometimes more
appropriate. For example, the Alaska Department of Labor (Ex. 2-1)
commented, ``In many cases workers are exposed to hazards erecting a
guardrail system that could be avoided if they were allowed to use a
safety line system.'' Also, as mentioned above, ISEA (Ex. 2-23)
requested that OSHA permit the use of positioning device systems on
surfaces such as small horizontal ledges and steep roofs. OSHA has
determined that positioning device systems do not provide adequate fall
protection in these situations.
OSHA agrees with the commenters that there are work operations and
areas with walking and working surfaces that are 18 inches (.5 m) or
more wide (e.g., ledges and balconies) where personal fall protection
systems or safety net systems are at least as protective as guardrails.
Accordingly, OSHA has revised proposed paragraph (b)(1) to allow any of
the conventional fall protection systems.
In Issue #4, OSHA asked whether there was a distance from the
unprotected side or edge where a worker would be safe from fall hazards
and not need any fall protection. As an example, OSHA inquired if fall
protection would be necessary at the perimeter of a floor if employees
were only required to work in the center of a floor and that center
would be as far as 10, 20, or 30 feet from an unprotected side or edge.
The GLFEA (Ex. 2-19) recommended that employers provide fall
protection to employees who are within 8 feet of the edge. Another
commenter, the MCISC (Ex. 2-140), suggested that employees who work 6
to 10 (1.8 to 3.05 m) feet from the edge would not need fall
protection. The SSFI (Ex. 2-89) agreed with the proposed OSHA approach,
requiring fall protection regardless of employee distance from exposed
edge, because ``it is nearly impossible to develop a policy for most
every situation that may or may not require guarding.''
Miller & Long Co., Inc. (Ex. 2-41) commented, ``I feel that all
open sided floors should have adequate fall protection because once it
is there, the potential hazard for employees to 'wander' into an unsafe
area is negated.'' In addition, the BCMALU (Ex. 2-46) commented, ``Who
knows when the wind will change while you are carrying something that
could make you like a kite or when you will or others will have to work
near the edge.''
The ACCSH, in its meeting on June 10, 1987, (Tr. 6/10/87; pp. 67-
88) had considerable discussion on the areas of concern addressed in
Issue #4. The discussion began with the following statement from a
member:
I believe that this entire question is based on a false
assumption. The assumption that seems to be included in it is that
if a worker is working near the middle of a floor, he's never going
to approach the edge of the floor. And if we know of any way to
convince employees that that's the way they will work, I'd like to
know what it is. Workers on any construction site are very mobile,
and there's no effective system to keep employees from venturing
into an unprotected danger zone * * *.
I can't think of any job that I have ever seen where there's a
floor or roof that will not require some work near the edge of it at
some time during the process. The guardrail must be, the protection
must be placed at that time and certainly there's no added cost to
leaving that in place until the work is completed on that floor and
some permanent protection is in existence.
The Committee voted to recommend that guardrail systems or other
means of fall protection be provided on any elevated work surface where
employees were present, subject only to the exemptions that OSHA has
now included in the final rule on subpart M.
The Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) (Ex. 2-44) also
addressed the issue of perimeter protection, stating that ``Perimeter
protection is not really the responsibility of the * * * subcontractor;
it is the responsibility of the general contractor to coordinate safety
and make the workplace safe for all trades * * *.''
OSHA has carefully evaluated the concerns expressed and has
determined that employers should have the option to use personal fall
arrest systems or safety net systems where those systems would be
feasible and would protect employees from fall hazards. Whatever
conventional system is adopted, OSHA expects the employer to implement
it early in the construction process and to maintain that system in
place until all work has been completed or until the permanent elements
of the structure which will eliminate the exposure to falling hazards
are in place. It is not OSHA's intent that individual contractors or
subcontractors each separately provide and remove fall protection
systems on the same floor. The general contractor in charge of the
overall project can, and should, evaluate those situations where fall
protection may be needed. OSHA believes, based on its knowledge of good
industry practices, that the general contractor will contract for fall
protection for all employees until employees are no longer exposed to
the fall hazard. In the event that the fall protection system has been
dismantled and workers are then required to work on the floor in an
area away from the fall hazard, OSHA compliance staff will consider the
extent to which individual contractors acted to prevent workers from
leaving the work area and travelling to the unprotected edge. For
example, a contractor could erect a guardrail system around the
perimeter of the work area, thus providing protection from the
unprotected sides and edges. OSHA would consider this an acceptable
form of protection under the circumstances, provided workers remain in
the protected area at all times.
In conclusion, after careful and complete consideration of the
entire record, OSHA has determined that there is no ``safe'' distance
from an unprotected side or edge that would render fall protection
unnecessary.
Paragraph (b)(2) sets requirements for the protection of employees
who are exposed to fall hazards while constructing leading edges and
employees who are working on the same level as a leading edge, but are
not actually engaged in constructing the leading edge. As defined in
the final rule, a leading edge is the edge of a floor, roof, or
formwork that changes location as additional floor, roof, or formwork
sections are placed, formed, or constructed. Leading edges not actively
and continuously under construction are considered to be ``unprotected
sides and edges,'' and are covered by paragraph (b)(1).
Paragraph (b)(2)(i) of the final rule requires that employers
protect employees actively engaged in constructing leading edges from
fall hazards through the use of guardrail systems, safety net systems,
or personal fall arrest systems. In addition, paragraph (b)(2)(i)
provides that if the employer can demonstrate that it is infeasible or
would create a greater hazard to use any of these systems, the
employers must develop and implement a fall protection plan which meets
the requirements of paragraph (k) of Sec. 1926.502. The fall protection
plan, in turn, requires, among other criteria and conditions for use,
that the employer designate all areas where conventional fall
protection systems cannot be used as controlled access zones. Employers
must also implement a safety monitoring system in those zones if no
other alternative measure has been implemented. Criteria for controlled
zone systems and safety monitoring systems are found in Sec. 1926.502
(g) and (h), respectively.
Paragraph (b)(2)(ii) requires that employees on walking/working
surfaces where leading edges are under construction, but who are not
constructing the leading edge, shall be protected from fall hazards by
guardrail systems, safety net systems or personal fall arrest system.
The leading edge provisions of the final rule differ from the
proposed rule. In the proposal, OSHA explained its belief that a
requirement to erect safety net systems would not always be feasible
because of insufficient room to rig a safety net and because the net
would have to be constantly moved, exposing workers repeatedly to fall
hazards while erecting the net.
OSHA also noted that because the time lapse between placement of
successive floor, roof, or floor formwork sections would often be only
a few minutes, guardrail systems erected along a leading edge would
have to be removed almost as soon as they were erected to allow
placement of the next section. In addition, OSHA noted, the continued
erection and removal of guardrail systems could pose a ``greater
hazard'' to the employees than having the employees work without the
guardrails. Because of this, OSHA was concerned that guardrail systems,
as required in the existing rule, often would not allow the
accomplishment of work along leading edges.
Finally, OSHA expressed its view that personal fall arrest systems
(body belt and harness systems) might limit an employee's freedom of
movement, hindering job performance as well as impairing an employee's
ability to avoid hazardous situations (such as a misdirected incoming
piece of concrete or other structural member used on the leading edge).
Also, during the erection of some structural members, employees are
required to walk along a leading edge during placement of the member. A
personal fall arrest system (body belt or harness system) might impede
this effort if the employee's movement was restricted by the length of
the lanyard, causing constant reattachment of the systems to different
anchor points.
In recognition of these potentially infeasible (impossible to
perform the work) or greater hazard situations, OSHA proposed to allow
the use of a fourth option--safety monitoring systems on leading edges
and the use of control zone systems to limit the number of employees
exposed to the hazard at leading edges.
There were several varied comments on the proposed leading edge
provision. NIOSH (Ex. 2-33 and 27-6) questioned the adequacy of the
safety monitoring system, noting that it relied on visual inspection
only, and recommended that it be deleted as a fall protection option.
NIOSH also stated that using a monitor would require active involvement
of both the monitor and the worker to ensure safety.
Miller & Long (Ex. 2-41) noted that, ``The only employees at the
leading edge are the ones who are working on the leading edge.
Therefore, the warning lines and monitor systems are not needed.''
The Daniel Marr & Son Co. (Ex. 2-40), specifically addressing the
concerns of ironworkers installing decking, also commented on the
safety monitoring system for leading edge work, noting that, ``By
requiring a worker to act as a monitor, the Department of Labor will be
forcing steel erection companies to duplicate safety efforts and, at
the same time, be placing a large financial burden on the construction
industry.'' OSHA notes that at this time, the final rule for subpart M
does not apply to steel erection activities in buildings. The Agency
has begun work with the Steel Erection Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory
Committee to develop a proposed revision for subpart R which will
address fall protection for employees performing steel erection
activities in buildings [see meeting notice at 59 FR 25848 and 59 FR
26153].
Finally, WMACSA (Ex. 2-56) wanted to know how the leading edge
provision applied to workers setting precast stone walls on the leading
edge. In response, OSHA observes that the leading edge provision would
not be applicable in the situation described. That is, if a wall is
being set at the edge, the leading edge of the floor or roof or
formwork is no longer under construction. Therefore, the work location
(the edge) would be considered an unprotected side and edge and covered
by paragraph (b)(1), above.
The final rule differs from the proposed rule in that it requires
the use of one of the three conventional fall protection systems, but
does not permit an employer to use a safety monitoring system instead
of one of the conventional systems as was proposed. However, as noted
above, when the employer demonstrates that all conventional fall
protection systems are infeasible (i.e., it is impossible to perform
the construction work or technologically impossible to use) or create a
greater hazard, the final rule requires the employer to develop and
implement a fall protection plan. A fall protection plan, in turn,
requires the employer to establish a controlled access zone and to
implement a safety monitoring system if no other alternative measure
has been implemented in the zone where conventional fall protection is
not being used.
A controlled access zone, discussed in detail in Sec. 1926.502(g)
below, is defined with control lines to form a visual and physical
barrier which, in this case, prevents an employee from inadvertently
entering the area immediately adjacent to the leading edge. OSHA notes,
again, that any unprotected side or edge of the floor or roof which is
not part of the controlled access zone must be guarded as required by
the pertinent provisions of Sec. 1926.502(b) or other protection
provided to employees who may be exposed to falls from those other
unprotected sides or edges. Criteria for safety monitoring systems can
be found in Sec. 1926.502(h).
A safety monitoring system does not provide a physical means of
preventing falls or arresting a fall, and therefore, will not provide
protection equivalent to that provided through the use of the other
fall protection measures proposed.
Accordingly, OSHA has removed these systems as a direct alternative
to conventional fall protection systems under the general rule for
leading edge work. However, as discussed above, the final rule requires
the use of a fall protection plan that complies with Sec. 1926.502(k)
where the employer can demonstrate that the use of conventional fall
protection would be infeasible or would create a greater hazard. The
following information is provided to assist employers in determining if
the use of conventional fall protection would be infeasible or pose a
greater hazard at a particular work area or for a particular operation.
OSHA considers a fall protection measure to be infeasible when the
employer establishes that application of that measure is either
functionally unworkable or would prevent the performance of required
work. The Agency recognizes that there are situations where one or
another measure cannot be implemented, because of the configuration of
the worksite (for example, where structures are built so close together
that nets cannot be installed) or due to circumstances during a
particular phase of the construction process (for example, where work
at the leading edge precludes the use of guardrails).
OSHA has consistently maintained, however, that, in general, at
least one of the three conventional fall protection measures mandated
by subpart M can be used to protect employees at a particular worksite
from fall hazards. In particular, the Agency has frequently found that
the use of personal fall arrest systems is feasible even where a
guardrail system or safety net system is infeasible. Further, equipment
is generally available to provide safe anchorage points for personal
fall arrest systems. It is in this area that preplanning of the
construction project is most critical. Focusing on fall protection at
the design and planning stages of a construction project will enable an
employer to develop measures that protect affected employees from fall
hazards.
OSHA recognizes that the applicability of alternative measures will
depend on the circumstances of particular employers and work sites and
that those circumstances vary widely. Therefore, paragraph (b)(2), like
the provisions at Secs. 1926.501 (b)(12) and (b)(13), sets general,
rather than specific, criteria for an employer who seeks to determine
if it is appropriate to implement a fall protection plan that complies
with 29 CFR 1926.502(k).
OSHA has consistently maintained that employers must consider the
safety of workers as well as the technical aspects of their
construction projects. In a case involving existing Sec. 1926.105(a),
the 5th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals has stated ``[t]he
regulation in question . . . specifically dictates the employer's duty
to supply fall protection. The duty to consider alternative methods of
construction which permits compliance with the regulation is merely a
corollary of the duty to comply. The petitioner has attempted to
characterize this duty as a burden requiring changes in methods of
construction; however, that characterization ignores the employer's
initial responsibility to comply with OSHA regulations. If an employer
were permitted to choose any method of construction, and subsequently
argue that compliance with OSHA regulations was impossible because of
the method of construction chosen, then the regulations could be
undermined in many instances.'' Cleveland Consol. v. OSHRC, 649 F.2d
1160, 1166 (5th Cir. 1981). In addition, regarding an employer's duty
to anticipate and determine the need for fall protection, the
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission has held that the
employer ``could have easily foreseen the lack of open steel, given the
problem some foresight, and installed a static line in advance.'' A.C.
Dellovade, Inc., 13 BNA OSHC 1017, 1020 (No. 83-1189, 1987).
OSHA has long acknowledged that there may be circumstances at a
particular workplace which would make it unreasonable for the Agency to
pursue a citation. In the enforcement context, OSHA has consistently
placed the burden on the employer in question to establish any such
circumstances as ``affirmative defenses'' to OSHA citations. The Agency
has had considerable experience in evaluating employers' efforts to
establish affirmative defenses (e.g., ``impossibility'' (sometimes also
known as ``infeasibility'') and ``greater hazard'' defenses) to
citations. Based on that experience, OSHA developed Section V.E of the
Field Operations Manual (FOM) to guide OSHA personnel in assessing
those defenses.
Under Section V.E.3.b of the FOM, an employer has established
``impossibility'' when ``Compliance with the requirements of a standard
is: (1) Functionally impossible or would prevent performance of
required work; and (2) There are no alternative means of employee
protection.'' Under Section V.E.3.c, an employer has established
``greater hazard'' when ``Compliance with a standard would result in
greater hazards to employees than non-compliance and: (1) There are no
alternative means of employee protection; and (2) An application [for]
a variance would be inappropriate. Under Section V.E.3.d, an OSHA
compliance officer who becomes aware that an employer is raising an
affirmative defense is directed to gather pertinent information and to
bring any possible defenses to the attention of his or her supervisor.
That section further provides that a citation is not issued when OSHA
determines that each and every element of an affirmative defense is
present.
Paragraph (b)(2), as well as Secs. 1926.501 (b)(12) and (b)(13),
discussed below, reflect the Agency's longstanding position, as
presented in the FOM, regarding the criteria for an employer to
successfully establish the pertinent affirmative defenses.
OSHA considers compliance with a measure to be ``infeasible'' when
it is technologically impossible to do what a standard requires or when
following the standard would prevent performance of the work in
question. A contractor attempting to establish infeasibility will be
required to establish the worksite-specific circumstances that preclude
reliance on conventional fall protection to protect employees from fall
hazards. For example, the employer will be required to establish that
the available personal fall arrest systems cannot be used in a
particular work area due to design or equipment constraints. The
employer will need to indicate the particular problem (such as
inability to provide safe anchorage; danger of lifeline entanglement;
likelihood that lifelines, especially self-retracting lifelines, will
be mired in grout; likelihood that completion of work would be
prevented by fall protection; and inability of personal fall arrest
systems to function due to the configuration of the work area for OSHA
to determine that the employer has made the necessary showing for use
of a fall protection plan. It will not be sufficient for the employer
to merely assert that it is impossible to use fall protection
equipment. Non-mandatory Appendix E provides guidance regarding the
kind of considerations employers would take into account in attempting
to comply with Sec. 1926.501(b)(2), (b)(12) or (b)(13).
The Agency does not consider ``economic infeasibility'' to be a
basis for failing to provide conventional fall protection for employees
constructing leading edges, erecting precast concrete members, or
performing residential construction work. The Agency has consistently
maintained, and the record for this rulemaking shows, that the industry
can either absorb the costs of compliance with revised subpart M or
pass those costs along to its customers. It is well established that
all employers must comply with OSHA's standards whether or not they are
inspected or cited by the Agency. A.E. Burgess Leather Co., 5 O.S.H.
Cas. (BNA) 1096, 1097 n. 2 (Review Commission 1977), aff'd 576 F.2d 948
(1st Cir. 1978).
OSHA has also consistently maintained that ``impracticality'' does
not excuse a contractor from compliance with the requirements for fall
protection. However, based on OSHA's statutory mandate to protect
employee safety and health and to address the significant risks posed
by fall hazards, it is reasonably necessary and appropriate to require
the protective measures set forth in this standard. As the RIA clearly
shows, the requirements of revised subpart M are both technologically
and economically feasible for the construction industry and they allow
for those limited situations in which feasibility may be an issue.
As noted above, OSHA has acknowledged that there are situations
where the implementation of a particular fall arrest system would
create a ``greater hazard'' for employees than they would otherwise
encounter. Under current Agency practice, an employer establishes the
``greater hazard'' defense to a citation by demonstrating that the
hazards created by compliance with a standard are greater than those
created by non-compliance. The Agency is aware that there are workplace
situations where the installation of guardrails or safety nets could
involve more risk, due to the nature or duration of the exposure, than
the work for which protection is required. On the other hand, OSHA has
found that, as with the ``infeasibility'' defense, the ``greater
hazard'' defense does not generally excuse an employer from protecting
its affected employees with personal fall arrest systems. In
particular, the Agency has found that careful planning of a
construction project enables the employer to erect buildings/structures
into which the necessary anchorage points for personal fall arrest
systems have already been engineered. For example, in the case of
precast concrete erection, preplanning may allow for lifting inserts to
be designed so that they function as both anchorage points for personal
fall arrest systems and as lifting inserts.
OSHA further acknowledges that, regardless of an employer's ability
to preplan for fall protection, there may be cases where the
installation or use of personal fall arrest systems poses a greater
hazard than that to which employees performing the construction work
would otherwise be exposed. The Agency will expect an employer who
seeks to make that case to indicate specifically how compliance with
the requirement for personal fall arrest systems would pose a greater
hazard. OSHA will assess each such case on its particular merits.
Paragraph (b)(3) sets fall protection requirements for employees in
hoist areas of walking and working surfaces that are 6 feet (1.8 m) or
more above lower levels. Employees shall be protected through the use
of guardrail systems or personal fall arrest systems. If guardrails (or
chains or gates if they are being used in lieu of guardrails at the
hoist area) are removed to facilitate hoisting operations, then
employees who lean through the access opening or out over the edge of
the access opening to perform their duties shall be protected by the
use of personal fall arrest systems.
This provision, essentially identical to the proposed provision, is
based on existing Sec. 1926.500(g)(5), which addresses the same hazard
but applies only to material hoisting operations on low-pitched roofs
during built-up roofing operations. The proposal extended the existing
requirement to all situations where equipment and material hoisting
operations are being carried out on floors and other walking/working
surfaces. The wording of the proposed provision has been revised for
the sake of clarity.
There were two comments on this provision. The WMACSA (Ex. 2-56)
commented that the term ``hoist areas'' needed to be defined for the
sake of clarity. In addition, the SSFI (Ex. 2-89) requested that OSHA
interpret the ``exception'' in proposed paragraph (b)(3), because ``the
paragraph seems ambiguous.'' OSHA believes that it has responded to the
concerns of both commenters by rewording the provision to state more
clearly which type of fall protection may be used at hoist areas. The
revised provision clearly differentiates between working in the area
where hoisting activities will take place (e.g., the area where
materials are to be landed) and taking part in the actual hoisting
operation (e.g., receiving materials hoisted by a crane). The exception
language used in the proposal has been incorporated into the text of
final rule paragraph (b)(3) so it is clear that during hoisting
operations employees must be protected by personal fall arrest systems
if they lean through the access opening or out over the edge to receive
or guide materials. Otherwise, the employer would use either guardrail
systems or personal fall arrest systems to protect workers at hoist
areas.
Paragraph (b)(4) of the final rule requires that employees be
protected from hazards associated with holes. In particular, employees
may be injured or killed if they step into holes, trip over holes, fall
through holes or are hit by objects falling through holes. Some
workplaces may present all of these hazards while others may have only
one of them. The proposed rule has been revised to indicate clearly
which protective measures are applicable to a particular hole
situation. OSHA notes that covers which comply with the criteria of
Sec. 1926.502(i) will protect employees from all of the above-described
hazards.
Paragraph (b)(4)(i) requires that employees be protected from
falling into or through holes (including skylight openings) 6 feet (1.8
m) or more above lower levels by covers over the hole, erecting a
guardrail system around the hole, or by the use of a personal fall
arrest system. The Agency has revised the proposed rule to include
personal fall arrest systems as an acceptable fall protection option
because OSHA believes that a properly rigged system can protect an
employee from falling though a hole. Paragraph (b)(4)(ii) requires that
employees be protected from tripping in or stepping into holes by
covers; and paragraph (b)(4)(iii) requires that employees be protected
from objects falling through holes by covers.
The final rule differs from the proposed rule, which was based on
requirements in the existing standards in Sec. 1926.500(b). The
existing standard contains separate specific rules for guarding floor
openings and floor holes in various walking/working surfaces. In the
proposed rule, OSHA treated most holes as presenting the same type of
hazard and did not address each individual type of hole separately. The
proposed rule also set very specific requirements for the use of
covers.
In addition, the proposed rule was apparently unclear with regard
to requirements for protecting workers from stepping and tripping into
holes and for protecting workers from objects falling through holes.
While it appeared the regulatory language of the proposed rule limited
protection from holes to just those situations where employees could
fall to 6 feet or more to lower levels, the explanatory discussion of
the provision in the preamble to the proposed rule indicated it was the
Agency's intent ``that all holes . . . be guarded. . . .'' (51 FR
42722). The inconsistency was brought to OSHA's attention by a comment
from AGC representatives (Exs. 2-16, 2-47, and 2-92), who pointed out
that there was a need to clarify the definition or the requirement.
Their concern was whether the Agency intended to cover holes into which
employees could fall or holes through which materials could fall.
The California Department of Industrial Relations (CAL/OSHA) (Ex.
2-15) suggested that OSHA allow a standby employee safety monitoring
system in lieu of guardrails when covers were being removed for short
duration work. The commenter stated that it was unrealistic to require
a guardrail where a cover is removed for passage of equipment and
material for a short duration, where a standby employee could guard the
hole. As discussed above at ``leading edges,'' the use of safety
monitoring systems is thought to be the least protective of all the
systems permitted by the final rule. For this reason, OSHA has limited
the situations where the use of safety monitoring systems is acceptable
to roofing operations on low-sloped roofs and to situations where the
employer can demonstrate that it is infeasible or creates a greater
hazard to use conventional fall protection systems and that employer
has developed a fall protection plan. OSHA does not recognize a safety
monitoring system as an acceptable means of protecting workers exposed
to falling into or through holes. There are other, more protective
measures that can be taken to address falls at holes, including covers,
guardrail systems and personal fall arrest systems, therefore, OSHA is
not permitting the use of the less protective safety monitoring system
at holes. Additionally, the final rule reflects the current industry
practice with regard to protecting workers exposed to holes and OSHA
does not have any basis for reducing the level of protection.
For clarification, OSHA does not intend that a guardrail be erected
around holes while employees are working at the hole, passing
materials, etc. Therefore, if the cover is removed while work is in
progress, guardrails are not required because they would interfere with
the performance of work. When the work has been completed, the employer
will be required to either replace the cover or erect guardrails around
the hole.
Other comments (Exs. 2-31 and 2-56) concerned securing holes and
these are discussed later in this preamble along with other comments on
the criteria for covers which is addressed in paragraph
Sec. 1926.502(i). These comments prompt OSHA to remind employers and
employees that this paragraph (like other paragraphs in Sec. 1926.501)
only specifies the ``duty'' requirement to have fall protection. Once
an employer has chosen from among the options provided to meet this
duty, he or she must then meet the requirements in Sec. 1926.502, which
sets the criteria and conditions for use for each of the various fall
protection systems required to be used in Sec. 1926.501.
Many commenters responded to Issues #2 and #7, which raised
questions and concerns related to guarding holes and the criteria for
covers used to guard holes. For example, the Associated Builders and
Contractors, Inc. (ABC) (Ex. 2-51) commented that they found the
provision limiting protection to covers or guardrails was unnecessarily
restrictive because a guardrail system around a 3-inch hole would
require a 3-foot diagonal guardrail. OSHA observes that the proposed
provision was framed in performance-oriented language so that employers
would have had the flexibility to choose between guardrails and covers,
based on the circumstances at the workplace. OSHA believes that
compliance with paragraph (b)(4) of the final rule, whichever method is
chosen, will protect employees appropriately. OSHA anticipates that
employers will use guardrails only in those cases where the size and
configuration of the hole indicate that the use of a guardrail would be
appropriate. The ABC also suggested that the final rule allow the same
protection for holes as OSHA proposed for leading edges. As discussed
above, OSHA has revised the proposed rule to allow the use of personal
fall arrest systems where an employee may fall through a hole, but OSHA
has not allowed the use of safety monitoring systems to protect
employees from falling through holes.
Bristol Steel & the NEA (Exs. 2-12 and 2-43) stated that ``Covers
can be more hazardous than no protection at all because workers can see
an uncovered hole but they can unintentionally remove a cover and step
into a hidden hole.'' In addition, they stated that ``. . . guardrails
provide a false sense of security'' because ``Maintenance of guardrails
is a serious problem when various workers are constantly altering,
damaging, or temporarily removing them.'' OSHA observes that it has
revised proposed Sec. 1926.502(i) to require that covers be ``secured''
when installed to prevent their being easily removed or accidentally
displaced. This change should eliminate the commenters' concerns with
regard to unintentional removal of covers.
Both commenters suggested control zones to keep workers at a safe
distance from holes, advocating (like the ABC, (Ex. 2-51)) that
paragraph (b)(4) address holes the same as the proposed paragraph
(b)(2) treated leading edges, allowing the use of guardrail systems and
safety monitoring systems, among other options. Finally, both Bristol
Steel and the NEA stated that the use of ``attending persons'' at
unguarded holes was ``impractical and dangerous . . . because it is so
difficult to enforce and so easy to let lapse during a critical
moment'' that ``Safety monitors for workers performing the work and
control zone systems for other workers in the area should be considered
minimum safety precautions.'' As noted above, the Agency shares the
commenters' concerns about the adequacy of the protection provided by
safety monitoring systems.
Based on review of the comments, OSHA has concluded that the
feasibility concerns that led the Agency to allow use of controlled
access zones and safety monitoring systems are not present with regard
to holes. Further, OSHA does not believe that the use of controlled
access zones and safety monitoring systems would adequately protect
employees working in proximity to holes.
Paragraph (b)(5) requires employees working on formwork and
reinforcing steel 6 feet or more above lower levels to be protected by
a personal fall arrest system, safety net system or positioning device
system. This provision is identical to proposed Sec. 1926.501(b)(5). In
addition, OSHA notes that with one exception (discussed below),
paragraph (b)(5) presents the same requirement currently found in
Sec. 1926.701(f)(2) of the concrete and masonry standard. The
requirement in Sec. 1926.701(f)(2) is being relocated to subpart M
because, as explained earlier, OSHA is consolidating virtually all
construction fall protection requirements in subpart M, Fall
Protection.
As OSHA explained in the proposal, positioning devices are
essentially body belts or body harnesses that are attached by short
lanyards to the work surface, allowing a worker to perform a job with
both hands free. While existing Sec. 1926.701(f)(2) does not provide
for the use of positioning devices, OSHA has determined that such
devices, used in compliance with Sec. 1926.502(e) of the final rule,
will provide appropriate protection for affected employees. As stated
in the proposal, because of the short length of the lanyard
(approximately 9 to 18 inches, depending on how it is rigged), the use
of positioning devices does not pose a significant fall hazard. The
criteria for positioning devices systems as provided by
Sec. 1926.502(e) are discussed below.
Paragraph (b)(6) requires ramps, runways, and other walkways to be
equipped with guardrails. As discussed below, the final rule is
essentially the same as the proposed rule and is very similar to
existing Secs. 1926.500(d)(2) and 1926.651(l)(1), which address fall
protection for runways and excavations, respectively.
OSHA proposed to revise existing Sec. 1926.500(d)(2) by changing
the 4-foot threshold for fall protection to a 6-foot threshold, so that
this provision limit conforms with the other fall protection
provisions. In addition to ramps and runways, the proposal was expanded
to include all walkways and bridges where a fall hazard exists, not
just those over excavations addressed in the existing rules. OSHA notes
that existing Sec. 1926.651(l)(1) of the excavation standards is also
being revised to make it clear that guardrails on walkways built over
excavations must meet the requirements of revised subpart M.
OSHA has revised proposed paragraph (b)(6) by removing the word
``bridges'' from the list of surfaces covered by the provision. The
removal of the word ``bridges'' was prompted by a comment from the
Wisconsin Road Builders Association (WRBA) (Ex. 2-154) which pointed
out that they had been engaged in bridge building for over 40 years and
that their company uses body belts 90 percent of the time and harnesses
10 percent of the time when working on bridges over water. OSHA was
unsure whether this commenter was objecting to the requirement of the
proposal which specifically required ``guardrails'' on bridges used as
walkways, or if the commenter was suggesting that body belts be allowed
to protect workers crossing over bridges. In any event, the comment
alerted OSHA that the term ``bridges'' as used here could be understood
to mean bridges other than those used as walkways. The Agency notes
that paragraph (b)(6) does not apply to the use of personal fall arrest
systems or safety net systems to protect workers from falling while
bridges are being constructed. Rather, Sec. 1926.501(b)(1) covers
bridges under construction, and it requires employers to protect
employees from falls off unprotected sides and edges of bridges with
guardrail systems, safety net systems, or personal fall arrest systems.
OSHA believes that only guardrails can provide appropriate fall
protection for workers as they cross over ramps, runways and other
walkways.
Another commenter (Ex. 2-56) suggested that OSHA define ``ramps,
walkways and bridges,'' pointing out that ``walkways'' is defined as a
part of a scaffold in the proposed scaffold standard. As the commenter
pointed out, a definition for ``walkways'' has been provided in the
scaffold regulations because the term has a unique meaning as it
applies to scaffolds. The Agency notes that a definition in subpart L
does not apply to terms used in subpart M. OSHA has determined that
there is no need to define the terms based on the Agency's belief that
the use of the terms--ramps, runways, and walkways--in this subpart is
consistent with the definitions provided by any standard dictionary.
Paragraph (b)(7) requires that the edges of excavations which are
not readily seen (i. e., concealed from view by plant growth, etc.) be
protected with guardrail systems, fences, or barricades to prevent
employees from falling into them if the excavation depth is 6 feet or
more. In addition, walls, pits, shafts, and similar excavations with
depths of 6 feet or more shall be guarded to prevent employees from
falling into them. The only difference between the proposed
requirements and the final rule is that the option to use signs as an
alternative means of protection has been removed. The final rule is
also essentially the same as the existing requirement in
Sec. 1926.651(l)(2), which is being removed from subpart P and
incorporated into subpart M because it addresses fall protection. As
OSHA explained in the proposal, although employers are not generally
required to provide guardrail systems at excavations, the Agency
believes that barricades are necessary for excavations that are
obscured from view, because of plant growth or other barriers, when the
fall distance is at least 6 feet.
In response to the proposal and to Issue #12, regarding the use of
signs as an alternative to barricades at obscured excavations, CAL/OSHA
and the State of Maryland (MOSH) (Exs. 2-15 and 2-31) objected to the
use of signs as a means of protecting employees from falling into
excavations. MOSH (Ex. 2-31) contended that excavations and trenches
should be guarded whether they can be seen or not. That view was echoed
by commenters (Exs. 2-19, 2-46, and 2-99) who stated, in addition, that
signs alone were not effective.
Another commenter, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) (Ex. 2-20),
commented that ``Signs can be useful as an indicator of a hazard but
should only be used in conjunction with other measures to provide
employee protection.'' Yet another commenter, the National Constructors
Association (NCA) (Ex. 2-45), commented that ``the use of physical
barriers to prevent access to high exposure areas has been sufficient
and [we] do not see any need for new requirements.''
On the other hand, some commenters (Exs. 2-16, 2-47, and 2-92)
supported the use of signs, noting they had ``* * * been used
successfully for this purpose in the past, depending upon the type
exposure or particular situation.'' Some other commenters (Exs. 2-12
and 2-43) recommended that OSHA promulgate the standard as proposed. In
addition, some commenters (Exs. 2-16, 2-47, 2-92, and 2-140) suggested
that the requirement belonged in the excavation subpart. (OSHA's
reasons for placing most fall protection provisions in subpart M have
been discussed earlier in this preamble).
The SSFI (Ex. 2-89) supported the use of signs when no other fall
prevention measures could be utilized. They also supported signs in
conjunction with other measures. The ACCSH recommended that obscure
excavations be protected not only by barricades and warning signs, but
with lights if needed for nighttime operation. (Tr. 6/10/87; pp. 134-
135).
Based on its review of the record, OSHA agrees with those
commenters who have stated that signs, alone, would not adequately
protect employees and has revised proposed paragraph (b)(7)
accordingly.
Paragraph (b)(8) requires employers to protect employees from
falling onto dangerous equipment. Paragraph (b)(8)(i) provides that
where a floor, roof, or other walking or working surface is less than 6
feet above such hazards, employees shall be protected by guardrails or
equipment guards that shield the hazard. Paragraph (b)(8)(ii) requires
that employers protect employees on floors, roofs, and other walking or
working surfaces 6 feet or more above dangerous equipment with
guardrail systems, personal fall arrest systems, or safety net systems.
``Dangerous equipment'' is defined in Sec. 1926.500(b) as equipment
such as pickling or galvanizing tanks, degreasing units, machinery,
electrical equipment and other units which, as a result of form or
function, may be hazardous to employees who fall onto or into such
equipment. These requirements are identical to the proposed provisions,
which were based on existing provisions in Sec. 1926.500(d) (4) and
(5).
There was one comment on this provision. The SSFI (Ex. 2-89),
directing its comment to paragraph (b)(8)(ii), stated ``It is
recommended that all employees above dangerous equipment be protected
by a guardrail system or by body belt/harness system or safety net
system. There should be no limitations regarding the height in which
the employee should be protected.''
The SSFI did not further elaborate on their comment. OSHA observes
that the two requirements of this paragraph differ in the options from
which employers must choose to protect employees based on the distance
between the employee and the dangerous equipment with which the
potential for contact exists. OSHA proposed only two options--the use
of guardrail systems or the use of equipment guards--where the fall
distance is less than 6 feet (1.8 m) because the use of safety net
systems or personal fall arrest systems would not be appropriate.
Specifically, the Agency believes that if a personal fall arrest system
or a safety net system conforming to the criteria in Sec. 1926.502 were
used where the fall distance is less than 6 feet, the employee's fall
may not be arrested before contact was made with the equipment. On the
other hand, where ample distance exists, i.e., more than 6 feet (1.8
m), the conventional fall protection systems would all be protective.
By contrast, equipment guards would not be an appropriate option
because they would not protect employees from such falls. For the
reasons stated above, OSHA proposed options that it considered most
appropriate to protect employees taking into consideration the fall
distances and hazards involved. OSHA believes that paragraph (b)(8), as
proposed, appropriately addresses the pertinent hazard. Therefore, OSHA
promulgates paragraph (b)(8) unchanged.
Paragraph (b)(9) addresses the fall protection requirements for
employees engaged in overhand bricklaying operations and related work,
except as set in Sec. 1926.451(g)(1)(vii). These employees are involved
in the construction of masonry walls and must lean over the wall to
complete the joint work. Related work, as used in this paragraph, means
mason tending as well as electrical work that must be incorporated into
the brick wall during the bricklaying process.
Paragraph (b)(9)(i) requires that employees performing overhand
bricklaying and related work 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above lower levels
to be protected by guardrail systems, safety net systems, personal fall
arrest systems, or they must work in a controlled access zone. However,
when these employees are reaching more than 10 inches (25 cm) below the
level of the walking/working surfaces, only guardrail systems, safety
net systems or personal fall arrest systems are permitted to be used
under paragraph (b)(9)(ii), controlled access zones are not acceptable
in this situation.
OSHA has repeatedly stressed that employees exposed to the risk of
falling should, in general, be protected by one of the three
conventional systems--guardrail systems, safety net systems and
personal fall arrest systems. However, OSHA also recognizes that the
use of such systems sometimes is not feasible when overhand bricklaying
and related operations are taking place. In particular, guardrails may
interfere with the performance of work; safety net systems often cannot
be safely attached to or supported by the structure; and personal fall
arrest systems often become tangled or pose serious trip and fall
hazards. After extensive consultation with the Mason Contractors of
America, the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen,
the Laborer's International Union of North America, and the ACCSH, OSHA
proposed to allow the use of a control zone (now referred to as a
controlled access zone), as an additional option that could be used in
those situations where conventional fall protection systems were not
feasible and the employees were not reaching more than 10 inches (25
cm) below the walking/working level.
The criteria for controlled access zones are set in
Sec. 1926.502(g). In brief, a control zone line prevents non- overhand-
bricklaying employees from inadvertently entering the area immediately
adjacent to the fall hazard and the controlled access zone designates
the area where overhand bricklaying may be performed without the use of
guardrails, safety nets, or personal fall arrest systems as fall
protection. However, paragraph (b)(9)(ii) provides that whenever an
overhand bricklayer reaches more than 10 inches (25 cm) below the
walking or working surface, the bricklayer must be protected by one of
the ``conventional'' systems listed in paragraph (b)(9)(i)--guardrail
systems, safety net systems or personal fall arrest systems. When OSHA
proposed this requirement, it explained it was doing so because it
believed that the additional leaning presents a sufficient additional
fall hazard to warrant such protection. OSHA anticipates that employers
will comply with paragraph (b)(9)(ii) by having employees use personal
fall arrest systems that will restrain employees from falling to lower
levels.
It is important to note that controlled access zones are not
permitted to be used as protection for employees performing overhand
bricklaying and related work who are exposed to fall hazards associated
with hoist areas; holes; ramps, runways, and other walkways, and
dangerous equipment. In these situations, fall protection must be
provided by compliance with the paragraphs addressing the specific
hazard, (i.e., paragraphs (b)(3), (4), (6), and (8)), as appropriate.
For example, a worker performing overhand bricklaying work near a floor
hole would have to be protected as required by paragraph (b)(4) even
when the hole is located within the area marked by a control zone line.
Another example is a worker performing overhand bricklaying work above
dangerous equipment. The provisions of paragraph (b)(8) would apply; a
controlled access zone would not be an acceptable method of fall
protection. The final rule is identical to the proposed rule, except
that, as explained below, OSHA has added a note referencing subpart L
for regulation of bricklaying work performed from scaffolds.
The Mason Contractors Association of America (MCAA), International
Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen; and the Laborers
International Union of North America, (Ex. 2-95) commented in support
of the proposed provision. The MCAA referred to the proposed provision
as ``* * * the most reasonable, practical and economical and, above
all, the safest method that can be devised for installing masonry
products with the overhand method.'' OSHA concurs with the assessment
of the MCAA with regard to this provision. In addition, the WMACSA (Ex.
2-56) stated that overhand bricklaying should be prohibited as a
practice, particularly when the work can be done from a scaffold. The
MCISC (Ex. 2-140) commented that ``Guardrail systems for scaffolds
should be spelled out in scaffold standards.'' OSHA agrees that it is
appropriate for bricklaying performed from scaffolds to be regulated
under subpart L, Scaffolds, rather than under subpart M and,
accordingly, the Agency is adding a note to subpart L which so
indicates. The MCISC also commented in support of the proposed
provision, stating its belief that no fall protection was needed when
bricklaying operations were conducted from inside a building, except
when reaching more than 10 inches below the working surface. In
response, it should be pointed out that one of the options in paragraph
(b)(9)(i) is to allow overhand bricklaying workers reaching less than
10 inches below the walking/working surface, to work in a controlled
access zone which essentially allows the work to be done without fall
protection, just as the MCISC is recommending for work conducted inside
a building. This option is not a fall protection system per se, but
rather a method which limits the exposure to the fall hazard to those
workers actually involved in the bricklaying operation.
Paragraph (b)(10) applies to employees performing roofing
operations on low-slope roofs with unprotected sides and edges 6 feet
(1.8 m) or more above lower levels. It requires that employers protect
employees from fall hazards by either a guardrail system, safety net
system, or personal fall arrest system. Or, employers must use a
combination of warning line systems and guardrail systems, warning line
systems and safety net systems, warning line systems and personal fall
arrest system, or warning line systems and safety monitoring system.
If, however, the roof is 50 feet (15.25 m) or less in width, the
employer may protect employees by the use of a safety monitoring system
alone.
As with paragraph (b)(9), discussed above, the provisions of
paragraph (b) which cover hoisting areas, holes, ramps and runways, and
dangerous equipment apply notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph
(b)(10). The rationale for these exceptions is the same as that
provided in the discussion of paragraph (b)(9), above.
The final provision differs substantially from the proposal. Under
the proposed rule, employees performing ``built-up roofing operations
(meaning the application of hot tar or bitumen) on low-pitched roofs''
were to be protected as required in existing Sec. 1926.500(g).
Employees performing other roofing operations on low-slope roofs and
exposed to falling 6 feet (1.8 m) or more to lower levels would have
been covered by paragraph (b)(1) which applies, in general, to any
walking/working surface with unprotected sides and edges 6 feet (1.8 m)
above lower levels. The proposed paragraph was effectively identical
with the provisions of existing Sec. 1926.500(g) for ``built-up''
roofing operations.
OSHA promulgated existing Sec. 1926.500(g) because it recognized
that the use of guardrail systems, safety net systems, and personal
fall arrest systems could pose feasibility problems or greater hazard.
OSHA discussed the reasons for this belief when it published the final
rule for the built-up roofing standard (45 FR 75619). In particular, in
the preamble to that final rule, OSHA stated the following:
Guardrails are often used to provide fall protection and are
required for open-sided floors and platforms by 1926.500(d)(1).
However, although guardrails can be used during construction of a
roof deck, they must be removed prior to the application of roof
waterproofing membranes and related sheet metal work at the roof
edge. According to a report by the engineering firm of Simpson,
Gumpertz and Heger [Citation omitted], the reason guardrails must be
removed is that, unless mounted on a parapet wall, guardrails are
normally mounted on the roof deck and impede the application of the
roof membrane. The use of freestanding guardrail systems as an
alternative is limited since such guardrails must also be moved out
of the way when the membrane is applied near roof edges and thus
they are not a solution to the problem of providing fall protection.
Other potential concerns include the increase in cost and time
required to erect guardrails and the question of whether guardrails
are needed when the work to be performed is not near the roof edge.
These problems exist whether the work being done is a reroofing
operation on an existing building or the application of a new roof
on new construction. [45 FR 75619]
In the 1980 final rule, OSHA also acknowledged that this same
report, prepared for the National Roofing Contractors Association
(NRCA), concluded that guardrails make orderly built-up roofing work
impossible and do not offer the desired protection, since they must be
removed prior to the completion of roof side and edge finishing work.
The report also discussed the reasons other conventional guarding
systems were not appropriate. A full discussion is contained 1980
Federal Register notice. At that time, OSHA concluded as follows:
OSHA believes that the difficulties with conventional guarding
systems (referred to in the standard as ``motion-stopping-safety
(MSS) systems'') during the performance of built-up roofing work,
will be avoided by allowing the use of a warning line and/or safety
monitoring system. OSHA explained that a warning line ``serves to
warn and remind employees that they are approaching or working near
a fall hazard by providing a direct physical contact with the
employee. The contact attracts the employee's attention, enabling
the employee to stop in time to avoid falling off the roof. The
safety monitoring systems is a verbal warning system. OSHA describes
the warning line systems with safety monitoring systems as an
``alternative system of fall protection'' which are ``not intended
to serve as positive fall restraints, but only as warning systems.''
At the time of the proposed rule, OSHA relied on the information
available from the 1980 rulemaking for built-up roofing work. Being
unaware of any fall protection system that could be used in all cases
and thus could eliminate the need for alternative systems such as the
warning line system with safety monitoring system, OSHA proposed to
continue its existing requirements but to seek public comment on other
methods of protecting workers from fall hazards at the edge of low-
sloped roofs (flat roofs) during roofing work. In this regard, OSHA
raised concerns about the height at which fall protection should be
required for work on low-sloped roofs. Comments on this issue and other
concerns regarding paragraph (b)(10) are discussed below.
In addition, the existing provisions used the terms ``ground'' and
``eaves,'' respectively, as the points between which the height
criteria is to be measured. OSHA proposed, instead, to use the terms
``lower levels'' and ``unprotected sides and edges.'' OSHA believed the
proposed language change would eliminate confusion, since some roofs do
not have eaves, and other roofs are greater distances above the ground
than above the nearest lower level (penthouse roofs, for example).
OSHA also proposed to permit built-up roofing work on low-pitched
roofs with a fall distance less than 16 feet without the use of any of
the fall protection systems required for other roofing work or required
for higher work involving ``built-up'' roofing work. This, too, was
consistent with the existing requirements in Sec. 1926.500(g),
discussed above (see 45 FR 75618).
Issue #11 requested comment, including cost and injury data, on
lowering the fall protection threshold for built-up roofing from 16
feet to 6 feet. OSHA stated that the 16-foot exemption for built-up
roofing work was not appropriate and that a 6-foot threshold was both
more appropriate and more consistent with the other provisions of
subpart M. OSHA maintained that the contemplated change would not
affect many built-up roofing employers because the option to use a
safety monitoring system on low-pitched roofs with widths of less than
50 feet would encompass nearly all roofs less than 16 feet above lower
levels.
OSHA received over 70 written comments in response to this issue,
mostly from roofing contractors supporting views expressed by the
National Roofing Contractors Association (NRCA). Virtually all of the
commenters stated that roofs with widths of 50 feet or less were not
necessarily also less than 16 feet above lower levels. Thus, the
commenters felt that their compliance burdens would be greatly
increased if the threshold height for providing fall protection was
reduced to 6 feet. The commenters supported the existing language (16-
foot threshold) as the standard industry practice and as an appropriate
response to fall hazards (Exs. 2-52, 2-58, 2-59, 2-61, 2-72, 2-90, 2-
91, 2-93, 2-111, 2-119, 2-122, 2-141, 2-143, 2-144, and 2-161).
Also, the NRCA commenters favored continuation of the existing
rules with regard to built-up roofing. These commenters stated that
there was no need to protect workers from falling off unprotected sides
and edges of low-slope roofs until the fall distance exceeded 16 feet.
They also stated few injuries have resulted from such falls and that
the cost of providing protection would exceed the benefits.
For example, the American Roofing and Sheet Metal Co. (Ex. 2-86)
commented that ``We have experienced no injuries from falls at roof
perimeters and do not recognize this hazard to be significant compared
to other hazards of roofing work.''
One statistic frequently cited by NRCA commenters indicated that
only one percent of losses were due to falls and most falls were
experienced when workers fell through holes. However, the commenters
did not explain what was meant by ``one percent of losses.''
The H.B. Fishman & Co. (Ex. 2-70) commented, ``Again of the utmost
importance is that holes in the deck, penetrations and other openings
be properly protected. This is where the majority of injuries occur.''
The Roofing Association of Long Island (Ex. 2-144) commented that
``The experience gathered from other contractors as well as our own
employees indicates that incidents of accidents as a result of falls
from the perimeter of the roof are less frequent than the accidents
resulting from falls through roof openings within the perimeter.''
The Florida Service Roofing and Sheet Metal Company (Ex. 2-147)
commented that ``Our experience, spanning 65 years, reveals that falls
from the perimeter of roofs have been so minimal that they can be
considered to have been virtually non-existent.'' OSHA notes that from
the period of 1985-1989, 297 fatalities involving falls from roofs were
investigated by OSHA (Ex. 30). While OSHA cannot state specifically if
all of those falls occurred from the perimeter of roofs, it is
reasonable to assume that the number of fatalities from the roof
perimeter is high.
Other commenters suggested that OSHA revise part of the proposed
provision. Specifically, two commenters (Exs. 2-108 and 2-111) noted
that the proposal implied that on roofs with widths of 50 feet or less,
the use of a safety monitoring system was the only permitted system,
rather than stating that it was an acceptable system. OSHA acknowledges
that proposed paragraph (b)(10) could be misunderstood to allow only
safety monitoring systems when a roof is 50 feet wide or less. The
Agency has revised the proposed language to indicate clearly that on a
roof 50 feet or less in width, the use of a safety monitoring system,
without the warning line, is one of the measures allowed. OSHA allows
the use of a safety monitoring system without the warning line on these
narrow-width roofs because if warning lines were erected as prescribed
in the standard, there would be little roof area remaining in which
work could be performed.
The ACCSH (Tr. 6/10/87; pp. 133-134) recommended that OSHA change
the 16-foot threshold to 6 feet and that safety monitors be allowed
only where employees are working on built-up roofs. Three other
commenters also supported the 6-foot rule (Exs. 2-33, 2-46, and 2-99).
NIOSH (Ex. 2-33) commented that allowing the 16 foot exemption was
``inadequate'' and recommended that a maximum fall distance of 6 feet
be set as appropriate for both low-slope roofs and steep roofs. They
further suggested that the use of safety monitoring systems for flat
and low-slope roofs might be an appropriate way of addressing the
difference in hazards.
While the Roofers Union (Ex. 2-99) supported the 16-foot threshold
in the 1980 rulemaking for existing Sec. 1926.500(g), they opposed the
continuation of that provision in proposed subpart M. Instead, they
urged OSHA to ``promulgate a standard that will effectively protect
roofers against the dangers from fall hazards which they face almost
daily.'' They also questioned whether OSHA should continue to allow the
use of warning line and safety monitoring systems to protect roofers
working on low-slope roofs. The Roofers Union stated the following:
In 1979 we endorsed OSHA's proposed rule to provide for a
warning line on low-pitched roofs primarily because there were no
standards covering the guarding of low- pitched roofs and something
had to be done immediately * * *. We also stated that we would press
for total perimeter protection if the warning line approach did not
prevent injuries or deaths from falls off the roof edge.
The standard (1926.500g) has been in effect now for over 6 years
yet the industry continues to be plagued by the same safety
problems--roof falls. Although there is no statistical evidence to
demonstrate the effectiveness of the standard one way or the other,
workmen's compensation rates for the roofing industry have risen
significantly over the past 6 years. That indicates among other
things that little is being done in the roofing industry to reduce
the incidence of injuries and deaths.
The Roofers Union also cited BLS data from a study on falls which
showed that of 110 falls from roofs, half of these involved workers
falling distances of less than 15 feet. Of these workers, over half
suffered fractures to one or more parts of their body, over 40 percent
suffered muscle sprains, strains or torn ligaments and 9 percent
suffered a concussion.
In conclusion, the Roofers Union stated, ``The data demonstrate
that a significant number of serious injuries occur from falls of less
than 16 feet. So it makes no sense to exclude a significant percentage
of hazardous work from the OSHA standard. And, OSHA has indicated that
these requirements would not place a significant economic burden on the
roofing industry.'' The final recommendation was that total perimeter
protection should be required because the warning line system was not
effective.
OSHA agrees with the Roofers Union that falls of less than 16 feet
pose a significant hazard. OSHA also believes the injuries are related
to the fall distance and the failure of contractors to take any fall
protection measures, rather than the use of warning line systems. For
this reason, OSHA will no longer permit workers exposed to falls
between 6 feet and 16 feet to go unprotected from the fall hazard. OSHA
believes the revised rule appropriately addresses the fall hazards on
low-slope roofs and sets forth appropriate choices of fall protection,
allowing roofing contractors some flexibility without sacrificing the
safety of workers.
OSHA agrees with the commenters who suggested that all employees
engaged in roofing operations who are exposed to the hazard of falling
6 feet (1.8 m) or more to lower levels should be protected in the same
manner from fall hazards. OSHA also agrees with commenters who stated
there is no need to distinguish between the application of hot and cold
materials to determine the appropriate fall protection measures, hence
the final provision will apply to all roofing operations on low-slope
roofs and not just ``built-up'' roofing activities. OSHA notes that the
criteria for warning line systems and safety monitoring systems are
found in paragraphs (f) and (h) of Sec. 1926.502. Employers who use
these systems must comply with all of the criteria and conditions for
use that are specified.
Paragraph (b)(11) (proposed as paragraph (c)) requires employees on
roofs with slopes greater than 4 in 12 (i.e., 4 inches vertical to 12
inches horizontal run) to be protected from falling when the roof has
unprotected sides or edges more than 6 feet (1.8 m) above lower levels
by the use of guardrail systems with toeboards, personal fall arrest
systems, or safety net systems.
The final provision differs from the proposal. The proposed
provision addressed both falls through holes and falls from unprotected
sides and edges of steep roofs. In the final rule, all falls through
and into holes are covered by paragraph (b)(4). Therefore, there is no
need for a separate provision dealing with holes on steep roofs. OSHA
notes that the protective measures required for holes in paragraph
(b)(4) are essentially the same as proposed for holes under the steep
roof provision. Another change in the final rule is that OSHA is
requiring toeboards to be used when guardrail systems are used to
provide fall protection on steep roofs.
The existing rules in subpart M do not specifically address fall
protection requirements for steep roofs. Because of the lack of
specific requirements, provisions outside subpart M have been utilized
as the basis for citations for inadequate fall protection on steep
roofs, including the following provisions: Sec. 1926.28(a) Personal
protective equipment; Sec. 1926.104 Safety belts, lifelines, and
lanyards; Sec. 1926.105 Safety nets; Sec. 1926.451(u)(3) Catch
platforms; as well as the ``General Duty Clause'' (section 5(a)(1)) of
the OSH Act). The final rule explicitly sets out the required fall
protection systems for steep roofs.
NIOSH (Ex. 2-33) supported the requirement to have fall protection
on steep roofs when the fall distance to lower levels exceeds 6 feet
(1.8 m). CAL/OSHA (Ex. 2-15) stated, ``The obvious hazard of the
steepness of the roof, regardless of the eave height, should be
addressed.'' They also suggested that ``On steep roofs of 8 in 12 or
steeper slopes, where the fall down the roof slope itself exceeds 6
feet (1.8 m),'' the use of roof jacks and body belt systems, safety net
systems or positioning device systems would be appropriate. Paragraph
(b)(11) of the final rule will permit employees to work on roof jacks
provided the employee is protected from fall hazards by the use of
guardrail systems with toeboards, safety net systems, or personal fall
arrest systems. While roof jacks provide a foothold, which may reduce
the possibility of falling, they cannot be used as a substitute for
fall protection. The final rule will not permit employers to protect
employees on roof jacks from fall hazards through the use of
positioning devices systems because such systems will not protect
affected employees from fall hazards.
On the other hand OSHA observes, that because falls on steep roofs
can result in workers and materials sliding down the slope, it would be
appropriate to require the use of a toeboard as a standard practice
when guardrail systems were chosen to provide fall protection. OSHA
believes that omitting the toeboard would contribute to worker injuries
since workers will not have any protective device to stop their sliding
descent on the steep roof. OSHA notes that they could, then, slide
right under the midrail and top rail of a conventional guardrail
system.
Paragraph (b)(12) is a new paragraph. OSHA is promulgating
paragraph (b)(12), which was not part of the proposed rule, to set
requirements for employers whose employees are exposed to fall hazards
while erecting precast concrete members and related operations. Under
paragraph (b)(12), employees erecting precast concrete members 6 feet
(1.8 m) or more above a lower level must be protected from falling by
guardrail systems, safety net systems, or personal fall arrest systems,
unless the employer can demonstrate that such systems would be
infeasible or would create a greater hazard at the site where the
affected employees are working. In such a situation, an employer would
be required to develop and implement a fall protection plan which
conforms to Sec. 1926.502(k), discussed below.
An exception is also allowed if another provision in paragraph (b)
allows an alternative fall protection measure, such as covers over
holes. Those alternative measures are also acceptable and do not need
to be documented in a fall protection plan in order to be used.
In the NPRM discussion of proposed paragraph (b)(2), Leading edges,
(51 FR at 42721), OSHA indicated its recognition that it may be
infeasible to protect workers performing precast concrete erection at
the leading edge with guardrail systems, safety net systems, or
personal fall arrest systems. Paragraph (b)(2) of the final rule
provides that employers engaged in leading edge work (which can include
precast concrete erection work) who demonstrate that it would be
infeasible or would create a greater hazard to use conventional fall
protection must develop and implement a fall protection plan which
documents why they believe they cannot provide conventional fall
protection and sets out the alternative fall protection measures that
will be taken. In particular, the employer must establish a controlled
access zone (29 CFR 1926.502(g)) and, at a minimum, implement a safety
monitoring system (29 CFR 1926.502(h)) if no other alternative fall
protection measure has been taken to protect leading edge workers. The
provisions of paragraph (b)(12) are essentially the same as those of
paragraph (b)(2), but extend beyond leading edge work and allow
employers engaged in any work involving the erection of precast
concrete to develop and implement a fall protection plan where they can
demonstrate infeasibility or greater hazard with conventional fall
protection systems. A full discussion of the meaning of
``infeasibility'' and ``greater hazard'' was provided above along with
the discussion of paragraph (b)(2) and applies here also.
Paragraph (b)(12) has been added in response to comments regarding
fall protection for precast concrete construction. Issue #2 of proposed
subpart M asked:
Are there areas or operations in addition to those already
identified in proposed Sec. 1926.501, which have unique fall
protection requirements not addressed by the proposed standards?
Examples of such areas and operations might include carpenters
erecting roof trusses during house construction; steel erectors
working on other than tiered buildings . . . or connectors erecting
wood, precast concrete, and structural members made of other
materials. 51 FR at 42729.
The Agency received several comments from the Precast/Prestressed
Concrete Institute (PCI) (Exs. 2-44, 2-106 and 2-107) regarding the
need for separate fall protection standards for workers engaged in
precast concrete erection.
Based on those comments, OSHA raised Issue M-2 in the January 26,
1988, Notice of Hearing on subparts L, M, and X [53 FR 2048] to solicit
testimony and other information on the concerns raised by PCI.
Specifically, OSHA stated (53 FR 2054):
The [Precast/]Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) (Ex. 2-44)
has commented that fall protection for employees erecting precast
concrete components is ``not appropriately covered by the proposed
regulations'' in Subpart M, because, according to the PCI, concrete
erectors, like steel erectors, need more freedom of movement than
proposed Subpart M would permit. Therefore, the PCI suggested that
OSHA revise proposed Subpart M so that precast concrete erection
would be regulated under Subpart R, Steel Erection. At the August 4,
1987, ACCSH meeting, a PCI representative reiterated the view that
connectors of precast concrete members should be provided the same
considerations as connectors of steel members saying [Tr. 212]: ``We
feel that the erection procedures and exemptions for steel are
basically the same as those for precast concrete * * * Basically,
the fall protection of the steel connector, again, would be the same
as that for the precast connector.'' The PCI subsequently submitted
comments (Ex. 2-106 and 2-107) which requested that OSHA exempt
concrete erectors from proposed leading edge protection requirements
in Subpart M and that OSHA exempt hollow core slab erectors from
perimeter protection provisions, except for those in proposed
Sec. 1926.502(h), Safety monitoring systems.
In response, PCI testified at the public hearing (Exs. 6A-9 and 9,
and Tr. 53-82, March 22, 1988) and submitted post-hearing comments
(Exs. 17 and 19), which reiterated the points made in its comments.
OSHA subsequently received additional correspondence from PCI (Exs. 25-
1 and 25-2). In that correspondence, PCI (Ex. 25-1) stated that OSHA's
``* * * lack of understanding of our unique erection problems will
result in the promulgation of rules that will result in endless
litigation and not serve the safety needs of the workers.'' In October
1989, OSHA informed PCI (Ex. 25-3) that the rulemaking record had
closed and that, in any event, the late comments simply repeated
submissions that had already been included in the record.
On February 12, 1990, PCI again wrote to OSHA (Ex. 25-4)
reasserting that compliance with proposed subpart M was not appropriate
to protect employees engaged in precast concrete erection. PCI again
suggested that OSHA either regulate precast concrete under its own
industry specific standard or under subpart R--Steel Erection, because
either alternative would be more applicable than the generic subpart M
standard. That submission also contained a more detailed discussion of
precast concrete erection procedures, including fall protection
procedures. OSHA responded (Ex. 25-5) that it would review the
information presented in the letter and would reopen the record if
significant issues were raised that had not previously been included in
the record.
On May 30, 1990, PCI again wrote to OSHA (Ex. 25-6) and expressed
concern ``* * * relative to OSHA's work to revise the construction
industry safety standards addressing fall protection in both 29 CFR
1926 subparts M and R (Steel Erection).''
On June 15, 1990, OSHA informed PCI that the information presented
in their letters was under review and a decision on further action
would be made at the completion of that review. OSHA determined that
the supplemental submissions from PCI did provide new information which
was relevant to a full consideration of the issues raised by subpart M.
Accordingly, the Agency reopened the rulemaking record (57 FR 34656,
August 5, 1992) for the limited purpose of entering the new information
and to receive comments on it. The comment period ended on November 3,
1992. The Agency reopened the record again (58 FR 16515, March 29,
1993) to allow additional time for PCI and other interested parties to
submit comments. That comment period ended on May 28, 1993. The
comments supported the inclusion of a fall protection plan as an
alternative where employers engaged in precast concrete construction
work were able to demonstrate infeasibility or greater hazard with the
use of conventional fall protection systems. A more thorough discussion
of the comments can be found at Sec. 1926.502(k)--fall protection
plans.
Based on a careful review of the information submitted by PCI and
other rulemaking participants, OSHA has determined that precast
concrete construction entails unique work conditions which should be
specifically addressed by subpart M. The new provision requires
employers who can demonstrate that the use of conventional fall
protection systems would be infeasible or would create a greater hazard
to implement a fall protection plan that complies with Sec. 1926.502(k)
of the final rule. OSHA is providing specific guidance in this notice
regarding what constitutes ``infeasibility'' or a ``greater hazard''
(See Sec. 1926.501(b)(2)). OSHA encourages employers who believe that
the use of a written fall protection plan is appropriate for their
precast concrete construction operations to discuss the basis for their
belief with local OSHA compliance staff. Additional information
regarding the criteria for use of a fall protection plan is provided in
the discussion of Sec. 1926.501(b)(2) of this section and in the
discussion of the criteria for fall protection plans, Sec. 1926.502(k),
as well as in Appendix E to subpart M--Model Fall Protection Plans. The
Agency considers the implementation of a fall protection plan,
outlining alternative fall protection measures, to be a ``last
resort,'' allowed only where the other options for fall protection have
been exhausted.
Paragraph (b)(13), which also was not part of the proposed rule,
requires that employers engaged in residential construction work
protect employees from falls of 6 feet (l.8 m) or more to lower levels
by the use of one of the three conventional fall protection systems
unless such systems are infeasible or would create a greater hazard for
affected employees. In those situations, OSHA requires the employer to
develop and implement a Fall Protection Plan which meets the criteria
of Sec. 1926.502(k), discussed in detail below.
As with paragraph (b)(12) discussed above, if another provision in
paragraph (b) allows an alternative fall protection measure, such as
covers over holes, those alternatives measures are also acceptable and
do not need to be documented in a fall protection plan in order to be
used.
OSHA is adding this new paragraph in response to comments received
on the issues raised in the limited reopening of the rulemaking record
[March 29, 1993; 58 FR 16515], regarding the ability of the residential
construction industry to provide fall protection for certain employees.
In that Notice, OSHA pointed out that Issue #2 of proposed subpart M
(51 FR 42729) had asked if there were areas or operations which had
unique fall protection needs not addressed by the proposed rule. OSHA
specifically mentioned carpenters erecting roof trusses during house
construction as a possible example. OSHA raised these issues in a
reopening notice because the Agency had received a late comment in
December 1992 from Ryland (Ex. 27-15) requesting that OSHA reopen the
record for subpart M to allow input regarding the residential
construction industry's ability to provide fall protection for
employees erecting roof trusses and installing exterior wall panels.
Ryland stated that there were no feasible means of fall protection for
employees erecting roof trusses and installing exterior wall panels.
The Ryland letter also explained the reasons they believed the proposed
and existing fall protection requirements were infeasible or that
compliance would create a greater hazard that non-compliance.
In the reopening notice, OSHA raised the possibility of allowing
employers to develop and implement a fall protection plan in those
situations where employers were able to demonstrate that it was
infeasible or would create a greater hazard to use conventional fall
protection systems. OSHA also requested information on the use of
controlled access zones, warning line systems and safety monitoring
systems as part of a fall protection plan. OSHA also asked what methods
of providing fall protection were being used by builders to protect
employees who are installing walls and erecting roof trusses; what
contractors were using for anchorage points on roofs; and to what
extent it was feasible to protect employees with conventional fall
protection systems while erecting trusses and installing wall panels.
A number of home builders responded that they were pleased that
OSHA had recognized the need to take the residential construction
industry (Ex. 27-23, 27-24, 27-26, 27-27, 27-33, and 27-34) into
account when revising subpart M. These commenters noted that the
failure of various OSHA standards to distinguish between the
residential/light commercial sector of the industry and the heavy
commercial/industrial sectors had forced the residential sector into
noncompliance. Ryland and the National Association of Home Builders
(Exs. 27-23, 27-27, 27-33, 27-34) commented that they:
* * * would like to urge OSHA to establish in Subpart M a separate
section applying to the residential/light commercial sector, even if
[it] means repeating requirements from other sections of Subpart M
that apply to all construction. We believe this action is imperative
if OSHA is intent on improving safety in the residential/light
commercial sector of the industry.
The Home Builders Association of Maryland (HBAM) and Hallmark
Builders (Exs. 27-24 and 27-26) supported the above position. Both
commenters stated the following:
Currently, the standards for enforcement of these industries are
the very same used by OSHA to safeguard the heavy commercial and
industrial sectors of the construction industry. Unfortunately, many
practices that may be feasible within these heavier industries
become impractical and sometime impossible within residential and
light commercial construction.
Finally, they noted that a larger number of employees would benefit
from increased protection through safer workplaces if separate
standards were issued because they would be easily implemented and
enforced and more widely accepted. This they noted, ``* * * would
further the goals of both OSHA and the employer.
The Home Builders Association of Denver (Ex. 27-39) also commented
that the existing standards are written for general construction work,
and that a new section is needed for residential construction only.
They also noted that a majority of residential builders also perform
some amount of light commercial work and the two types of construction
should be categorized as ``light construction.''
The Home Builders Association of Denver also provided some
information regarding the measures it believes an employer can take
when the employer determines that conventional fall protection cannot
be used. OSHA notes that the comment provides information which could
be useful once an employer established that a fall protection plan,
tailored specifically for the home being built, was appropriate.
However, the comment does not address the more important issue: How
does the employer establish, in the first place why none of the three
conventional systems can be used?
While the Agency encourages creative solutions to fall protection
problems, OSHA does not expect employers (home builders) to pursue
measures which would make their work unprofitable. For example, OSHA
expects that there will be circumstances where a home builder will find
it to be cost-effective to rent a crane for the purpose of hoisting
roof trusses, particularly when several roofs can be set in a single
day. Also, OSHA is aware, as documented in this final rule, that there
are a number of devices readily available for use as attachment points
for fall arrest equipment and that employers must be able to document
why the use of such equipment is infeasible or creates a greater hazard
to meet the criteria for using a fall protection plan.
On the other hand, the Agency believes it would be unreasonable to
expect the home builder to rent a crane when the home site is difficult
to access (terrain or remote location, such as in the mountains) or
when the home builder has only a single roof to raise. In addition,
OSHA does not expect home builders to erect scaffolds around the entire
perimeter of a house, or to take other extremely burdensome measures
such as erecting separate structures (telephone poles, e.g.) and
stringing a lifeline to use as an attachment point for personal fall
arrest equipment. These measures are infeasible.
In the course of this rulemaking, only two specific tasks have been
identified by OSHA as potentially creating an infeasible or greater
hazard situation. One is bracing roof trusses and the other is erecting
panelized walls. OSHA believes that, in general, it is feasible to set
trusses from ladders, scaffolds, or other elevated work platforms
provided there is sufficient space to set up ladders, scaffolds or
elevated platforms. When space makes it impossible to use such
measures, the employer will have to develop and implement a fall
protection plan meeting the criteria of paragraph (k) of Sec. 1926.502.
The South Eastern Wyoming Home Builders Association (SEWHBA) (Ex.
27-35) stated ``The feasibility of added protection for workers
installing roof trusses and/or above grade wall panels is ineffective
and possibly more hazardous than the current systems used...'' The best
protection of these workers would be in training for recognition of
such hazards and proper caution. They also stated that ``[a] `Fall
Protection Plan' is the most effective way to provide protection.
Warning lines would at least advise other crews of activity above,
allowing proper caution in approaching the site.'' The commenter
indicated that it didn't believe control zones were feasible. The
SEWHBA also noted that fall protection plans for residential
construction should be comparable to those in commercial construction
noting that ``Residential construction is essentially the same in most
cases, except possibly ``high rise'' type activities.
David Welty of Welty Construction Co. Inc. (Ex. 27-31) stated that
it was ``too dangerous'' to set rafters and trusses while walking on
the top of 2 x 4 walls and described how he installed rafters and roof
trusses working off ladders from inside the upper floors. Welty also
commented there was an added risk to erecting guardrail systems,
scaffolding, etc. and that ``for erecting roof trusses, we believe it
is sufficient to require workers to work from ladders inside the
walls'' citing feasibility problems with conventional fall protection
systems. Finally, Welty noted that ``fall protection plans, warning
lines, and monitoring systems are probably not effective in enhancing
safety.''
Another builder, Schuck & Sons Construction Company (Ex. 27-37)
stated ``[p]rotecting employees from falls has been a real dilemma in
the residential framing industry.'' He believes that a greater hazard
occurs while employees are installing fall protection systems and the
lack of solid anchorage points presents compliance problems.
Arguing against any separate treatment for residential construction
was the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, (Ex. 27-25) who commented
that there was little fall protection being provided to workers in the
residential industry and that ``[C]onventional fall protection measures
are feasible.'' They also commented that when erecting roof trusses or
installing exterior wall panels, ``It would be safer to work from a
scaffold rather than a ladder because of the larger area of work
surface. Working from a scaffold would be feasible'' and that ``Present
technology and fall arrest equipment is available which would make it
possible to protect employees installing exterior wall panels.''
Finally, the Carpenters Union noted:
The fall protection safety requirements for residential
construction should be the same as those for commercial
construction. The fact that residential construction has gone
unregulated and unenforced for so long is no reason to create a
``double safety standard.'' The hazards in residential construction
are every bit as real as those in commercial construction.
OSHA encourages employers to require their employees to work from
ladders, scaffolds and other platforms rather than for example, walking
the top plate when setting or bracing trusses. Employees who are
required to be on the top plate to work must be protected from fall
hazards (falls of 6 feet or more to the lower level) by one of the
three conventional fall protection systems unless they are covered by a
fall protection plan which specifies other alternative measures. OSHA
reminds employers that subpart M does not require fall protection for
employees working on ladders and scaffolds. (See subpart L for specific
requirements for fall protection on scaffolds and subpart X for
specific requirements for fall protection on fixed ladders).
NIOSH (Ex. 27-20) commented that they had performed several
analyses and compared the proportion of workers' compensation claims in
the residential building construction industry that involve falls from
elevations to those in other sectors of the construction industry. The
findings were that
* * * injured residential construction workers had at least as high
a proportion of their injuries due to falls from elevations as all
other construction workers. They also found that injured residential
construction workers had at least as high a proportion of their
injuries due to falls from elevations as nonresidential construction
workers.
Therefore, based on these analysis, NIOSH stated that fall protection
requirements for employees in residential construction ``should not be
less stringent than fall protection requirements for employees in other
construction categories.''
OSHA also received comments from fall protection equipment
manufacturers and consultants. For example, Sinco (Ex. 27-30) commented
that they have developed many new products, notably fall protection for
roofers, that are readily available now for use in residential
construction. They also noted that many forward thinking contractors
are developing fall prevention programs, purchasing fall protection
systems, and when appropriate, altering means and methods for
accommodating use of fall protection equipment. Sinco also commented on
the existing anchorage requirement of 5,400 pounds, noting that it does
present unique problems in compliance on wood frame buildings. However,
engineered systems using OSHA fall arrest requirements in the powered
platform rule, Sec. 1910.66, Appendix C, incorporating retracting
lifelines, etc. would enable contractors to provide fall protection
with secure anchor points. Sinco also made the following statements
pertinent to this rulemaking:
Most residential builders have no plan for fall protection,
subsequently they have no fall protection equipment, and most remain
unenlightened about the fall protection systems that are readily
available. Today, safety systems are available that will enable
residential builders to substantially reduce their employee exposure
to fall hazards during framing and roofing operations.
* * * manufacturers have developed engineered fall protection
systems that can be secured to anchorages capable of supporting
twice the potential impact load of an employee's fall. Anchor points
can vary, some examples are ridge beams, rafters, trusses, and floor
joints. With proper planning, a minimum of bracing and sheathing can
develop the structural integrity necessary to support these types of
anchorages. Scaffolding can be erected with the building interior
and serve as a work platform during truss bracing operations. New
products, such as the UNITRAC Truss Walk, provide an interior work
platform as well as meeting a contractor's fall protection needs
during truss installation and bracing.
In addition, Sinco presented information about other products they
have available now for use during wall installation, truss
installation, sheathing, and the application of roofing materials.
Sinco also commented that the use of control zones, warning lines, and
safety monitors should be an option extended through OSHA as a SITE
SPECIFIC exemption only and that contractors should have to demonstrate
by individual tasks that conventional fall protection measures are not
appropriate at specific project sites. While Sinco stated ``[t]he
agency should require employers to provide fall protection for all
facets of residential construction where fall hazards exist,'' it also
stated that if the employer can demonstrate infeasibility or greater
hazard, the Agency should grant an exemption on a case by case basis.
Griphoist (Ex. 27-40) suggested that OSHA require anchorages used
with personal fall arrest systems in residential construction be
required to withstand a load of 3,600 pounds, with employees wearing
body harnesses, rather than 5,400 pounds. The commenter noted that the
suggested figure is twice the potential impact load allowed by the ANSI
standard, ANSI Z359.1-1992, of 1,800 pounds.
Dynamic Scientific Controls (Ex. 27-42) stated that ``It is my
opinion that conventional fall protection can be applied to residential
roof construction, including truss erection, sheeting and roofing.''
OSHA also received comment from Gary Sipe, President of Peakrider
(Ex. 27-29), who commented on a new product currently being introduced
to the market called ``Peakrider.'' The product was designed to provide
a measure of safety for employees setting prefabricated wood trusses
for residential and small professional office construction. Mr. Sipe
also noted that the product is new and not many construction firms know
of its existence. Mr. Sipe also provided information on other products
designed for use in residential construction to reduce the exposure of
employees to fall hazards.
Finally, OSHA received comment from Douglas Browning (Ex. 27-32)
who provided information on a scaffold system that has been field-
tested for use in residential construction to reduce the exposure of
employees to fall hazards during roof truss installation.
OSHA recognizes that some employers engaged in erecting and bracing
roof trusses, because of their building methods, may find that it is
infeasible or would create a greater hazard to provide and use
conventional fall protection systems to protect employees performing
these tasks. In these situations, OSHA suggests that employers review
their building methods to determine if a change in work procedures
could eliminate or reduce fall hazards. If the employer can demonstrate
either infeasibility or greater hazard, applying the criteria discussed
above and in relation to paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the employer
must implement alternative safe work practices, such as requiring work
to be performed from ladders, scaffolds or other types of work
platforms and prohibiting the practice of standing on the top plate of
the walls to set (secure) roof trusses to the walls. OSHA is also aware
that some builders assemble the roof system on the ground, either
partially or entirely, and then lift it into place. OSHA would expect
any fall protection plans developed under this paragraph to explain why
such measures could not be implemented when other builders find them to
be feasible alternatives. The evidence indicates that many home
builders have yet to focus their attention on alternative safe work
practices that can be implemented in those areas where concerns have
been raised.
OSHA believes, based on the rulemaking record, that employers can
protect their employees from fall hazards with conventional fall
protection systems in virtually all situations involving residential
construction work. OSHA is being responsive to the concerns raised by
home builders, in particular, with support from some fall protection
equipment manufacturers, that there may be some limited situations
where the use of conventional fall protection systems is infeasible or
would create a greater hazard than would exist if such systems were not
used. It is for this reason that OSHA has established a regulatory
mechanism (fall protection plan) through which an employer who
satisfies the pertinent criteria must implement a fall protection plan
instead of providing conventional fall protection.
OSHA encourages home builders in their efforts to improve the
safety and health of their workers. While many of the home builders'
comments urged OSHA to recognize the ``inherent differences,'' between
``light'' construction and ``heavy'' construction, the evidence
submitted was insufficient to convince OSHA that the methods of
protecting workers from fall hazards associated with light construction
and heavy commercial construction differed sufficiently to require
different rules. OSHA is intent on improving safety in the residential
sector of the construction industry and views the promulgation of
Sec. 1925.501(b)(13) as a concrete step towards increased safety for
workers in this part of the construction industry.
Based on a careful review of the information submitted by home
builders and other rulemaking participants, OSHA has determined that
residential construction work entails unique work conditions which
should be specifically addressed by subpart M. Therefore, OSHA is
promulgating a new Sec. 1926.501(b)(13), which specifically addresses
this type of construction work. The new provision requires employers to
use conventional fall protection systems unless they can demonstrate
that the use of conventional fall protection systems would be
infeasible (impossible to get the work done or technologically
impossible) or would create a greater hazard and then they must
implement a fall protection plan that complies with Sec. 1926.502(k) of
the final rule.
Additionally, Sec. 1926.502(k)(5) requires that the fall protection
plan document the basis for the determination that fall protection
cannot be used. The Agency considers the implementation of a fall
protection plan, outlining alternative fall protection measures, to be
a ``last resort,'' allowed only where the other options for fall
protection have been exhausted. As noted above, OSHA is providing
specific guidance in this notice regarding what constitutes
``infeasibility'' or a ``greater hazard'' (See discussion at
Sec. 1926.501(b)(2)).
OSHA has included a sample fall protection plan for residential
construction in non-mandatory Appendix E--Model Fall Protection Plans
to provide guidance to home builders.
Paragraph (b)(14) of the final rule (proposed Sec. 19265.501(d))
requires protection for employees who are exposed to the hazard of
falling out or through wall openings. The final rule consolidates and
clarifies requirements in existing Sec. 1926.500(c) (1) and (3). Under
the final rule, wall openings (defined as openings 30 inches or more
high and 18 inches or more wide, which have a bottom edge to lower
level fall distance of 6 feet or more on the side away from the
employees, and a bottom edge to walking/working surface height of less
than 39 inches on the side facing the employees), must be equipped with
a guardrail system, safety net system, or personal fall arrest system.
OSHA believes the most practical method of compliance is the guardrail
system because it provides protection at all times and for all
employees who may have exposure at the wall opening. However, OSHA
recognizes that there may be cases where employers may desire to use
safety net systems or personal fall arrest systems, which also will
provide an appropriate level of protection. For that reason, the
provision has been revised to permit the use of these other systems.
The final rule is similar to the proposed rule, except for the
change discussed above and the existing rule in Sec. 1926.500(c)(1)
requires such protection to be provided when the fall distance exceeds
4 feet, and when the near side height is less than 36 inches. OSHA
proposed to change the existing rule to make it compatible with the 6-
foot rule of other provisions in Sec. 1926.501, the minimum height
requirements for guardrail systems of Sec. 1926.502(b)(1), and the
definition of ``unprotected sides and edges.''
The SSFI (Ex. 2-89) recommended that employees on elevated work
platforms adjacent to a floor or wall opening should be protected by a
fall protection system regardless of the height of the platform. OSHA
observes that proposed subpart L sets forth requirements for employees
working on scaffolds [elevated work platforms] and that the final rule
for subpart L will address this issue.
New paragraph (b)(15) is a ``catch all'' provision intended to
clarify the overall thrust of paragraph (b). It sets forth clearly that
all employees exposed to falls of 6 feet (1.8 m) or more to lower
levels must be protected by a guardrail system, safety net system, or
personal fall arrest system except where otherwise provided by
Sec. 1926.501(b) or by fall protection standards in other subparts of
part 1926. The Agency has determined that this provision will
facilitate compliance for employers who do not fit any of the specific
categories set by Sec. 1926.501(b).
Paragraph (c)--Protection from falling objects. This provision,
proposed as Sec. 1926.501(e), requires employers to protect employees
from falling objects by either:
(1) Using toeboards, screens, or guardrail systems;
(2) Erecting a canopy structure and placing potential fall objects
away from edges; or,
(3) Barricading the area to which objects could fall, prohibiting
employees from entering that area, and placing potential fall objects
away from the edges.
This requirement differs from the proposed requirement and the
existing requirements. The existing requirements in Sec. 1926.500(b)
(1), (2), (3)(ii), and (8) and Sec. 1926.500(d)(2) require toeboards to
be erected around floor, roof, ramps, and platform holes and openings
regardless of whether or not employees are working below. OSHA proposed
to revise the existing requirement to require that, in addition to
wearing hard hats (Sec. 1926.100), employees would have had to be
protected from falling objects by one of a series of measures, which
included the following:
--installing toeboards, screens or guardrail systems to keep objects
from falling from above;
--erecting canopy structures;
--marking the area with signs; or barricading the area to prohibit
employees from entering the area; or,
--placing objects away from edges from which they might fall.
In the proposal, OSHA stated that it believed the alternatives
listed for providing falling object protection were more feasible than
the existing requirements, which only specified the use of toeboards or
screens. OSHA also noted that it did not specify a distance away from
the edge that objects should be kept, as the distance varies according
to the shape of the object. For example, the preamble to the proposal
stated that round objects such as rolls of roofing felt would require
more distance than a stack of flat shingles, and that the distance also
depends on the height of the object or pile of objects. Both in the
discussion of proposed Sec. 1926.501(e) and in Issue #12, OSHA
requested public input regarding the proposed use of signs as a means
of keeping employees out of areas where they might be exposed to
falling objects. In addition, OSHA requested input on the criteria for
falling object protection in Issue #8, discussed below.
In response, the States of California (CAL/OSHA) and Maryland
(MOSH) (Exs. 2-15 and 2-31) remarked that signs were not acceptable
substitutes for barricades to prevent employee exposure to the falling
object hazards. Additionally, the ACCSH (Tr. 6/10/87; pp. 113-128)
recommended to OSHA that all of the listed alternatives should be
required with no option, except that employers could choose between a
canopy structure and a barricaded area as part of their protective
measures. In short, their recommendation was that toeboards, screens
and guardrails be erected; and that objects be kept back from the edge;
and that employers either erect a canopy and signs or barricades.
OSHA has not incorporated the suggestion of the ACCSH because the
record does not support requiring employers to take all of the
recommended precautions. OSHA believes employees will be afforded an
appropriate level of safety if the employer prevents objects from
falling from above, or protects employees from objects that have fallen
in spite of efforts to keep them from falling.
Many other commenters (Exs. 2-19, 2-20, 2-45, 2-46, and 2-99) also
objected to the use of signs as an option for protecting employees.
Other commenters (Exs. 2-20, 2-46 and 2-89) thought that signs could be
useful in conjunction with more positive protection like barricades.
The AGC (Ex. 2-16, 2-47 and 2-92) supported the proposed provision,
noting that alternative methods provide for employer flexibility. The
AGC also noted that signs had been used in the past successfully,
depending on the type of exposure and the particular situation. The
SSFI (Ex. 2-89) recommended that the use of signs be acceptable where
no other fall protection measures could be used.
OSHA has determined, based on the record, that signs are not an
appropriate alternative to barricades in the situations discussed in
Issue #12. OSHA recognizes that signs can be useful when used in
conjunction with other measures, such as barricades, to warn employees
of the hazard, but believes that signs, alone, provide inadequate
protection from falling objects. Accordingly, the Agency has deleted
the option of using signs as a means of complying with
Sec. 1926.501(c).
Sec. 1926.502--Fall Protection Systems Criteria and Practices
This section specifies the criteria for measures required by
Sec. 1926.501 and by other subparts in part 1926 where specific fall
protection systems criteria and practice are not provided. The
following discussion highlights changes from or additions to the
proposed and existing standards. Provisions that are essentially
unchanged from the proposal, especially where they did not elicit
comments, are not discussed.
OSHA received one comment directed at Sec. 1926.502 in its
entirety. The SSFI (Ex. 2-89) stated ``language appearing within this
section seems to be inconsistent with comparable paragraphs of subpart
L.'' The commenter recommended that OSHA revise subpart M to be
compatible with subpart L. Rather than comment on the general statement
made by SSFI, OSHA will respond to their concerns in its discussion of
the individual provisions where SSFI has stated that an inconsistency
exists.
Paragraph (a)--General. This paragraph requires that all fall
protection conform to the criteria set in paragraph (b) for the
particular system being used and that all fall protection equipment be
provided and installed before employees begin any other work on or from
the surface on which they will be protected. To be fully effective,
fall protection must be in place at the earliest possible time.
There were two comments on paragraph (a). PCI (Ex. 2-44) commented
on the need for employees to create the surface before protection
systems can be provided and installed. NIOSH (Ex. 2-33) commented that
``OSHA should clearly state that the first worker allowed upon a roof
or leading edge is designated as the competent person under the
requirements of the safety monitoring systems if that is, in fact,
OSHA's intent.''
OSHA's intent is that fall protection systems be in place at the
earliest possible time when there is potential exposure to fall
hazards. OSHA recognizes that there will be situations where it is
infeasible to install and use fall protection because the working
surface has not yet been created and there is no surface upon which to
place guardrail systems, install safety nets, or anchor personal fall
arrest systems. OSHA has discussed under Secs. 1926.501 (b)(2),
(b)(12), and (b)(13), for example, the alternative measures (fall
protection plan) that would be required in a situation where such
infeasibility or greater hazard situations arise. With regard to the
concern expressed by NIOSH, OSHA has determined that, while it would
not be appropriate to mandate that the first person allowed on a roof
or leading edge necessarily be designated as the competent person for a
safety monitoring system, it is appropriate to provide that no employee
may begin any work until the fall protection systems are provided and
installed that this would include having the competent person in
position at the assigned work area and assuming the duties of the
safety monitor when such monitoring systems are required as part of a
fall protection measure.
Paragraph (b)--Guardrail systems. This paragraph sets the criteria
for guardrail systems. Paragraph (b)(1) specifies that the top edge of
guardrail systems shall be 42 inches, plus or minus 3 inches, above the
walking/working surface except when conditions warrant, the height of
the top edge of the top rail may exceed the 45-inch limit. Paragraph
(b)(1) also contains a note to remind employers that where employees
are using stilts the height of the top rail must be increased a height
equal to the height of the stilts which in effect serve as the walking/
working surface. This note has been added in response to comments
received on Issue L-4 of the hearing notice published on January 26,
1988, in which OSHA asked questions about fall protection for workers
on elevated platforms such as stilts. More detailed discussion of the
issue will be found in the final rule on scaffolds to be published
later.
The final rule is slightly different from the proposed rule in that
OSHA is allowing the employer additional flexibility with regard to the
height of the top edge of the top rail of the guardrail system. This
change has been made because OSHA is aware that there will be
situations where work conditions necessitate erecting the guardrail so
that the top edge height is greater than 45 inches. The requirement is
also consistent with the existing rule in Sec. 1926.500(f)(l), which
requires that the guardrail system be ``approximately 42 inches from
upper surface of top rail to floor, platform, runway, or ramp level.''
OSHA proposed to revise the existing rule by deleting the term
``approximately'' and by having the height requirement of 42 inches,
plus or minus 3 inches, apply to all walking/working surfaces.
The general, introductory text of paragraph (b)(2) requires
midrails, screens, mesh, intermediate vertical members (i.e.,
balusters), solid panels, or equivalent structural members to be
installed between the top edge of the system and the walking/working
surface when there is no wall or parapet wall at least 21 inches high.
This is identical to the proposed requirement and is essentially the
same as the existing requirement Sec. 1926.500(f)(l)(vi)(c).
Paragraphs (b)(2) (i) through (iv) set requirements which apply
specifically to midrails; screens and mesh; intermediate members; and
other structural members respectively.
Paragraph (b)(2)(i) specifies that when midrails are used to comply
with paragraph (b)(2), they must be installed midway between the top
edge of the guardrail system and the walking/working level. This
requirement is the same as the requirements in both the proposed rule
and in the existing rule at 1926.500(f)(l).
Paragraphs (b)(2) (ii), (iii) and (iv) address the proper placement
of screens, mesh, intermediate vertical members, and other structural
members when they are used in lieu of midrails in the guardrail system.
These provisions are essentially the same as the proposed provisions.
The existing rule does not contain any requirements addressing the
placement of structural members used in lieu of midrails.
NIOSH (Ex. 2-33) commented that the criteria in proposed
Sec. 1926.502(b)(1) [promulgated as Sec. 1926.501(b)(14)] for the
placement of a top rail of a guardrail system (42 inches) and the
criteria in proposed Sec. 1926.502(b)(2)(iii) for placement of
intermediate members (no more than 19 inches apart) were inconsistent
with the dimensions of a wall opening which OSHA defined in proposed
Sec. 1926.501(d) as an opening in a wall or partition that was 30
inches or more high and 18 inches or more wide.
OSHA notes that under Sec. 1926.501(b)(14) employees exposed to
falling 6 feet (1.8 m) or more through wall openings (where the inside
bottom edge of the wall opening is less than 39 inches above the
walking/working surface) must be protected by a guardrail system. NIOSH
stated its belief that the dimensions in the wall opening provision
should be made consistent with the dimensions of openings in
guardrails. OSHA believes that Secs. 1926.501(b)(14) of the final rule
and 1926.502 (b)(1) and (b)(2) (iii) and (iv) address different
situations and, therefore, need not be reconciled. In particular,
falling through window and door openings in walls presents a different
hazard than falling through the openings in guardrail systems.
Accordingly, OSHA has not made the suggested change.
SSFI (Ex. 2-89) recommended that proposed paragraph (b)(2)(i) be
changed to require the installation of midrails ``approximately''
midway between the top edge of the guardrail systems and the walking/
working level.'' The Agency notes that the use of terms such as
``approximately'' have caused uncertainty among employer who have
expressed their desire for OSHA to be clear in its rules. OSHA has
determined that employers need clear direction when attempting to
comply with paragraph (b)(2). Therefore, the Agency has not made the
suggested revision.
Paragraph (b)(3) requires guardrail systems to be capable of
withstanding a 200-pound force applied within 2 inches of the top edge
in an outward or downward direction. Paragraph (b)(4) requires that
when the 200 pound load is applied in a downward direction, the top
edge of the guardrail shall not deflect to a height less than 39 inches
above the walking/working level. These are the same as the proposed
requirements and essentially the same as the existing requirement in
Sec. 1926.500(f)(1)(vi)(b), except that in paragraph (b)(4) the
existing language, ``with a minimum deflection,'' has been changed to
read ``when the 200 pound test load is applied in a downward direction,
the top edge of the guardrail shall not deflect to a height less than
39 inches above the walking/working surface.'' Deflection is specified
for the top edge because that is the point an employee is most likely
to fall against and it must be high enough, at all times, to prevent
the employee from falling over the top rail.
There were four comments on the proposed provisions. Seedorf
Masonry (Ex. 2-153) commented, ``Paragraph 3 says that the guardrail
must withstand at least 200 lbs. with apparently no more deflection
than 2 inches.'' OSHA notes that the 2-inch figure in paragraph (b)(3)
specifies where the force should be applied above the top rail to test
the strength of the guardrail system. Paragraph (b)(4) sets the limit
on top rail deflection--the top rail cannot deflect below 39 inches,
which would be 3 inches if the top rail was at the 42 inch height when
the load was applied or 5 inches if the top rail were at 45 inches.
Regarding proposed paragraph (b)(3), the SSFI (Ex. 2-89) commented
that proposed subpart L did not require force to be applied ``within 2-
inches'' and expressed concern with regard to the perceived
inconsistency with subpart L. SSFI also commented that in paragraph
(b)(4) there is a difference for the height of the top rails of
guardrail systems between subparts L and M. OSHA, in turn, observes
that the criteria for guardrails on scaffolds are explicitly excluded
from the scope of subpart M (See Sec. 1926.500(a)(3)(i)), because OSHA
recognizes that the performance requirements for guardrails on
scaffolds will differ from those for employees on other walking/working
surfaces.
Two commenters (Ex. 2-104 and 2-151) stated that proposed paragraph
(b)(4) was unworkable because a guardrail system capable of sustaining
a 200-pound load with a maximum 3-inch deflection would require
enormous strength. The commenters suggested that OSHA specify a 50-
pound load and 5-inches of deflection, but did not indicate any reason
other than the inability to comply. The Agency believes that it is both
necessary and feasible to engineer a guardrail system so that the top
edge of the top rail does not deflect below 39 inches to protect
employees from going over the rail and that a 200-pound test load is
appropriate. Therefore, the Agency has not made the suggested change.
As noted above, subpart M does not set the performance requirements
for guardrails on scaffolds because the Agency has recognized that the
two subparts address different concerns. Therefore, the provisions do
not need to be consistent.
Paragraph (b)(5), which is identical to the proposed paragraph,
provides that midrails, screens, mesh, intermediate vertical members,
solid panels, and equivalent structural members shall be capable of
withstanding, without failure, a force of at least 150 pounds, applied
in any downward or outward direction at any point along the midrail or
other member. OSHA chose the 150-pound test strength because the Agency
has determined that such members need not satisfy the 200-pound
strength test set for top rails to provide the necessary protection.
OSHA also determined that a limit on deflection was not needed for
midrails and other members to protect employees appropriately. OSHA
received no comments on this provision.
Paragraph (b)(6) requires that guardrail systems be smooth surfaced
to prevent employee injury due to lacerations or tripping caused by
snagged clothing. The provision is based on the existing rule in
1926.500(f)(1)(vi)(a). The proposed revision was effectively identical
to the final rule, except that the proposed paragraph ended with the
phrase, ``which could cause an employee to fall.''
OSHA received two comments on this provision. CAL/OSHA (Ex. 2-15)
suggested that OSHA remove the words ``which could cause employees to
fall.'' OSHA had used those words to explain why guardrail systems
should be surfaced to prevent snagging of clothing. However, California
interpreted the phrase to be a ``qualifier,'' meaning that if the
snagging of clothing would not result in a fall, employers did not have
to take any action to eliminate the potential for snagging.
OSHA agrees that the phrase should be removed in the final rule. It
was not OSHA's intent to limit protection to those situations where
such snagging would actually result in a fall. OSHA realizes that other
hazards, such as exposure to falling objects, could arise if an
employee's clothing snagged on a guardrail surface.
The SSFI (Ex. 2-89) commented that this provision is unrealistic
and would prove to be extremely costly. They recommended that the
provision be eliminated. OSHA disagrees with the SSFI. As noted above,
paragraph (b)(6) is essentially the same as the existing rule, which
has not posed such difficulties in practice.
Paragraph (b)(7) requires that top rails and midrails not be so
long as to constitute a projection hazard. This provision, which is
identical to the proposed provision, is based on existing
Sec. 1926.500(f)(l) and (f)(1)(vi)(d). No comments were received
regarding this provision.
Paragraph (b)(8) prohibits the use of steel banding and plastic
banding as top rails or midrails. This provision is identical to the
proposed provision. While such banding can often withstand a 200-pound
load, it can tear easily if twisted. In addition, such banding often
has sharp edges which can easily cut a hand if seized.
While OSHA did not receive any comments specifically on proposed
paragraph (b)(8), it did receive a recommendation from the ACCSH (Tr.
6-9-87, p. 212) regarding a similar provision in proposed subpart L
(Sec. 1926.451(e)(4)(xiii). In particular, the ACCSH suggested that
OSHA ban the use of manila rope and plastic rope as well as steel and
plastic banding as top rails for scaffold guardrail systems. This
recommendation reflected ACCSH's concern that manila rope and plastic
rope lose strength quickly when exposed to water and sun.
In Issue M-3 of the hearing notice (53 FR 2054, January 26, 1988),
OSHA discussed the ACCSH recommendation, stating that ACCSH had
recommended that OSHA add a ban on the use of manila rope or plastic
rope for top rails or midrails of guardrail systems used on scaffolds.
OSHA also noted that ACCSH had not made a similar recommendation for
change in proposed subpart M. OSHA requested comment on whether or not
the ACCSH concern should be addressed in the final rule for subpart M.
At the hearing, the Scaffold Industry Association (SIA) (Tr. 3-22-
88 pp. 160-161) testified that it should not be necessary to restrict
the type of materials used since OSHA established the strength
requirements for guardrail systems. Upon further questioning, the
participant suggested (pp. 165-166) that experts in the field should
address the recommendation and again stated his belief that as long as
the rope met the strength criteria, it should be considered adequate.
OSHA also received comments on Issue M-3 from three other parties.
One commenter (Ex. 6-3) stated the following:
Manila and plastic rope used as guardrails for short periods of
time until more permanent rails can be installed should not be
banned from use providing they are capable of supporting a 200-pound
load applied in any direction with a minimum of deflection.
In addition, the commenter noted that while some lumber is subject
to deterioration, no lumber is banned. Finally, the commenter stated
that OSHA could insert a note or warning in the standard regarding
deterioration hazards and that the Agency could add an inspection
requirement such as was proposed for safety nets in
Sec. 1926.502(c)(5). The other two commenters (Exs. 6-5 and 6-17)
stated that OSHA should ban the use of manila rope or plastic rope from
use as midrails or top rails.
Based on an evaluation of the record, OSHA has decided not to ban
the use of manila or plastic rope. Instead, OSHA has determined that
the concerns of the ACCSH are appropriately addressed by adding a new
provision in Sec. 1926.502(b)(15), discussed below, which requires
employers to inspect top rails and midrails if manila, plastic or
synthetic rope has been used, as frequently as necessary to ensure that
the rails have not deteriorated beyond their ability to meet the
strength requirements set forth in Sec. 1926.502(b)(3), above.
Paragraph (b)(9) of the final rule, like the proposal, requires
that top rails and midrails be at least one-quarter inch (0.6 cm) in
nominal diameter or thickness. OSHA believes that the minimum thickness
requirement is needed to prevent the use of rope that would cause cuts
or lacerations. In addition, final rule paragraph (b)(9) adds a new
requirement that top rails constructed of wire rope shall be flagged at
not more than 6-foot intervals with high-visibility material. This
requirement supplements the strength requirements for guardrails
specified in paragraphs (b) (3), (4), and (5) of this section. The
purpose of this requirement is to assure that rails made of high
strength materials are not so thin that a worker grabbing a rail is
injured, such as by cuts or lacerations, because of the small size of
the rail.
CAL/OSHA (Ex. 2-15) suggested that OSHA require top rails, such as
those made with wire rope, to be made more visible by installing bits
of flagging or cloth strips at 10-foot intervals. Roberts Safety
Consultants (Ex. 2-18) supported the requirement for \1/4\ inch minimum
diameter wire rope. Maryland Occupational Safety and Health officials
(MOSH) (Ex. 2-31) commented that OSHA should specify that the provision
is referring to wire rope. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)(Ex. 2-
20) suggested that OSHA eliminate the provision since the standard
already contains a strength requirement.
OSHA agrees with California that wire rope, especially the \1/4\
inch diameter rope, could be difficult to see, and has therefore
incorporated in the final rule their suggestion that the rope be
flagged for visibility. To maintain consistency with other requirements
in the final rule, such as those for flagging of warning lines in
Sec. 1926.502(f)(2)(i) and flagging of control zone lines in
Sec. 1926.502(g)(3)(i), OSHA is requiring flagging at 6-foot intervals
rather than at 10-foot intervals. OSHA also notes that flagging of wire
rope is a common industry practice.
In response to TVA's comment, OSHA notes that, as discussed above,
this provision addresses the need to protect workers from cuts and
lacerations, not the strength of the wire rope.
Paragraphs (b) (10) through (13) address the use of guardrail
systems. The requirements in paragraphs (b) (10) through (13) are
identical to those found in paragraphs (b)(11) to (b)(14) of the
proposed rule. OSHA had also proposed specific requirements pertaining
to guardrail systems used at hoisting areas during the performance of
roofing operations on low-slope roofs (proposed at paragraph (b)(10)).
However, because revised Sec. 1926.501(b)(3) addresses fall protection
at all hoist areas, including hoist areas on low-slope roofs where
roofing operations are being performed, there is no need to have the
additional, redundant requirements proposed at paragraph (b)(10) and
they have been deleted in the final rule. Further discussion on the
remaining provisions (b)(11) to (b)(13) can be found in the notice of
proposed rule for subpart M [51 FR 42724].
Paragraph (b)(14) provides that guardrail systems on ramps and
runways be erected along each unprotected side or edge. The proposed
requirement contained essentially the same requirements as existing
Sec. 1926.500(d) (2) and (3). The proposed rule contained an exception
for installing guardrails on ramps and runways where the guardrails
would interfere with the operation of work as long as the ramp or
runway was 18 inches wide. Existing Sec. 1926.500(d)(3) also allowed
this exception. However, based on OSHA's enforcement experience, OSHA
has decided that the exception is no longer valid.
It is OSHA's contention that the purpose of installing guardrails
on ramps and runways is solely to keep employees from falling off the
unprotected sides or edges of such ramps and runways when employees are
exposed to falls of 6 feet or (1.8 m) or more to a lower level. OSHA
recognizes that there may be circumstances where the movement of
materials or equipment across ramps or runways would be impeded by
guardrails and situations where that interference is such that
compliance with this provision would be infeasible (i.e., the work
cannot be done) or would create a greater hazard. OSHA believes, in
general, that preplanning of work will ensure that compliance with
paragraph (b)(14) is feasible and does not create a greater hazard.
CAL/OSHA (Ex. 2-15), noted that the proposed provision would be the
subject of considerable interpretation and stated that OSHA should
provide examples of operating conditions that would permit employers to
follow the guardrail configuration described. The commenter also stated
that ramps should be 2 feet wide and railed on both sides.
OSHA notes that the existing rule was based on ANSI A12.1-1967,
Safety Requirements for Floor and Wall Openings, Railings, and Toe
Boards, which provides examples of special purposes where operating
conditions may preclude the use of guardrails on one side of the
runway. Such purposes were identified as oiling, shafting or filling
tank cars. OSHA also notes that the ANSI A1264.1-1989, Safety
Requirements for Workplace Floor and Wall Openings, Stairs, and Railing
Systems, which replaced the ANSI A12.1-1967, also contains the same
provision, but does not provide examples of special purposes which
necessitate omitting guardrails on one side. In any event, the example
provided covered non-construction work, raising further questions about
the appropriateness of the exception. Upon further consideration and
evaluation of the proposed provision, OSHA has determined that since it
cannot readily identify situations where operating conditions would
preclude the use of guardrails on one side it should not write an
exception into the rule and, therefore, the agency has no reason to
specify a platform width. OSHA agrees with CAL/OSHA that the provision
would be subject to wide interpretation. As a consequence, OSHA has
decided to delete this provision from the final rule.
Paragraph (b)(15), which was not part of the proposed rule,
requires that manila, plastic and synthetic rope used in guardrail
systems be inspected as frequently as necessary to detect
deterioration. This new requirement has been added in response to the
comment received on Issue M-3, discussed above, in which OSHA solicited
information on the need to prohibit the use of manila and plastic rope.
As discussed earlier in this preamble, OSHA has determined that
paragraph (b)(15) appropriately responds to ACCSH's concern that such
ropes may deteriorate and lose their strength.
OSHA observes that Non-mandatory Appendix B contains detailed
specifications for minimum sizes of guardrail system components. These
specifications are based on existing Sec. 1926.500(f)(1) (i), (ii), and
(iii) and should provide useful information to help employers to design
guardrail systems. The transfer of this guidance from existing
regulatory text to a non-mandatory appendix does not reduce the level
of safety achieved through compliance with the existing standard. The
existing specific provisions are consistent with the performance-
oriented requirements in the final rule. The promulgation of non-
mandatory Appendix B removes redundant provisions from the standard.
Paragraph (c)--Safety net systems. This paragraph replaces the
criteria in existing Sec. 1926.105--Safety nets. OSHA has relocated the
regulation of safety nets to subpart M as part of the Agency's effort
to consolidate the standards that generally cover protection of
construction employees from fall hazards.
OSHA received one general comment on this paragraph. The ISEA (Ex.
2-23) suggested that OSHA refer to safety nets as personnel nets, so as
to differentiate personnel nets and debris nets. This commenter also
suggested that debris nets should be addressed separately. OSHA has not
taken any action with respect to the suggestion because the criteria
set forth apply to nets used to protect employees from the hazards of
falling. If an employer selects and uses a net labeled as a ``debris
net'' to provide fall protection for employees, then such net must meet
all of the criteria and conditions for use set forth in the safety net
section. On the other hand, just because a net is labeled a ``personnel
net'' does not mean that it is acceptable to OSHA for use as a safety
net.
Paragraph (c)(1) requires the installation of safety nets as close
as practicable under the walking/working surface where employees need
to be protected, but in no case more than 30 feet below such level.
Both proposed paragraph (c)(1) and existing Sec. 1926.105(a) require
that nets be installed no greater than 25 feet below the working level.
However, the recently revised ANSI A10.11-1989 standard for nets allows
net installation 30 feet below the working level. In addition, OSHA
notes that the National Bureau of Standards study of nets included test
data of 30-foot falls. The data indicate there is no significant
difference between a 25 and a 30-foot fall into a net (Reference 14).
OSHA also notes that both the existing rule and the proposed rule were
based on earlier versions of the ANSI consensus standard which
prescribed that nets be positioned not more than 25 feet below the
working level.
Therefore, based on the record developed in the course of this
rulemaking, OSHA has determined that a safety net installed as much as
30 feet below a walking or working level will provide adequate fall
protection and has revised proposed paragraph (c)(1) accordingly.
Paragraph (c)(1) also requires that when nets are used on bridges,
there must be an unobstructed fall to the net. In other words, nets
must not be used when a falling employee could hit an obstruction
before reaching the net. This is a new provision added in response to
comments received on Issue #13 discussed below.
In proposed paragraph (c)(1), OSHA provided an exception to the
proposed 25-foot limitation in the case of nets used in bridge
construction. However, that portion of the proposed rule has not been
finalized. The proposed paragraph required only one level of nets
during bridge construction regardless of the distance between the
walking/working surface and the net. However, the record developed on
that proposed provision supported limited the fall distance to 30 feet.
OSHA solicited input regarding the appropriateness of the proposed
exception in Issue #13. In particular, the Agency requested comment on
whether personal fall arrest systems should be required for employees
performing bridge construction work when employees do not have an
unobstructed fall to a safety net. In response, the ACCSH recommended
that OSHA allow one level of nets during bridge construction, provided
the fall was unobstructed and the fall distance did not exceed 25 feet.
Otherwise, the Advisory Committee recommended that affected employees
also use personal fall arrest systems. One ACCSH member noted that the
wording of the proposed provision could allow falls from 75 or 80 feet,
and that even if the fall were unobstructed, injuries would occur. That
ACCSH member also spoke of two such cases where employees were
paralyzed from the waist down after falling into a net. (Tr. 6/10/87;
pp. 137-141).
The ACCSH recommendation was echoed by other commenters. Bristol
Steel and the NEA (Exs. 2-12 and 2-43) commented that during erection
or painting of tall steel bridges, such as trusses and arches, one
level of netting would not be adequate. They also stated the following:
Not only is there the problem of falling employees striking
bridge structural members before they fall into the safety net, but
also the fall distance from upper bridge levels of the safety nets
will frequently exceed 50 feet or even 100 feet or more. Safety nets
on the upper levels of such bridges are not a desirable or feasible
alternative * * *.
These commenters suggested that OSHA require ``safety railings in
accordance with subpart R (Steel Erection), body belt/harness systems,
or safety monitoring systems where the fall distance into the safety
net exceeds 25 feet.'' They also identified types of bridge
construction where ``the risk of harm from striking bridge members
during a fall is significantly reduced. Most falling employees will be
deflected by bridge members with forces not so great as to cause
serious harm * * *.'' They did not feel that these situations warranted
both safety nets and body belt systems, but they did believe body belt
systems, in addition to safety nets, were warranted when the fall
distance exceeded 25 feet.
MOSH (Ex. 2-31) commented that they could not understand why safety
nets were not being required for second levels of bridges, noting that
they had experienced severe accidents involving employees falling from
the top chords of bridges.
The AGC (Exs. 2-16, 2-47 and 2-92) commented that many site work
situations do not allow for systems such as body belts and that ``The
standard should reflect existing conditions and permit flexibility.''
Many commenters (Exs. 2-19, 2-20, 2-23, 2-36, 2-46, and 2-50)
indicated that a single level of safety nets may not provide adequate
fall protection on bridges, particularly where an employee could strike
a bridge structural member before hitting the net. These commenters
also indicated that personal fall protection should be required in
addition to nets or that additional netting systems should be required.
OSHA has determined that a one-level net system does not provide
adequate protection if there are intervening members between the
working surface and the net which an employee might strike. In
addition, OSHA notes that even when the fall area is unobstructed, one
level of nets will not provide adequate protection if the fall distance
exceeds 30 feet. In such situations, the record demonstrates that
severe injuries are likely to occur (Exs. 2-12, 2-31, and 2-43).
Therefore, the final rule does not permit a one-level net system when
the fall distance exceeds 30 feet. When the distance exceeds 30 feet,
additional netting will have to be provided or employees will have to
be protected by another fall protection system such as a personal fall
arrest system.
Paragraph (c)(2) sets minimum horizontal projection requirements
for safety net systems, based on the vertical distance between the
working level and the net. Existing Sec. 1926.105(c)(1) requires that
nets extend 8 feet. Proposed paragraph (c)(2) would have required that
nets extend 15 feet. In the proposal, OSHA explained that the National
Bureau of Standards (NBS) had conducted tests to evaluate the proposed
requirement. Their findings indicated that at least 13 to 15 feet would
be required to fully contain a body falling 25 feet (Ex. 14:50). Based
on their findings, OSHA proposed the 15-foot requirement. Since that
time, however, the ANSI A10.11 Committee issued a revision to the
consensus standard on Personnel and Debris Nets, in which it varied the
horizontal distance of the net according to the vertical distance
between the working level and the net. The ACCSH, in turn, recommended
that OSHA replace the 15-foot requirement of proposed paragraph (c)(2)
with the language of the then-draft ANSI A10.11 provision (subsequently
adopted by ANSI in 1989) [Tr. 6-10-87, pp. 197-199].
There were few comments on proposed paragraph (c)(2). The TVA (Ex.
2-20) commented that OSHA should include criteria on rigging supports
to extend safety nets the required distance. OSHA observes that the
rigging supports are considered part of the total safety net system for
which OSHA has specified criteria. The Builders Association of Missouri
(Ex. 2-42) commented that the cost would be increased to extend the
nets the proposed distance of 15 feet and the danger to workers would
increase. (The commenter did not explain how workers would be at
increased risk.)
In addition, the Building Trades Employee Association of Boston and
Eastern Massachusetts, Inc. (Ex. 2-26) stated that in many cases an
employer will not have 15 feet of horizontal space at the perimeter of
a building in which to construct a safety net system, due to the
proximity of other structures. OSHA agrees that there may be
circumstances where it is not possible to have a safety net system
extend far enough to satisfy the extension requirements of the proposal
or the final rule. Under those circumstances, employers would have to
select another fall protection system.
OSHA points out that employers have the choice of two other fall
protection systems--guardrail systems or personal fall arrest systems--
when safety net systems cannot be installed in a way that will comply
with Sec. 1926.502(c). The purpose of this section is merely to set out
the criteria that must be followed when safety nets are chosen by the
employer to meet the duty to provide fall protection set in
Sec. 1926.501.
OSHA raised Issue M-4 in the hearing notice [53 FR 2048], asking
for input regarding the ACCSH safety net recommendation. In the Issue,
OSHA discussed the concerns of ACCSH regarding the above-mentioned
study performed by the National Bureau of Standards which indicated
that nets which extended only 8 feet from a structure would not catch
someone who had fallen 25 feet [Tr. 6/10/87; pp. 198-199]. Issue M-4
also discussed the draft document of the ANSI A10.11 Committee
(Personnel and Debris Nets) which would replace the current ANSI
Standard on Safety Nets in which ANSI varies the horizontal distance of
the net, depending on the vertical distance from the walking/working
surface to the net. There was no testimony or other information
submitted in relation to Issue M-4.
Paragraph (c)(3) requires nets to be rigged with sufficient
clearance under them to prevent contact with the lower level when the
net is subjected to the impact forces specified in paragraph (c)(4).
This is basically the same requirement as in existing
Sec. 1926.105(c)(l), and the proposed rule. There were no comments on
the proposed provision.
Paragraph (c)(4) specifies the capacity requirements for safety
nets and safety net installations. The paragraph requires employers
either to show that nets and net installations meet the capacity
requirements by conducting drop tests meeting designated criteria or,
when an employer can demonstrate that drop testing is not feasible or
practicable, certify, based on information received from a qualified
person, that the net and net installation meet all specified criteria.
One example of where a drop test may not be feasible or practicable is
when the net is strung over a public thoroughfare and the test could
endanger people below. Another example is where the test weight cannot
be readily retrieved from the net once it has been dropped.
For the purposes of paragraph (c)(4), OSHA considers two or more
net panels joined together to be one net. Safety net installations
which do not share the same net are considered to be separate systems.
In addition, each time a safety net system is erected, it is considered
to be a separate installation which must be tested or certified. This
is a clarification of existing Sec. 1926.105(b), which requires all net
installations to be drop-tested. Paragraph (c)(4)(i) sets forth the
criteria for performing drop tests on net installations. In most
respects, these criteria are the same as the requirements in section 8
of ANSI A10.11-1979, proposed paragraph (c)(4)(i), and section 8 of
ANSI A10.11-1989, except that the final rule requires the test to be
conducted from a level at least 42 inches (1.1 m) above the highest
walking/working surface on which employees are to be protected as
opposed to the 25-foot height required by ANSI, so that the test more
closely resembles the type of fall from which the worker is to be
protected. OSHA believes the use of a 400-pound weight to test the
system will ensure that a proper margin of safety is obtained. OSHA
also notes that in the proposal the drop test would have been conducted
by dropping the weight from the highest walking/working level on which
employees were to have been protected. The final rule adds 42 inches to
this height to take into consideration the center of gravity of the
95th percentile man and also to take into consideration those
situations where the net is installed at the same level from which the
employee is to be protected.
There were several comments on proposed paragraph (c)(4),
particularly with regard to the exception proposed in paragraph
(c)(4)(ii). The ISEA (Ex. 2-23) objected to the proposed certification
in lieu of drop test provision, stating that nets will probably rarely
undergo an actual drop test. As indicated above, OSHA will allow
certification only when the employer can demonstrate that it is not
feasible or practicable to conduct a drop test. The ISEA also stated
that prototype tests should be required, stating that on-the-job drop
test could weaken the nets. However, OSHA is concerned with the total
system (i.e., the net and the net installation) and prototype tests do
not address the Agency's concern.
NIOSH (Ex. 2-33) suggested that OSHA clarify whether testing will
be required each time the safety net is moved to a different location
at the job site. It was OSHA's intent that a net be tested or certified
whenever it is newly installed at a location before it is allowed to be
used for fall protection system. OSHA has rewritten the provision to
make it clear that nets must be drop-tested at the jobsite following
initial installation; whenever nets are relocated; whenever a major
repair to the net has been made; and at 6 month intervals when the net
has been left in the same location.
The Building Association of Missouri (Ex. 2-42) commented that
``Drop tests should not be required nor even allowed on nets.'' They
stated their belief that drop tests make nets unsafe, citing the
requirement in existing Sec. 1926.104(a) that employers remove a
lanyard from service if it has been subjected to in-service loading.
Based on its experience with fall protection systems, the Agency has
come to the conclusion that safety nets, unlike lanyards, can remain in
use after loading if the pertinent criteria can still be satisfied.
CAL/OSHA (Ex. 2-15) commented that the certification requirements
were unclear. OSHA has revised proposed paragraph (c)(4)(ii) to be
specific in how and who must certify the net and net installation.
In addition, the MSA (Ex. 2-35) recommended that after the net
installation test, the net section should be examined by a qualified
person and replaced if needed. OSHA notes that paragraph (c)(5), either
as proposed, or as revised in the final rule (see below), effectively
requires the inspection of nets and replacement of defective components
necessary to ensure that nets are always in safe condition.
Paragraph (c)(5) prohibits the use of defective nets and requires
safety net systems to be inspected at least once a week for wear,
damage, or other deterioration. The provision also requires inspection
after any occurrence which could affect the integrity of the safety net
system. Defective components must be removed from service. This
provision was proposed as a new requirement. Issue #9 of the proposal
asked if the proposed frequency of inspection was appropriate. The
Issue noted that similar requirements had been proposed for body belt/
harness systems and positioning device systems.
There were several comments relating to the appropriate frequency
of net inspection. The ACCSH recommended that nets be inspected weekly
or whenever any object has been dropped into the net that is of such
weight that it might damage the net. (Tr. 6/10/87, pp. 130-131.) The
National Constructors Association (NCA) and the ANSI Z359 Committee
(Exs. 2-45 and 2-50) commented that the frequency of inspection was
appropriate as proposed. The NCA, however, noted its opposition to
added paperwork.
WMACSA, (Ex. 2-56), stated that record should be maintained of the
results of the weekly inspection. Other comments, including Bristol
Steel, AGC, and NEA, stated that weekly inspection, itself, was not
necessary; that nets should be maintained in a satisfactory condition;
and that weekly inspection would impose recordkeeping burdens without
enhancing employee safety. (Exs. 2-12, 2-16, 2-43, 2-46, 2-47, 2-51 and
2-92).
OSHA has determined that while keeping records of inspections may
assist employers in meeting their obligations under this paragraph,
maintaining records of net inspections will not directly enhance
employee safety. It is the routine performance of the inspection and
the removal of any defective components that leads to employee safety.
Thus, OSHA has revised the language of the final rule to prohibit the
use of defective nets and to require that nets be inspected at least
once a week to determine their condition. If any defects are discovered
at the time of inspection, the defective components must be removed and
replaced. OSHA is making the slight language modification because it
realizes that although once a week inspections should ordinarily be
sufficient to detect any net defects, there are some circumstances that
may require employers to conduct more frequent inspection. For example,
as ACCSH mentioned, when large weights have fallen into the net, the
net must be inspected. Or, as Dr. Nigel Ellis stated in his comment
(Ex. 2-36): ``Inspection should be regular and at frequent intervals
depending on the use and environment.''
The BCMALU (Ex. 2-46) noted that, ``where high winds or storms or
hazardous chemicals have been used in the area, it becomes a necessity
to inspect the safety nets as often as may be needed.'' Consequently,
the revised language requires inspection at least weekly and as often
as necessary to ensure that defective nets are not used.
Paragraph (c)(6) requires debris and tools to be removed as soon as
possible from the net, but not later than the start of the next work
shift. Such materials pose safety hazards to anyone who falls into the
net. This provision was also proposed as a new requirement. The one
commenter on the proposed provision, (Ex. 2-26), stated that the
proposed requirement created a serious safety hazard and suggested that
OSHA reconsider the proposed language. OSHA considers clearing the net
of debris necessary to prevent injury to workers who may fall into the
net and believes this task can be performed without undue risk to
employees. Therefore, OSHA promulgates paragraph (c)(6) as proposed.
Paragraph (c)(7) specifies the maximum allowable mesh opening,
limiting the size of the opening to a maximum of 36 square inches. This
requirement is the same as the proposed requirement. Existing
Sec. 1926.105(d) also provides for a maximum of 6 inches (15 cm) on any
side of an opening, but did not explicitly limit the size of the
opening. OSHA proposed the limit because mesh openings can be
manufactured with more than four 6-inch sides; and a limit of 36 square
inches is necessary to ensure that an employee's head cannot go into it
during a fall, possibly breaking the employee's neck. This requirement
is essentially identical with that in paragraph 6.3 of ANSI A10.11-
1989, Personnel and Debris Nets. There were no comments on the proposed
provision.
Paragraph (c)(8) specifies a minimum breaking strength of 5,000
pounds for border ropes used for net webbing. This requirement is
essentially the same as in the proposal and in existing
Sec. 1926.105(d). There were no comments on the proposed provision.
Paragraph (c)(9) requires connections between net panels to be as
strong as integral components and to be spaced not more than 6 inches
apart. This provision is identical to the proposed provision. Existing
Sec. 1926.105(f), in effect, sets the same strength requirement as
paragraph (c)(9), but does not contain a 6-inch spacing requirement.
OSHA proposed this as a new requirement, basing it on paragraph 9.3 of
the ANSI A10.11-1979. OSHA notes that this requirement is also
consistent with paragraph 10.4 of the ANSI A10.11-1989.
The NEA (Ex. 2-43) commented that the new ANSI A10.11 safety net
standard required a 1-foot spacing between connectors (rather than 6
inches as OSHA proposed) when two nets were joined together, and that
the OSHA requirement should be consistent with the ANSI requirement
which has the support of contractors and net manufacturers. OSHA notes
that, as discussed above, ANSI specifies 6-inch (15 cm) spacing, thus
OSHA's requirement is consistent with the ANSI A10.11 standard.
The requirement in existing Sec. 1926.105(d) that all new nets must
meet accepted performance standards of 17,500 foot-pounds minimum
impact resistance, as determined and certified by the manufacturer, was
proposed to be deleted as it applied only to the net itself, and not to
the complete net installation. OSHA believes the important
consideration is the safety net system as a whole, and that the
provisions of paragraph (c)(4) of this section are sufficient to assure
proper safety for employees. The best net can be rendered useless by an
improper installation. For these same reasons, the existing
Sec. 1926.105(d) requirement for a label of proof test was also
proposed to be deleted. In addition, existing Sec. 1926.105(e)
requiring forged steel safety hooks or shackles to fasten nets to
supports was proposed to be deleted. The existing rule is unduly
specific as there are other acceptable methods such as wire rope to
fasten nets to supports. OSHA received no comments on those proposed
deletions and has proceeded to make those deletions in the final rule.
Paragraph (d)--Personal fall arrest systems. This paragraph
replaces all of the existing provisions in Sec. 1926.104--Safety Belts,
Lifelines, and Lanyards and relocates coverage of personal fall arrest
systems to revised subpart M. This is being done as part of the
consolidation of fall protection requirements for construction.
There have been a number of revisions to the proposed requirements
for body belt/harness systems. First, the title of the paragraph has
been changed to ``personal fall arrest systems.'' The reason for this
change was explained in the definitions section, where OSHA discussed
its substitution of the term ``personal fall arrest systems'' for
``body belt/harness systems.'' Many provisions have been revised,
relocated or added as discussed below.
Second, OSHA is phasing out, and then prohibiting, the use of body
belts as a component of personal fall arrest systems. After December
31, 1997, body belts will no longer be permitted for use in a personal
fall arrest system. They will, however, continue to be acceptable for
use as part of a positioning device system [See paragraph (e)] or as a
part of a ladder safety device system required in subpart X of part
1926 since positioning device systems and ladder safety device systems
are not used to arrest a fall. The Agency recognizes that an immediate
ban on the use of body belts in personal fall arrest systems would
impose unreasonable burdens on employers. OSHA believes this phase out
period will allow all body belts currently in use to be used through
their life expectancy, eliminating any economic burdens to employers
and permitting manufacturers to prepare to meet the demand for body
harnesses.
In Issue #14 of the proposal, OSHA discussed various reports and
studies which recommended restricting or banning the use of body belts.
Also in Issue #14, OSHA solicited information on whether it should
restrict the use of body belts as personal fall arrest systems and also
asked for additional information on the effects of prolonged suspension
in a body belt among other questions. OSHA referenced a number of
studies in the proposal (Exs. 3-7, 3-9, and 3-10) which indicated that
persons suspended in body belts suffer internal injuries and cannot
tolerate suspension long enough to allow for retrieval. The rulemaking
record for Powered Platforms also contained studies (Docket S-700, Exs.
11-3, 11-4, 11-5, 11-6, 2/21-42) which indicated that the initial fall
impact and pressure exerted during suspension made body belts
inappropriate for use in a personal fall arrest system. OSHA notes that
all comments received on the proposed rule for powered platforms were
referenced in the proposal for subpart M (Ex. 3-13).
In response, OSHA received a number of comments including several
that requested their comments from the Powered Platforms rule be
considered (Exs. 2-23, 2-36, and 2-50). A number of commenters
indicated their belief that the biggest problem with a ban on the use
of body belts would be worker acceptance (Exs. 2-6, 2-9, 2-19, and 2-
41). Typical of such comments were ``It is hard enough to get the
typical construction worker to wear a safety belt let alone a full
harness * * * a harness, which is more uncomfortable than the belt * *
* would have more resistance from workers to wear them * * *'' (Ex. 2-
9). Other commenters (Exs. 2-16, 2-27, and 2-51) noted that they
currently use body belts and have not had any problems. The AGC (Exs.
2-16, 2-47, 2-92, and 2-103) stated that body belts have been used with
``only positive results'' and that it would be appropriate to let
employers choose between body belt and body harness. The commenter did
note specific circumstances (manholes and small diameter tanks) where
it agreed that employees would be better protected through the use of
body harnesses. Also, commenters (Exs. 2-19, and 2-140) indicated that
compliance with the proposed rule (Sec. 1926.502(d)) would provide
adequate protection for employees using body belts in personal fall
arrest systems. OSHA also points out that these comments were made
before 1988 and since that time, many changes have taken place in the
construction industry. Another commenter (Ex. 2-154) stated that OSHA
should allow continued use of body belts for fall protection except
where ``a person is working alone or could not be readily rescued.''
USTAG (Ex. 9-33 in the powered platform rulemaking record), stated
the following, among other comments:
The restriction on forces for body belt and chest-waist harness
systems is based on our serious concern about the suitability of
body supports other than the full body harness with a sub-pelvic
(buttocks) support as well as other design considerations. There is
a growing body of evidence which points to hazards related to the
use of body supports other than an appropriate fully body harness.
Studies performed in Europe and by the U.S. Air Force indicate high
risks associated with the body belt in both fall arrest and
suspension modes. Further, the possibility of falling out of a body
belt and chest-waist harness is significant and has appeared in
accident reports.
For these reasons we recommend that use of body belts and chest-
waist harnesses be restricted to a free fall distance of two feet
and an actual loading of 900 pounds.
USTAG also noted that British standards impose restrictions on the body
belt; French standards prohibit the use of body belts; German standards
essentially prohibit the use of body belts, except in certain
applications, and that the draft ISO standards put conditions on the
use of body belts.
OSHA received a number of comments (Exs. 2-3, 2-20, 2-36, 2-46, 2-
50, 2-89, and 2-135) which supported a prohibition on the use of body
belts for fall arrest. For example, one commenter (Ex. 2-3) stated
``The use of body belt systems should be prohibited in favor of body
harness systems. There is a possibility of back injuries associated
with the use of safety belts.'' Another commenter (Ex. 2-89) stated,
``Members of the SSFI would recommend the following: a) Body Belts be
used as a work positioning device; and, b) Body Harnesses should be
referred to as a fall arrest device.''
OSHA believes that U.S. workers should be afforded the same level
of protection as workers of other nations, and that the evidence in the
record clearly demonstrates that employees who fall while wearing a
body belt are not afforded the level of protection they would be if the
fall occurred while the employee was wearing a full body harness. In
addition, RTC (Ex. 2-36) presented evidence of injuries resulting from
the use of body belts. The best available evidence the Agency has at
this time requires it to ban the use of body belts as part of a
personal fall arrest system after a reasonable period to allow existing
belts to be worn out. While the ban of body belts begins January 1,
1998, OSHA encourages employers to phase out the use of body belts in
personal fall arrest systems as soon as possible so that employees may
be spared exposure to the injuries which have resulted from body belt
use.
In addition, OSHA points out that paragraph (d)(16) requires that
personal fall arrest systems, when stopping a fall, to limit maximum
arresting forces on the employee to 900 pounds (4 kN) when using a body
belt. Thus, employers who continue to use body belts until the ban,
must rig the system to ensure that fall arrest forces are at or below
900 pounds. Essentially this will require limiting the free fall
distance, the use of shock absorbing lanyards and other measures to
meet the criteria for using body belts as part of a personal fall
arrest system.
Today, many employers permit only the use of body harnesses, having
recognized the limits of body belts. While OSHA has no direct record
evidence to support this claim, it has received much informal
communication from employers and from manufacturers which indicate that
there is already a movement toward the use of body harness instead of
body belts for fall arrest situations. In addition, worker acceptance
of body harnesses has grown in the years since OSHA first proposed its
fall protection rules in November 1986. As more and more prudent
employers have, on their own, prohibited the use of body belts,
compliance with and acceptance of the use of body harnesses has become
increasingly routine. OSHA is also aware of efforts by segments of the
fall protection equipment manufacturing community to develop a personal
fall arrest system that is lighter and hence will increase worker
comfort and proportionately increase worker acceptance and use of body
harnesses.
In addition, CAL/OSHA (Ex. 2-15) suggested that OSHA require
permanent marking of all personal fall arrest system components with
information that assures compliance with the pertinent standards, so
that persons responsible for providing this equipment are spared the
``substantial financial burden'' of verifying compliance. OSHA notes
that such a requirement would not add to the inherent safety of the
personal fall arrest system components. In addition, based on the
response to Issue #18, discussed below in relation to
Sec. 1926.502(d)(4) of the final rule, OSHA believes that equipment
manufacturers are already voluntarily marking their products.
Accordingly, any benefit resulting from addition of such a requirement
would be minimal. Therefore, OSHA has not added the suggested language.
Paragraph (d)(1) (proposed as paragraph (d)(9)) requires connectors
to be drop forged, pressed or formed steel, or made of equivalent
materials. This provision is essentially the same as the proposed
requirement except that the term ``hardware'' was used in the proposed
rule and the term ``connectors'' is used in the final rule. The reason
for the change in the term was discussed above under the Definitions
section. There were no comments on the substantive portion of the
proposed provision.
Paragraph (d)(2) (proposed as paragraph (d)(10)) requires
connectors to have a corrosion-resistant finish, and all surfaces and
edges to be smooth to prevent damage to interfacing parts of the
system. This provision is essentially the same as the proposed
provision except that, as explained above, the term connector is being
used instead of the term hardware.
In response to a comment in the powered platform rulemaking (Ex. 3-
13), the proposal raised Issue #22 to solicit comments, with supporting
information, regarding the need to quantify the corrosion resistance
requirements applying the ASTM Salt Spray Testing Standard.
Some commenters (Exs. 2-12, 2-43 and 2-89) stated that the proposed
requirement for corrosion resistance was sufficient. One commenter
recommended ``* * * that hardware be tested to ASTM B-117-73, a
nationally recognized test method to determine corrosion resistance.''
Another commenter (Ex. 2-36) stated ``[s]alt spray preconditioning of
hardware is reasonable prior to static tensile strength tests.'' Also,
a commenter (Ex. 2-50) stated ``[c]orrosion-resistance requirements
should be quantified. Reference to the appropriate part of the ASTM
Salt Spray Testing standard should be considered.''
OSHA has determined that the proposed language provides adequate
guidance to employers regarding the selection of corrosion-resistant
hardware and that a requirement for salt spray testing would be
unnecessary. Accordingly, the Agency has not adopted the recommended
language from Issue #22.
Paragraph (d)(3) requires that dee-rings and snaphooks have a
minimum breaking strength of 5,000 pounds (22.2 kN). This provision
corresponds to the final rule for Powered Platforms and is based on
proposed paragraph (d)(16) which required that all components of body
belt/harness systems whose strength was not otherwise specified (i.e.
``hardware'') to be capable of supporting a minimum fall impact load of
5,000 pounds (22.2kN). As noted above, the term hardware was used in
the proposal to describe dee-rings and snaphooks, etc. This provision
is consistent with the related provisions and replaces existing
Sec. 1926.104(f), which requires that all hardware be capable of
withstanding a tensile load of 4,000 pounds, but which does not specify
where the 4,000 pound load is to be applied. There were no comments
relating to this provision.
Paragraph (d)(4), which was not part of the proposed rule, requires
that dee-rings and snaphooks be 100 percent proof-tested to a minimum
tensile load of 3,600 pounds (16 kN) without cracking, breaking, or
taking permanent deformation. Issues 18, 20, and 24 of the proposed
rule requested information on proper testing of personal fall arrest
system components. Issue 18 solicited comments regarding the level of
testing, in general, needed for personal fall arrest systems and system
components and information regarding current industry practice. Issue
20 discussed suggestions from participants in the powered platform
rulemaking that OSHA require dynamic and static strength testing of
dee-rings and snaphooks and solicited input regarding the need for such
testing and the availability of recognized test methods. Issue 24
specifically requested comments regarding the need for 100 percent
proof-testing and suggestions for possible implementation.
Some commenters on Issue 18 (Exs. 2-12, 2-43 and 2-45) stated that
OSHA should set mandatory testing and labeling of prototypes to ensure
that individual components comply. Two of those commenters, Bristol
Steel and the NEA, (Exs. 2-12 and 2-43) also stated that testing of
complete systems should be non-mandatory, left to the discretion of the
manufacturer. The ISEA and MSA (Exs. 2-23 and 2-35) stated that most
manufacturers of fall protection equipment test and label their
products according to the ANSI A10.14-1975, ``Requirements for Safety
Belts, Harnesses, Lanyards, Lifelines and Drop Lines for Construction
and Industrial Use.'' In particular, the ISEA (Ex. 2-23) stated that
``qualification testing should be mandatory and * * * should be
monitored by an independent third-party organization. * * *'' Also, the
R&TC a commenter (Ex. 2-36) stated that it ``tests equipment according
to the subpart M requirements and labels according to draft 1910.129 at
present.'' In addition, NIOSH (Ex. 2-33) stated that ``[m]anufacturers
* * * are * * * testing to existing and proposed standards and
regulations. The need exists for a single standard for testing of
equipment whether it is employed in construction or general industry.''
Two commenters (Exs. 2-36 and 2-50) who addressed Issue 20
supported a requirement for testing. In particular, the ANSI Z359
Committee (Ex. 2-50) recommended that OSHA require 100 percent proof-
testing at 3,600 pounds to ensure that the strength requirement was
met. The commenter stated that heat treating and other manufacturing
processes used did not always produce dee-rings and snap-hooks with the
necessary strength.
In response to Issue 24, several commenters (Exs. 2-12, 2-23, 2-41,
2-43, and 2-45) stated that manufacturers should have the
responsibility for testing their products. Another commenter (Ex. 2-35)
stated that testing should focus on finished systems, not on
components. Also, a commenter (Ex. 2-36) stated that 100 percent
testing at 5,000 pounds would impose an unreasonable cost burden
because hardware might break on its second proof loading. That
commenter also noted that there is evidence that snaphooks in fall
protection systems have broken due to low strength.
The Agency has determined that proof-testing 100 percent at 3600
pounds will provide appropriate reassurance that the hardware has the
necessary strength for use in a personal fall arrest system. OSHA has
revised the proposed rule accordingly. OSHA has already adopted this
approach in Sec. 1910.66, Appendix C, Section I--Mandatory and has
proposed to adopt it in proposed Sec. 1910.128(c)(7), as well (55 FR
13436, April 10, 1990).
Paragraph (d)(5), which is a new provision, requires that employers
either use snaphooks that are sized to be compatible with the members
to which they are connected, or use locking type snaphooks which have
been designed to prevent disengagement. The Agency considers a hook to
be compatible in size where the diameter of the dee-ring to which the
snaphook is attached is greater than the inside length of the snaphook
measured from the bottom (hinged end) of the snaphook keeper to the
inside curve of the top of the snaphook, so that no matter how the dee-
ring is positioned or moved (rolls) with the snaphook attached, the
dee-ring cannot touch the outside of the keeper so as to depress it
open. The intent of this requirement is to prevent unintentional
disengagement (roll out) of the snaphook. This provision also prohibits
the use of nonlocking snaphooks after December 31, 1997.
Issue 16 of the proposed rule addressed the design criteria for
snaphooks, particularly with regard to the prevention of ``roll out''
(where snaphooks become accidentally disengaged during use). The Agency
discussed information it had received regarding the need to mandate the
use of locking snaphooks. Some input indicated that such a mandate was
appropriate, while other informants suggested that properly designed
and properly applied single action (nonlocking) snaphooks should be
acceptable. OSHA requested suggestions, information and supporting
rationale as to the type of snaphook that should be allowed.
A number of commenters (Exs. 2-12, 2-16, 2-19, 2-23, 2-35, 2-43, 2-
45, 2-47 and 2-92) responded that there was no reason to bar the use of
single-action snaphooks. Some (Exs. 2-23 and 2-45) contended that such
a ban would be unreasonably expensive. Others (Exs. 2-12 and 2-43)
stated that the increased hardware cost was ``an insignificant
consideration,'' but that properly designed and applied single-action
snaphooks have not posed problems. Another commenter (Ex. 2-35), stated
``When used with a correctly matched dee ring, the assembly is as safe
as any locking snaphook assembly * * * The possibility of misuse
exists, as some detractors have noted, but locking snaphooks are just
as subject to misuse.'' Testimony favoring the continued use of single-
action snaphooks was presented at the rulemaking hearings (Tr. 144-146,
3-22-88). That testimony, however, also acknowledges that the use of
locking snaphooks facilitated the interchangeability of system
components.
Several commenters (Exs. 2-36, 2-41, 2-50 and 2-89) recommended
that OSHA mandate the use of locking snaphooks, citing the roll-out
problems experienced with single-action snaphooks. Two commenters (Exs.
2-36 and 2-50) provided information which indicated that locking
snaphooks were superior to single-action snaphooks in minimizing roll-
out accidents. In addition, the State of Maryland (Ex. 2-31) stated, in
response to proposed paragraph (d)(19), ``Roll out is usually caused by
an oversized hook. If the hook is matched to the dee ring, then roll
out should not occur.''
OSHA has determined, based on the rulemaking record, that in
general, locking snaphooks provide a higher level of protection to
employees than the single-action (nonlocking) type of snaphooks. Based
on the above discussion, the Agency has determined that it is
reasonably necessary to require the use of locking snaphooks, designed
to prevent roll-out in personal fall arrest systems or in positioning
device systems (See Sec. 1926.502(e)(7) of the final rule). In order to
avoid imposing undue hardship on employers who already have non-locking
snaphooks, the Agency will permit the continued use a non-locking
snaphooks until December 31, 1997. OSHA believes, based on informal
communication with manufacturers of snaphooks, that all of the
nonlocking snaphooks currently in use will be worn out within the 3
years and recommends that those worn out prior to that time be replaced
with the locking type snaphooks. The more than 3 year phaseout allowed
by this standard will eliminate any cost burdens on employers and is
well within the life expectancy of equipment currently in use. OSHA
notes this phaseout corresponds with the phase out period for the use
of body belts as part of a personal fall arrest system. Therefore, the
Agency has added paragraph (d)(5) to the final rule, requiring one or
the other condition (locking snaphook or compatibly sized as described
above) be met. Aside from the phaseout of nonlocking snaphooks, OSHA
has already adopted a similar approach in Sec. 1910.66, Appendix C,
Section I--Mandatory, and has proposed to adopt it in proposed
Sec. 1910.128(c)(8) (55 FR 13436, April 10, 1990).
Paragraph (d)(6) limits the use of snaphooks for certain
connections unless the snaphook is a locking type, designed for those
connections. Only locking snaphooks designed to be connected directly
to webbing, rope or wire rope; to other snaphooks; to a dee-ring that
already has another snaphook, or other connector attached; to a
horizontal lifeline; or to any object that could depress the snaphook
keeper because it is incompatibly sized or dimensioned in relation to
the snaphook can be used for these connections. This provision reflects
OSHA's determination that certain connections increase the likelihood
of rollout and that only locking snaphooks specifically designed for
such connections are needed to provide adequate assurance of employee
safety. Accordingly, even before outright prohibiting the use of
nonlocking snaphooks, OSHA is limited the circumstances in which they
can be used.
Proposed paragraphs (d)(17), (18) and (19) prohibited snaphook
engagement to webbing, to other snaphooks and to a dee-ring with
another snaphook attached, respectively, based on the Agency's concern
about roll-out.
One commenter (Ex. 2-31) stated, regarding proposed paragraph
(d)(19), ``[i] n many instances to hook back to the dee ring is the
only way to shorten the lanyard. OSHA should take this into
consideration; weigh the hazard of rollout and how often it occurs to
the hazard of falling a full six feet and being stopped by a lanyard.''
As discussed above in relation to paragraph (d)(5) of the final rule,
the same commenter noted that rollout is usually caused by an oversized
hook so rollout would not occur when the hook and dee-ring were
compatibly sized and other commenters (Exs. 2-36 and 2-50) stated that
only locking snaphooks should be permitted, because the locking
mechanism prevents roll-out or inadvertent disengagement. In
particular, one commenter (Ex. 2-50) suggested that OSHA prohibit the
engagement of single action snaphooks to horizontal lifelines and to
incompatibly sized or dimensioned objects because of roll-out and
disengagement concerns.
OSHA agrees that locking snaphooks provide the most adequate
assurance against roll-out or inadvertent disengagement for the
specified uses and that efforts to match the size of a single-action
snaphook to its connection will not provide adequate assurance that the
hook will remain attached to that connection under foreseeable
conditions in use. OSHA has revised the proposed provisions
accordingly. The Agency acknowledges that this provision will have no
application after January 1, 1998, because after that time, non-locking
snaphooks will not be used for any purposes. OSHA has already adopted
this approach in Sec. 1910.66, Appendix C, Section I--Mandatory, and
has proposed to adopt it in proposed Sec. 1910.128(c)(1) (55 FR 13436,
April 10, 1990).
Paragraph (d)(7) requires a device used to connect to a horizontal
lifeline which may become a vertical lifeline to be capable of locking
in both directions on the lifeline. This provision applies only when
horizontal lifelines are used on suspended scaffolds or similar work
platforms, and the horizontal lifeline would become a vertical lifeline
if the scaffold or platform were to fall. This provision, which was not
proposed, has been added in response to comments (Ex. 2-36 and 3-13)
which pointed out that employees attached to a horizontal lifeline
would face a fall hazard if either end of the horizontal lifeline
support failed and the line became a vertical lifeline. In particular,
OSHA notes that, potentially, a rope grab which did not lock in both
directions on the lifeline would fail to hold, allowing the employee to
fall to a lower level. OSHA has already adopted this approach in
Sec. 1910.66, Appendix C, Section I--Mandatory, and has proposed to
adopt it in proposed Sec. 1910.128(c)(2) (55 FR 13436, April 10, 1990).
Paragraph (d)(8) requires that horizontal lifelines be designed,
installed and used, under the supervision of a qualified person, as
part of a complete personal fall arrest system which maintains a safety
factor of at least two. Proposed paragraph (d)(14) would have required
horizontal lifelines to have the tensile strength to support a fall
impact load of 5,000 pounds, per employee using the lifeline, applied
anywhere along the lifeline. Issue 25 of the NPRM solicited comments
and information regarding the need to require that horizontal lifeline
subsystems be designed by ``qualified persons'' and to provide more
specific guidance for employers using horizontal lifelines.
Two commenters on proposed paragraph (d)(14) (Exs. 2-23 and 2-35)
asserted that the proposed rule did not adequately take into account
the differences between vertical and horizontal lifelines. In
particular, one commenter (Ex. 2-23) stated:
The physics of the horizontal lifeline system are such that a
line suitable for a vertical lifeline could be rigged so as to be
completely inadequate for a horizontal lifeline. Since this is not
necessarily obvious, earlier OSHA drafts included a chart specifying
tensile strength versus angle of sag. Inclusion of this chart could
avoid tragic mistakes and should be included in this section.
Another commenter (Ex. 2-89) stated:
The 5000# tensile strength is not applicable to all situations
and had been developed from the ANSI A10.14 Committee which is now
withdrawn from being an ANSI standard. It would be the
recommendation of the SSFI that lifelines be capable of an anchorage
equal to 2 (two) times the maximum arrest force.
Some commenters on Issue 25 (Exs. 2-12, 2-43, and 2-45) stated that
OSHA should not add more detail to the proposed paragraph or require
``qualified'' persons. In addition, two commenters (Exs. 2-12 and 2-43)
asserted that the proposed 5,000 pound tensile strength requirement was
too restrictive and was infeasible, adding that a system able to
support twice the impact load, as provided in proposed paragraph
(d)(12), should be allowed.
Other commenters who responded to Issue 25 (Exs. 2-23, 2-36, and 2-
50) stated that more detailed guidance was needed for proper use of
horizontal lifelines. Also, two commenters (Exs. 2-35 and 2-89)
asserted that the person designated to supervise work performed under
proposed paragraph (d)(14) should be a ``competent person.'' OSHA notes
that a ``competent person'' as defined in Sec. 1926.32(f) has the
ability to recognize hazards and the authority to have them corrected,
but does not necessarily have the technical capability to resolve the
safety issue. Such capability is included in the definition of a
``qualified'' person as defined in Sec. 1926.32(l). The Agency believes
that this provision warrants the services of a person who is both
qualified to design, install and use horizontal lifelines and
authorized to have the problem corrected. OSHA believes, therefore,
that the language in the final rule that requires a ``qualified
person'' with supervisory authority will address the concerns of the
commenters.
Paragraph (d)(9) (proposed as paragraphs (d)(13) and (d)(15))
requires lanyards and vertical lifelines to have a minimum breaking
strength of 5,000 pounds (22.2kN). This provision is essentially the
same as the two separate proposed provisions except that the final
provisions uses the term ``breaking strength'' instead of the term
``tensile strength'' used in the proposed provisions. OSHA has made
this editorial change to clearly indicate the intent of the provision.
Proposed paragraph (d)(13) also provided that self-retracting lifelines
and lanyards that limited free-fall to 2 feet or less were required to
have a tensile strength of 3,000 pounds. That language has been
relocated to paragraph (d)(12) of the final rule. The SSFI (Ex. 2-89)
commented that the 5000 lb. tensile strength for vertical lifelines ``*
* * is not applicable to all situations * * *'' and recommended that
OSHA require ``* * * lifelines be capable of an anchorage equal to 2
(two) times the maximum arrest force.'' The SSFI did not specify which
situations the 5,000 pound requirement was not applicable. OSHA notes
that the anchorage requirement is discussed under paragraph (d)(15)
below. Another commenter (Ex. 2-50) recommended that compliance with
the proposed 5000 pound tensile strength requirement be evaluated using
Federal Standard 191 Test Method 6015 or 6016. The Agency is not aware
of any reason to specify the use of the above mentioned test methods,
nor did the commenter provide any such reasons. Therefore, OSHA has not
made the suggested change.
Paragraph (d)(10) (proposed as paragraph (d)(11) prohibits more
than one employee being attached to any one lifeline, except as
provided in paragraph (d)(10)(ii). The exception allows two employees
to be attached to the same lifeline during construction of elevators,
provided the employees are working atop a false car that is equipped
with guardrails and the breaking strength of the lifeline has been
increased to 10,000 pounds [5,000 pounds per worker attached] and all
other criteria of paragraph (d) for personal fall arrest systems has
been met. This exception recognizes the potential for a greater hazard
(entanglement) in the elevator shaft with the additional lifeline.
There was one comment on this provision. The National Elevator
Industry, Inc. (NEII) (Ex. 2-11) stated as follows:
In the Elevator Industry, work in hoistway is performed by a
team of two employees. This is a relatively small area and work is
usually performed at the same level from a false car that is
equipped with guardrails. The Lifeline/Safety Belt system provides
protection in the event of a catastrophic failure of the false car
system. Under these circumstances, the Elevator Industry feels that
if a lifeline had adequate breaking strength for supporting two
employees then one lifeline would be sufficient. The employees
working at the same level on a false car that is equipped with
guardrails would virtually eliminate the chance of one pulling
another off the false car. The small area of an elevator hoistway
makes the use of multiple lifelines impractical due to the chances
for entanglement, etc.
OSHA has observed the working conditions described above and agrees
that NEII's recommended alternative measures will provide appropriate
fall protection for the affected employees. OSHA has incorporated these
measures into paragraph (d)(10)(ii) of the final rule.
Paragraph (d)(11) (proposed as paragraph (d)(3)) requires lifelines
to be protected against being cut or abraded. This provision which is
identical to the proposed provision, is based on existing
Sec. 1926.104(e). A commenter, (Ex. 2-89), suggested that the proposed
provision be reviewed for ``* * * consistency and that the term
``lifeline'' could be used with another term, i.e., ``dropline * * *''
OSHA has eliminated the terms ``dropline'' and ``trolley line'' to
avoid confusion. The terms vertical lifeline and horizontal lifeline
are used and both are required by this provision to be protected
against being cut or abraded. Therefore, OSHA promulgates paragraph
(d)(11) as proposed.
Paragraph (d)(12) (proposed as part of paragraph (d)(13)) requires
that, when in the fully extended position, self-retracting lifelines
and lanyards which automatically limit free fall distance to 2 feet or
less be capable of sustaining a minimum tensile load of 3,000 pounds
(13.3 kN). This provision is essentially the same as the proposed rule
except that it has been editorially revised to make it clear that the
3000 pounds is to be determined by applying the load while the lifeline
or lanyard is in the fully extended position. There were no comments on
this provision of the proposed rule.
Paragraph (d)(13) of the final rule requires that, when in the
fully extended position, self-retracting lifelines and lanyards which
do not limit free fall to two feet or less, as well as ripstitch,
tearing and deforming lanyards, be capable of sustaining a minimum
tensile load of 5,000 pounds (22.2 kN). Proposed paragraph (d)(13) set
a general requirement for vertical lifelines to have 5,000 pounds
tensile strength, except where self-retracting lifelines and lanyards
automatically limited free fall to two feet or less. The other
provisions of the proposed paragraph have been relocated to paragraphs
(d)(9) and (d)(12) of the final rule. OSHA is promulgating paragraph
(d)(13) to maintain the coverage set by the proposed rule. The Agency
has specifically identified some of the types of lanyards covered by
this paragraph (i.e. ripstitch, and tearing and deforming lanyards) to
facilitate compliance.
Issue #23 of the NPRM solicited comments and suggestions, with
supporting information, regarding the regulation of self-retracting
lifelines and lanyards in proposed paragraph (d)(13). In particular, in
the first part of the issue, OSHA asked if self-retracting lifelines
and lanyards should be required to meet the minimum load requirement
with the line or lanyard fully extended. In the second part of the
issue, OSHA asked whether it should specify the maximum arrest force to
be transmitted by those devices given the kind of body belt or harness
used. The response to the second element of Issue #23 is addressed in
relation to Sec. 1926.502(d) (16) of the final rule, below.
Some commenters (Exs. 2-35 and 2-36) stated that it was appropriate
to set 3,000-pound minimum strength for a self- retracting lifeline or
lanyard that arrested falls within two feet. Another commenter (Ex. 2-
50) supported a requirement for the lines and lanyards to meet minimum
strength when fully extended.
The SSFI (Ex. 2-89) commented that the proposed 5,000- pound
tensile strength requirement is not applicable to all situations and
that OSHA should revise the provision to require that lifelines be
capable of an anchorage equal to twice the maximum arrest force.
Two other commenters (Exs. 2-12 and 2-43) stated that OSHA should
specify maximum arrest force for self-retracting lifelines and
lanyards, with an upper limit of 1,125 lbs. The commenters indicated
that such an upper limit would be easily attainable using available
equipment and would be consistent with the draft ISO international
standard.
OSHA believes, based on the evidence in the record, that the 5,000
pound requirement is appropriate. No evidence or convincing arguments
have been presented to the Agency, to date, to demonstrate that this
requirement should be changed to a lower number, or that there is any
specific situation where the 5,000 pound requirement is not
appropriate.
Paragraph (d)(14), which was not part of the proposed rule,
requires that ropes and straps (webbing) used in lanyards, lifelines
and strength components of body belts and body harnesses not be made
from natural fibers. A commenter (Ex. 2-50) recommended that OSHA
require the use of synthetic fiber rope in personal fall arrest systems
because natural fiber rope is not reliable or predictable as it ages
during use and because the strength deterioration of natural fiber rope
is not obvious or always detectable during inspection. In addition, a
National Bureau of Standards (NBS) report (Ex. 3-8) advises against the
use of natural fiber rope due to unpredictable deterioration. OSHA
agrees that natural fiber rope would not be sufficiently reliable for
use in a personal fall arrest system and has revised the proposed rule
accordingly. OSHA has already adopted this approach in Sec. 1910.66,
Appendix C, Section I--Mandatory, and also has proposed to adopt it in
proposed Sec. 1910.128(c)(12) (55 FR 13436, April 10, 1990).
Paragraph (d)(15) (proposed as paragraph (d)(12)) requires that
anchorages used for the attachment of personal fall arrest equipment be
capable of supporting at least 5,000 pounds (22.2 kN) per employee
attached or the anchorage must be designed, installed and used under
the supervision of a qualified person and as part of a complete
personal fall arrest system which maintains a safety factor of at least
two. This provision differs from both the proposed provision, which
required that anchorages be able to support at least twice the
potential impact load of an employee's fall, and existing
Sec. 1926.104(b), which requires anchorages to be capable of supporting
a minimum dead weight of 5,400 pounds. OSHA proposed to replace the
existing provision, which was based on the rated strength of manila
rope, and was not based on the actual load the anchor must support when
an employee falls. The proposed provision was more performance-oriented
and addressed the actual forces involved.
Issue #26 of the proposed rule requested public comment on the
applicability of the fall protection provisions of Appendix D in the
proposed rule for powered platforms (50 FR 2890, January 22, 1985) to
the construction industry. Some commenters (Exs. 2-12, 2-36, 2-41, 2-43
and 2-45) recommended that OSHA promulgate paragraph (d)(12) as
proposed. Other commenters (Ex. 2-23 and 2-35) suggested that OSHA
revise proposed paragraph (d)(12) to require that the anchorage sustain
twice the potential load or 5,000 pounds, whichever is greater. Those
commenters expressed concern that, applying the proposed rule, an
inexperienced rigger would simply double the weight of the affected
employee and think that the resulting system is safe. They also noted
that OSHA could set 3,600 pounds as the minimum, because proposed
paragraph (d)(12) limited impact load to 1,800 pounds, but they thought
that would make it difficult for OSHA to justify the 5,000 pound load
requirements elsewhere in the proposed rule. Another commenter (Ex. 2-
50) recommended that the strength of anchorages be either at least
twice the potential dynamic loading force if certified by a qualified
person, or 5,000 pounds when not so certified. In addition, comments on
the proposed rule for powered platforms (Ex. 3-13) indicated a need to
set a minimum strength requirement as well as to allow employers the
option of designing, installing and using a complete system which
maintains a safety factor of two.
OSHA agrees with the commenter who suggested that anchorages be
required to sustain a 5,000 pound load when they have not been
certified by a qualified person as able to sustain twice the potential
load. The Agency believes that only anchorages that are certified by a
qualified person can be relied upon to provide adequate protection at
the lower strength level. On the other hand, when not so certified OSHA
believes it is appropriate for the anchorage to sustain at least 5,000
pounds. OSHA has already adopted this approach in Sec. 1910.66,
Appendix C, Section I--Mandatory, and has proposed to adopt it in
proposed Sec. 1910.128(c)(10) (55 FR 13436, April 10, 1990).
Paragraph (d)(16) (proposed as paragraphs (d)(4), (d)(5) and
(d)(6)) consolidates the performance criteria for personal fall arrest
systems. Paragraph (d)(16)(i) limits the maximum arresting forces on an
employee to 900 pounds when a body belt is used. Paragraph (d)(16)(ii)
limits the maximum arresting forces on an employee to 1,800 pounds when
a body harness is used. As discussed in relation to the introductory
text of paragraph (d), above, the Agency has decided that body belts
must be phased out from use in personal fall arrest systems because
employees wearing them have been seriously injured by the impact loads
transmitted and by the pressures imposed while suspended after fall
arrest. Paragraphs (d)(16)(i) and (d)(16)(ii) reflect the Agency's
determination that fall arrest systems which use body belts up to the
time the prohibition takes effect must minimize the related hazards by
limiting the impact load to half that allowed when body harnesses are
worn.
Proposed paragraph (d)(6) required that body belt/harness systems
not produce an arresting force on an employee of more than 10 times the
employee's weight or 1,800 pounds, whichever was less. Issue 14 of the
proposed rule asked if the proposed 1,800-pound limit was appropriate
for body belts. The comments on proposed Appendix D of the powered
platform rulemaking (Ex. 3-13), discussed in detail at 54 FR 31449-
31451, July 28, 1989), which supported an identical requirement in the
general industry rule, were considered by the Agency as support for the
provisions of subpart M to limit the maximum arrest force for body
belts at 900 pounds and to maintain the limit for body harnesses at
1800 pounds. In comments addressing Issue 14 directly, two commenters
on proposed subpart M (Exs. 2-36 and 2-50) supported a 900-pound limit.
The R&TC (Ex. 2-36) stated ``[b]elts should have a nine-hundred pound,
or lower, limit because no human can tolerate a live demonstration of
an eighteen-hundred pound fall arrest in a belt. That rulemaking
participant also testified (Tr. 2-17 to 2-19, 3-23-88) regarding
specific incidents which indicated the advantages of using body
harnesses instead of body belts. Several commenters (Exs. 2-12, 2-19,
2-23, 2-43 and 2-140) stated that it was inappropriate to distinguish
between body belts and body harnesses.
OSHA has determined that the hazards posed by body belts, as
discussed earlier, necessitate setting a lower impact load limit for
systems which use them, until January 1, 1998, at which time, as
discussed above, body belts will be prohibited for use as part of a
personal fall arrest system. Therefore, the Agency is promulgating
paragraphs (d)(16)(i) and (d)(16)(ii).
Paragraph (d)(16)(iii) requires that personal fall arrest systems
be rigged so that an employee can neither free fall more than six feet
nor contact a lower level. Paragraph (d)(16)(iv) requires that after
the free fall distance, the personal fall arrest system must bring an
employee to a complete stop and limit maximum deceleration distance an
employee travels to 3.5 feet. These two paragraphs are essentially
identical to proposed paragraphs (d)(4) and (d)(5).
Issue 14 of the proposal asked if OSHA should limit the free fall
distance to two feet, rather than six feet, where a body belt was being
used. Several commenters (Exs. 2-12, 2-19, 2-23, 2-43 and 2-140)
supported proposed paragraph (d)(4), stating that it was inappropriate
to distinguish between body belts and body harnesses. In particular, a
commenter (Ex. 2-23) stated ``[T]he maximum 6 foot free fall limitation
is acceptable for body belts, and no 2 foot limit should be imposed.''
Other commenters (Exs. 2-36 and 2-50) stated that OSHA should limit the
free fall distance to two feet where body belts are used, citing
Australian and New Zealand standards. One commenter (Ex. 2-36) stated
``[r]etracting lifelines can be considered for continued belt usage by
employers in the U.S.A., since free fall is usually less than two feet
and self-recovery likelihood is excellent.''
Other commenters on these provisions noted some confusion between
the two. For example, one commenter (Ex. 2-20) stated that proposed
paragraphs (d)(4) and (d)(5) could be ``misinterpreted'' and suggested
``modification of the wording.'' Another commenter (Ex. 2-23) stated
that OSHA should add a sentence to the proposed paragraph (d)(4) saying
``[t]he rigger must consider total fall distance and thus include the
lifeline elongation.'' and ``[t]he present wording of this section is
very confusing, so we suggest more precise wording to explain that the
42-inch limit is for the deceleration device.'' In addition, the
comments on proposed Appendix D of the powered platform rulemaking (Ex.
3-13), discussed in detail (54 FR 31450, July 28, 1989), indicated
concern regarding the distinction between deceleration distance and
free fall distance.
The Agency notes that the final rule defines the terms
``Deceleration distance'' and ``Free fall distance'' (discussed above
in relation to Sec. 1926.500(b)) and believes that the definitions make
it clear when free fall begins and ends and how to determine
deceleration distance. OSHA has already adopted this approach in
Sec. 1910.66, Appendix C, Section I--Mandatory, and has proposed to
adopt it in proposed Sec. 1910.129(b)(1)(iii) (55 FR 13436, April 10,
1990).
Paragraph (d)(16)(v), which was not part of the proposed rule,
requires that the personal fall arrest system have sufficient strength
to withstand twice the potential impact energy of an employee free
falling a distance of 6 feet, or the free fall distance permitted by
the system, whichever is less. The comments on proposed Appendix D of
the powered platform rulemaking (Ex. 3-13), discussed in detail (54 FR
31450, July 28, 1989), supported a requirement for personal fall arrest
systems to be designed with a safety factor of at least two. The Agency
has specified that the ability of a system to satisfy this requirement
must be assessed based on a fall distance of 6 feet or the distance
allowed by the system, whichever is less, so that this provision
coordinates with paragraph (d)(16)(iii), above. OSHA has already
adopted this approach in Sec. 1910.66, Appendix C, Section I-Mandatory,
and has proposed to adopt it in proposed Sec. 1910.129(b)(1)(iv) (55 FR
13436, April 10, 1990).
OSHA has added a note to paragraph (d)(16) which references the
criteria and protocols in Sec. 1910.66, Non-mandatory Appendix C, as
examples of means by which employers can determine if their personal
fall arrest systems comply with the standard. The note also indicates
that systems used by employees having a combined tool and body weight
of 310 pounds or more would need to modify the criteria and protocols
to account for the greater weight, in order to apply Appendix C. OSHA
has already adopted this approach in Sec. 1910.66, Appendix C, Section
I-Mandatory, and has proposed to adopt it in proposed
Sec. 1910.129(b)(2) (55 FR 13436, April 10, 1990).
Paragraph (d)(17) (proposed as paragraph (d)(7) requires that
personal fall arrest systems be worn so that the attachment point for
body belts is located in the center of the wearer's back, and that the
attachment point for body harnesses is located either in the center of
the wearer's back near shoulder level, or above the wearer's head. The
proposed rule was essentially identical. There were no comments on the
substance of the provision and OSHA promulgates paragraph (d)(17) as
editorially revised. The AGC (Exs. 2-16, 2-47, 2-92 and 2-103)
commented as follows:
Proper positioning of the lanyard or deceleration device is
crucial for the prevention of injuries in a fall situation.
Construction employers have emphasized to employees this aspect of
body belt usage. However, AGC believes that mandated as such in the
proposed rule is inappropriate and unworkable. Subsequent to
required training, employers cannot be responsible for each
employees positioning of this type device.
In response, OSHA again notes that under the OSH Act, employers
bear direct responsibility for compliance with OSHA regulations.
Accordingly, the Agency has not revised the proposed rule based on the
AGC comment. OSHA has already adopted this approach in Sec. 1910.66,
Appendix C, Section I--Mandatory, and has proposed to adopt it in
proposed Sec. 1910.129(c)(4) (55 FR 13436, April 10, 1990).
Paragraph (d)(18) (proposed as paragraph (d)(1)) requires that body
belts, harnesses, and components be used only for employee fall
protection or positioning. This means that those systems or components
may not be used as material or equipment hoist slings, bundle ties, or
for other such purposes. This is substantively the same requirement as
the proposed provision and as the existing provision in
Sec. 1926.104(a). One commenter (Ex. 2-23) stated that OSHA should also
indicate in this provision that body belt and harness systems can be
used ``* * * for work positioning and retrieval as well * * *'' Also, a
commenter (Ex. 2-35) stated ``I believe the purpose of this requirement
is to prevent the equipment being used for such things as material
handling. But you have never defined a positioning belt/harness system,
only a `personal fall arrest system.' Therefore, this provision
prevents the use of belts for positioning or such things as controlled
descent.''
The SSFI (Ex. 2-89) said they felt clarification was needed for the
sentence indicating how body belt/harness systems could be utilized.
They recommended that the body belt/harness system could be used for
fall and/or work positioning.
OSHA acknowledges that the proposed provision could have been
construed to prohibit the use of body belts or body harnesses in
positioning device systems. OSHA intended simply to prevent the use of
such systems for material hoisting or related purposes. The Agency is
concerned that a fall protection system that had been used to hoist
material would then be issued to an employee as a fall protection
system. OSHA has revised the provision to indicate clearly its intent
that components of fall arrest and positioning device systems are only
to be used for those purposes. OSHA has already adopted this approach
in Sec. 1910.66, Appendix C, Section I--Mandatory, and has proposed to
adopt it in proposed Sec. 1910.128(c)(14) (55 FR 13436, April 10,
1990). The Agency has also added the identical language to
Sec. 1926.502(e) of the final rule as paragraph (e)(10), to facilitate
compliance.
Paragraph (d)(19) (proposed as paragraph (d)(2)) requires that
personal fall arrest systems or components of subject to impact loading
(as distinguished from static load testing) be immediately removed from
service, and prohibits subsequent use unless inspected by a competent
person who determines the system or component to be undamaged and
suitable for reuse. This is essential the same as the proposed
requirement and the existing requirement in Sec. 1926.104(a) except the
existing provision prohibits any further use of belts for employee
protection. In the proposed rule, OSHA explained that impact loading
did not necessarily adversely affect the integrity of a body belt/
harness system. OSHA further explained that a relatively short fall of
one foot may leave the belt/harness system undamaged; however, a long
fall of six feet or greater probably would destroy or seriously damage
the belt or harness. There are many factors, such as the employee's
weight and the type of deceleration device used, which can affect a
system's potential capacity for reuse as fall protection. Therefore, a
blanket prohibition of reuse after any impact loading is not
appropriate.
There were two comments on the provision. One commenter (Ex. 2-15)
stated ``[n]of only should the components be removed from service, but
they should be marked as ``defective'' to ensure the equipment won't be
inadvertently used again until it is found not to be defective or made
to be no longer defective by a competent person.''
The other commenter (Ex. 2-23) suggested that OSHA revise the
proposed provision to rule out reuse after an impact load.
OSHA believes that it is unnecessary to mandate that equipment be
marked or labelled ``defective'' and that it is sufficient to remove
equipment from service so that it cannot be used, at least until its
strength has been evaluated. The Agency does not believe it necessary
to specify the manner in which employers choose to identify components
that need to be evaluated before they can be reused. The Agency is
concerned solely that the method chosen effectively prevent the reuse
of equipment that has not been cleared for reuse. In addition, OSHA
believes that an absolute ban on the reuse of fall arrest system
components would be unnecessary because such equipment may still have
the strength needed for continued use. The employer, in turn, needs to
ensure that procedures for inspection and evaluation of equipment will
prevent the reuse of damaged components. OSHA has already adopted this
approach in Sec. 1910.66, Appendix C, Section I-Mandatory, and has
proposed to adopt it in proposed Sec. 1910.128(c)(15) (55 FR 13436,
April 10, 1990).
Several commenters on proposed Appendix D of the powered platform
rulemaking (Ex. 3-13), discussed in detail at 54 FR 31452, expressed
concern regarding the need for prompt rescue after fall arrest,
especially when body belts are being used, because prolonged suspension
may be harmful to employees. OSHA agrees with these comments and has
added paragraph (d)(20) to the final rule. Under this provision, the
employer is required to evaluate the potential for fall arrest and to
determine which rescue strategy will be used to rescue a suspended
employee safely. When it is not possible to evaluate the self-rescue
capacity of employees in advance, prudent employers should assume that
employees will need rescue assistance and, accordingly, be prepared to
offer it. See paragraph (f) Rescue considerations of Appendix C, Part
II, for guidance in meeting the requirements of this provision. OSHA
has already adopted this approach in Sec. 1910.66, Appendix C, Section
I-Mandatory, and has proposed to adopt it in proposed
Sec. 1910.129(c)(6) (55 FR 13436, April 10, 1990).
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 Sec. 1926.502(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.
A commenter (Ex. 2-23) suggested that OSHA delete the words ``if
their strength or function has been adversely affected.'' OSHA agrees
that deleting those words will make the rule easier to understand,
i.e., employers would simply remove components that are defective, in
that they do not meet the criteria set in paragraph (d), without having
to make a specific determination about strength or function.
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). However, several commenters suggested that additional
information should be conveyed to employees through training programs,
by following manufacturer's specifications, or by OSHA in the form of
guidelines (Exs. 2-16, 2-23, 2-35, 2-36, 2-41, 2-47 and 2-92). OSHA
observes that such training is required under new Sec. 1926.503,
discussed below. The ISEA, the ANSI Z359 Committee and the Roofers
Union (Exs. 2-23, 2-50 and 2- 99) supported the proposed requirement
for inspection prior to each use.
The AGC (Exs. 2-16, 2-47 and 2-92) agreed that inspections were
needed and noted, as they have with other provisions (see discussion at
paragraph (d)(17) of the final rule above, that employees, rather than
employers, should be held responsible for ensuring that fall protection
equipment is functioning properly prior to each use. Other commenters
(Exs. 2-41, 2-42 and 2-51) supported the AGC position. In that regard,
OSHA again observes that under the OSH Act, employers bear direct
responsibility for compliance with OSHA regulations.
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 Sec. 1926.502(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, Sec. 1910.66.
Paragraph (d)(22) requires that body belts be at least one and
five-eighths (1\5/8\) inches (4.1 cm) wide. This provision is identical
to the provision in proposed paragraph (d)(8). There were no comments
on the proposed provision and OSHA promulgates paragraph (d)(23) as
proposed.
Paragraph (d)(23) (proposed as paragraph (d)(21)) prohibits the
attachment of personal fall arrest systems to hoists or guardrail
systems, except where otherwise provided in part 1926. This requirement
is essentially the same as existing Sec. 1926.500(g)(5)(iv), which
applies only to built-up roofing operations on low-pitched roofs, and
does not include the guardrail restriction. OSHA proposed to extend the
rule to prohibit using any hoist or guardrail system as an anchorage
attachment point. Additionally, the existing rule in Sec. 1926.104(b)
specifies minimum anchorage requirements for body belts.
Neither hoists nor guardrail systems are designed as anchorages for
personal fall arrest systems since they are not built to withstand the
impact forces generated by a fall. Therefore, in the interest of
employee safety, OSHA is prohibiting the use of hoists and guardrails
as attachment points.
There were two comments on the proposed provision. The ISEA (Ex. 2-
23) noted that the provision ``* * * would eliminate the common
practice of workers attaching to a `man basket' while riding in it.''
OSHA notes that the more specific rule Sec. 1926.550(g)(6)(vii), in the
crane safety standards, regulates ``man baskets.'' The SSFI (Ex. 2-89)
recommended that the provision be changed to indicate that a body belt/
harness system should never be attached to any guardrail system, not
just those at hoist areas. OSHA agrees that the reasons workers should
not attach to guardrail systems or hoists at hoist areas as for any
other hoist or guardrail, regardless of where it is located and
therefore, OSHA has revised the language of provision to make that
clear.
Paragraph (d)(24) (proposed as paragraph (d)(22)) specifies that
personal fall arrest systems used at hoist areas are to be rigged to
allow the movement of employees only as far as the edge of the walking/
working surface. This is the same requirement proposed at
Sec. 1926.502(d)(22). It is essentially the same as existing
Sec. 1926.500(g)(5)(v), which applies only to built-up roofing
operations on low-pitched roofs. OSHA proposed to extend the
requirement to cover all hoist areas. The limitation on movement when
wearing a personal fall arrest system is made because of the employees'
tendency to lean out over the edge at hoist areas. There were no
comments on this provision.
Paragraph (e)--Positioning device systems. This paragraph sets the
minimum performance criteria for ``positioning devices,'' which are
systems similar to personal fall arrest systems and which can be
comprised of many of the same components. The significant difference is
that personal fall arrest systems are used to arrest falls, whereas
employees use positioning devices so they can maintain a leaning
position without using their hands while working on vertical surfaces.
For example, these devices may be used during the placement of
reinforcing bars in the vertical face of a wall under construction. The
employees often stand on bars already in place and must lean backward,
similar to a lineman on a telephone pole, to place additional bars. The
positioning device allows this to be done without the employees having
to use their hands to maintain position.
Several provisions of proposed Sec. 1926.502(d) have been
incorporated into final rule paragraph (e). In issuing the proposal,
OSHA considered the pertinent paragraph (d) requirements to cover both
personal fall arrest systems and positioning device systems. The Agency
has subsequently concluded that placing those provisions directly in
paragraph (e) will best assure that employers who have employees use
positioning device systems have clear direction on safe use of those
systems. OSHA has specifically identified the added provisions below.
A general comment relating to proposed Sec. 1926.502(e) came from
CAL/OSHA (Ex. 2-15) who commented that components of positioning device
systems should be permanently marked to indicate that they meet the
applicable standards. CAL/OSHA also recommended that equipment covered
by paragraph (d) personal fall arrest systems be permanently marked. As
with paragraph (d), OSHA does not believe that requiring the marking of
positioning device systems is necessary for employee protection in this
standard. The criteria set forth in paragraph (e) must be met, in any
event, in order to assure that the equipment protects the employee. In
addition, based on the response to Issue #18, discussed above in
relation to Sec. 1926.502(d)(4) of the final rule, OSHA believes that
equipment manufacturers are already voluntarily marking their products.
Accordingly, any benefit resulting from addition of such a requirement
would be minimal. Therefore, OSHA has not added the suggested language.
Paragraph (e)(1) requires that positioning device systems be rigged
so that an employee cannot free fall more than 2 feet. The proposed
rule was identical. OSHA set this distance less than the 6 foot free
fall distance set in paragraph (d)(16) for personal fall arrest systems
because lanyards used with positioning devices usually do not stretch
under fall impact loading and deceleration devices normally are not
used to reduce the forces incurred during a fall. There were no
comments on paragraph (e)(1).
Paragraph (e)(2), proposed as paragraph (e)(3), requires that
positioning devices be secured to an anchorage capable of supporting at
least twice the potential impact load of an employee's fall or 3,000
pounds, whichever is greater. This provision differs from OSHA's
proposed provision by the addition of the language ``or 3,000 pounds,
whichever is greater.''
There were several comments on the proposed provision. The ISEA and
MSA (Exs. 2-23 and 2-35) suggested that OSHA add language to the
provision to make it consistent with the strength requirement proposed
in paragraph (d)(13) of this section for self-retracting lifelines and
lanyards that limit free fall to 2 feet. OSHA agrees that adding the
suggested language will provide employers with useful and consistent
guidance, and has revised the provision accordingly.
NIOSH (Ex. 2-33) stated that the proposed provision placed
responsibility on the employee to determine the proper anchorage point,
and that the provision should be rewritten to specify that a supervisor
or site safety officer has the responsibility. In response, OSHA notes
that many provisions in OSHA standards require direct employee action
in order to achieve compliance. Regardless of who performs the
necessary duties under the standard, the employer has direct
responsibility to provide a safe workplace by complying with the OSH
Act and with the pertinent regulations, and it is the employer who will
be cited should a violation occur. Accordingly, the Agency does not
believe that specifying the personnel responsible for identifying
anchorage points is necessary for employee protection. Therefore, OSHA
has not made the suggested change.
Paragraph (e)(3) requires connectors to be dropped forged, pressed
or formed steel, or made of equivalent materials. This is a new
requirement and has been added to maintain consistency with final rule
Sec. 1926.502(d)(1) which addresses connectors used as part of a
personal fall arrest system. This provision and its rationale are
identical to those for paragraph (d)(1) of this section, above.
Final rule paragraph (e)(4), proposed as paragraph (e)(2), requires
that connectors be of a corrosion-resistant finish and that all
surfaces and edges be smooth to prevent damage to interfacing parts of
the systems. OSHA solicited comments on the need for quantification of
corrosion resistance requirements in Issue #22 of the proposal. The
response to that issue is discussed in relation to paragraph (d)(2),
above. As with paragraph (d)(2), the Agency has decided that additional
corrosion resistance testing requirements are also not needed in
paragraph (e)(4). OSHA has editorially revised the proposed provision
so that it is identical to paragraph (d)(2) of this section which
contains the same requirement. Specifically, the words ``attached belt
or connecting assembly'' has been revised to read ``interfacing parts
of the system.'' This is the same language that OSHA used in its final
rule for Powered Platforms for Building Maintenance [54 FR 31470, July
28, 1989] and in proposed Sec. 1910.128(c)(2) [55 FR 13436, April 10,
1990].
Final rule paragraph (e)(5), proposed as paragraph (e)(4),
requires that connecting assemblies (which are dee rings, snaphooks,
lanyards and other components of the positioning device system) have a
minimum breaking strength of 5,000 pounds. This provision is identical
to the proposed rule. There were two comments on the proposed
provision.
The MSA (Ex. 2-35) commented that this provision should be changed
to require a minimum breaking strength of 3,000 pounds, to be
consistent with provision (e)(3) above. The SSFI (Ex. 2-89) objected to
OSHA's use of 5,000 pounds because, as they have expressed earlier
under paragraph (d), they believe lifelines should be capable of
anchorage equal to two times the maximum arrest force and all
requirements therefore should be consistent with that capability.
OSHA observes that this provision is consistent with other similar
provisions in Sec. 1926.502(d) which prescribe the breaking strength of
lanyards, connectors, snaphooks, dee-rings, etc. While a breaking
strength of 3000 pounds might be adequate if the fall was limited as it
should be when a positioning device system is used, 3000 pounds would
not be adequate if the connecting assembly was inadvertently used as
part of a fall arrest system. Since there is no way to determine by
simple observation whether the connecting assembly has a breaking
strength of 3000 pounds or 5000 pounds, users of connecting assemblies
could easily interchange components. Therefore, in the interest of
worker safety, it is appropriate that OSHA require all connecting
assemblies to have the same minimum breaking strength. In this way, if
the connecting assembly is used as part of a personal fall arrest
system, the strength will be adequate and the connecting assembly will
not break.
Final rule paragraph (e)(6), like final rule paragraph (d)(4),
requires that dee-rings and snaphooks be proof-tested to a minimum
tensile load of 3600 pounds without cracking, breaking, or taking
permanent deformation. A complete discussion of this provision can be
found at Sec. 1926.502(d)(4) above. This new provision, which was not
proposed, has been added to facilitate safe use of positioning devices.
Final rule paragraph (e)(7), like final rule paragraph (d)(5),
requires that snaphooks be sized to be compatible with the member to
which they are connected or be of a locking type designed to prevent
disengagement of the snaphook and, that after December 31, 1997, only
locking type snaphooks can be used in positioning device systems. In
addition, final rule paragraph (e)(8), like final rule paragraph
(d)(6), provides that for certain specified connections, only locking
snaphooks designed for those connections can be used.
As discussed above in reference to paragraphs (d)(5) and (d)(6),
OSHA solicited information in Issue 16 of the proposal regarding the
need to require locking snap-hooks in personal fall arrest systems. The
same concerns apply to the use of snap-hooks in positioning device
systems. Therefore, the language of paragraph (d)(5) and (d)(6) of the
final rule has been adopted as paragraphs (e)(7) and (e)(8) to ensure
that only locking snaphooks are used and then only those designed for
certain connections be used in the specified circumstances.
The SSFI (Ex. 2-89) noted that proposed Sec. 1926.502(e) had not
set forth requirements for snaphooks or diameters of attachments to
prevent ``roll-out'' and suggested that OSHA include them in the final
rule, referencing its comments on Issue #16. As stated above, OSHA
agrees that employees need the protection afforded by the snaphook
requirements for both personal fall arrest systems and positioning
device systems. OSHA also notes that compliance with this requirement
will not impose increased burdens on employers, since all snaphooks
will be subject to the same criteria whether they are used as part of a
personal fall arrest system or part of positioning device system. OSHA
also notes that these provisions on snaphooks are consistent with
OSHA's final rule for Powered Platforms for Building Maintenance [54 FR
31471, July 28, 1989] and proposed Sec. 1920.129(c)(1) [55 FR 13437,
April 10, 1990].
Final rule paragraph (e)(9), proposed as paragraph (e)(5), requires
that positioning device systems be inspected prior to each use for
damage and deterioration and that defective components be removed from
service. This provision differs from the proposed provision, in that
the phrase ``if the strength or function has been adversely affected''
has been deleted. As discussed in reference to final rule
Sec. 1926.502(d)(21), Issue #17 raised questions regarding the need for
more specific inspection criteria.
The ISEA (Ex. 2-23) suggested that OSHA delete the words ``if their
strength or function has been adversely affected.'' The implication was
that if these words were deleted, the rule would be easier to
understand, i.e., employers would simply remove components that were
defective without having to make some determination about strength or
function. As with Sec. 1926.502(d)(21) of the final rule, discussed
above, OSHA agrees that deleting those words would make the rule easier
to understand. Employers will simply remove components that are
defective, in that they do not meet the criteria of paragraph (e),
without having to make a specific determination about strength or
function.
OSHA received several comments in response to Issue #17. As noted
in regard to paragraph (d)(21), above, the response to Issue #17
regarding positioning device systems was the same as that regarding
personal fall arrest systems.
After evaluation of the pertinent record materials, OSHA has
determined that further information on the employer's inspection of
positioning device systems should be provided in an appendix.
Therefore, OSHA has included a specific paragraph on inspection
considerations in the Non- mandatory Appendix D to subpart M to address
the inspection requirements in Sec. 1926.502(e).
Final rule paragraph (e)(10), like final rule paragraph (d)(18),
requires that body belts, harnesses, and components be used only for
employee fall protection or positioning and not to hoist materials.
This is a new provision and has been added to maintain consistency and
facilitate compliance. Paragraph (e)(10) has been added for the same
reasons discussed above in relation to paragraph (d)(18).
Paragraph (f)--Warning line systems. This paragraph, which sets the
same requirements as in the proposed rule and in existing
Secs. 1926.500(g)(3)(i), (ii), and (iii), provides the criteria for use
of a warning line system. OSHA notes that this paragraph is also
consistent with proposed Sec. 1910.28(d), Designated areas, which would
regulate analogous General Industry situations [44 FR 13402, April 10,
1990]. The basis for the existing requirements was discussed in detail
in the preamble of the final rule for the Guarding of Low-Pitched-Roof-
Perimeters During the Performance of Built-Up Roofing Work [45 FR
75618, November 14, 1980]. In brief, the Agency permitted the use of
warning lines, under certain conditions, to warn employees that they
were approaching an unprotected edge. The warning line system was
permitted when work conditions made it impossible to use conventional
fall protection systems.
One commenter, CAL/OSHA (Ex. 2-15), stated that warning line
components should be marked to ensure compliance with the standard. As
discussed above, CAL/OSHA also advocated marking personal fall arrest
system components and positioning device system components. As with the
other proposed paragraphs, OSHA has determined that such a requirement
is not necessary for employee safety. However, employers are
responsible for ensuring that rope, wire, or chains used for warning
lines comply with the strength requirements of paragraph (f). OSHA's
position is that it is compliance with the substantive provisions of
paragraph (f), not the act of marking equipment, that improves employee
protection. Therefore, OSHA has not made the suggested change.
In Issue #10 of the NPRM, OSHA noted that the term ``mechanical
equipment'' was used to describe the type of equipment addressed in the
provisions of proposed Sec. 1926.502(f) which related to built-up
roofing work. The proposed definition of ``mechanical equipment''
provided that wheelbarrows and mopcarts would not be considered
``mechanical equipment,'' continuing the approach taken by existing
Sec. 1926.500(g); that is, that these two types of equipment do not
require employees to move backward when using them and, therefore, they
should not be considered ``mechanical equipment'' for the purpose of
determining the location of the warning line. Issue #10 asked if
mopcarts and wheelbarrows should remain the only equipment not
considered ``mechanical equipment'' for the purpose of the provisions
of paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (ii).
In response to Issue #10, three commenters recommended that the
provision stay as proposed (Exs. 2-12, 2-43 and 2-99). The ACCSH
recommended that no additional equipment be exempted from the
provision. (Tr. 6/10/87; pp. 131-132)
After evaluation of the record on this issue, OSHA has determined
that wheelbarrows and mopcarts will remain outside the definition of
``mechanical equipment,'' because no other equipment that merits
exclusion from the definition has been identified.
Based on the rulemaking record, OSHA has determined that the
provisions of paragraph (f) are appropriate as proposed, except that
the term ``built-up'' which was used in proposed paragraph (f)(3) have
been removed because the provision is no longer exclusive to built-up
roofing work, but applies to all roofing work on low-sloped roofs. See
change made in the definitions section (Sec. 1926.500) and under
Sec. 1926.501(b)(10).
Paragraph (g)--Controlled access zones. This paragraph sets minimum
performance criteria for controlled access zones (CAZ). In the
introductory text of paragraph (g), OSHA reminds employers that CAZ may
only be used where employees are performing overhand bricklaying and
related work or work under a fall protection plan, as provided by
Secs. 1926.501(b)(2), (b)(9), (b)(12), and (b)(13).
OSHA proposed the use of controlled access zones as a way to limit
the number of workers that would be exposed to the hazard of falling
from unprotected sides or edges at those locations where the use of
conventional fall protection systems is infeasible or creates a greater
hazard. The only work situation where use of a CAZ is specifically
permitted instead of conventional fall protection systems is where
overhand bricklaying operations are taking place. However, employers
who develop a fall protection plan under Sec. 1926.501(b)(2), (b)(12),
or (b)(13), will also be required to establish controlled access zones.
Employers engaged in overhand bricklaying work may use a CAZ as
long as the employee does not have to reach more than 10 inches below
the walking/working level to do the work. Employers engaged in leading
edge work, precast concrete erection work, or residential construction
work who demonstrate infeasibility or greater hazard with the use of
conventional fall protection systems will be required to develop and
implement a fall protection plan which meets the requirements of
paragraph (k). Paragraph (k)(7) requires the employer to establish a
CAZ which meets the requirements of this paragraph (g).
In general, a controlled access zone is formed by erecting a line
or lines--referred to as control lines--to restrict access to an area
or to define the area in which employees will work without conventional
fall protection. Sometimes only one line will be needed to define the
area. The control line warns the employee that access to the CAZ is
limited to authorized personnel. The line also designates the area
where conventional fall protection systems are not in use.
As discussed in Sec. 1926.500(b), Definitions, the Mason
Contractors Association of America (MCAA) (Ex. 2-95) suggested that
OSHA change the name for the zone from ``control zone'' to ``Controlled
Access Zone (CAZ).'' MCAA also suggested that OSHA provide diagrams of
the zone so that the provisions of the control zone section could be
more clearly understood. As discussed in the definitions section of
this final rule, OSHA agrees with the MCAA that the revised term--
Controlled Access Zone--more clearly describes the function of the zone
by indicating that access to the zone is being controlled. OSHA has
removed portions of the proposed provisions that were confusing and
therefore is not providing diagrams.
Paragraph (g)(1) sets the distance from an unprotected side or edge
that control zone lines are to be erected when leading edge operations
or other activities are being performed and controlled access zones are
permitted. When control lines are used, they shall be erected no closer
than 6 feet nor farther than 25 feet away from the leading edge or
unprotected edge. An exception is provided for the erection of precast
concrete members, in which case, the control line must be no closer
than 6 feet nor farther than one-half the size of the precast member
being erected, to a maximum of 60 feet. This exception is being made
for precast concrete erection because it is sometimes necessary to
``turn'' a precast member which may be as long as 120 feet. If the
control lines are too close, they could become entangled or uprooted as
the concrete member is being positioned.
As a whole, paragraph (g)(1) is identical to the proposed
provision, other than the location of the control line for precast
concrete work and the clarification that any effective means to
restrict entry to the zone is permitted. For example, if a home builder
were operating under a fall protection plan, the home builder may
designate the entire upper level of the home as a CAZ and restrict
entry to that zone to only those workers needed to set roof trusses.
The home builder could restrict entrance to the zone by placing a sign
or by using tape or a chain to communicate to workers that access to
the upper floor is restricted to only those employees identified in the
fall protection plan. If the only way to reach the upper level is by
stairway, the sign, tape or chain could be placed at the top or bottom
of the stairway.
The same situation could arise on a precast concrete site where the
entire upper level is designated as the CAZ and all entrances to the
level are marked to indicate that access is restricted. The intent of
the provision is to restrict access to the danger zone. As long as the
means chosen to restrict access is effective, i.e., workers do not
enter the restricted area unless they are authorized by the fall
protection plan to enter the CAZ, the intent is accomplished.
The 6-foot limitation was proposed as an adequate distance away
from the edge to warn employees that they are approaching an
unprotected side or edge. The 25 foot maximum allows a reasonable
amount of work to be done before the CAZ needs to be moved.
Paragraph (g)(1) of the final rule also requires that the control
line be connected on each side to a guardrail system or to a wall. OSHA
proposed this language to ensure that there was no gap between the
coverage of the controlled access zone (CAZ) and that of the fall
protection required for other areas of the pertinent work zone. OSHA
reminds employers that all employees working outside the controlled
access zone (CAZ) must be provided fall protection as required by
Sec. 1926.501(b)(1) if they may be exposed to fall hazards. As the CAZ
changes [moves forward as the work progresses at the leading edge], it
exposes unprotected sides and edges perpendicular to the leading edge.
The employer must ensure that any employees who may be exposed to falls
of 6 feet (1.8 m) or more at those perimeters are provided with fall
protection that complies with Sec. 1926.501(b)(1). Again, OSHA notes
that this situation only occurs when two groups of workers are working
on the same level and one group of workers is working in a CAZ and the
other is being protected by conventional fall protection systems.
For example, precast concrete workers may be connecting floor or
roof members at the leading edge while other workers are engaged in
``grouting'' activities outside the CAZ. As each precast member is
added, the CAZ moves forward and the control line moves forward,
creating sections of unprotected sides and edges outside the CAZ from
which workers engaged in grouting or other activities could fall. Those
employees must be afforded protection from falls of 6 feet or more from
the unprotected sides and edges of the floor, roof, or other walking/
working surface as required by Sec. 1926.501(b)(1); or as required
under fall protection plans where such plans are permitted.
Seedorf Masonry (Ex. 2-153) commented that the proposed provision
caused confusion and asked if its system of using special stanchions
which bolt onto floor edges to support guardrail systems would be
eliminated by proposed paragraph (g)(1). OSHA observes that nothing in
this final rule prohibits the use of the special stanchions described
by Seedorf Masonry.
The Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) (Exs. 2-44, 2-107,
25-4, 27-7, and 27-10) recommended that the control zone lines for
precast concrete erection be kept as much as 60 feet away from the
leading edge and reinstalled from time to time as the leading edge
changes location. They explained that ``* * * a member may be as long
as 120 feet and, if it is necessary to rotate the member, at least half
its length--60 feet--would be required to avoid entanglement in the
control zone lines''. As noted above, OSHA agrees that additional
distance may be necessary when performing precast concrete erection
work for the reasons stated, and has revised paragraph (g)(1)
accordingly.
Paragraph (g)(2) requires control zones used during overhand
bricklaying operations to be not less than l0 feet nor more than 15
feet from the working edge where the overhand bricklaying operations
are underway. These limits were developed after extensive consultation
with industry and union representatives and review by the ACCSH. The
enclosed zone is intended to provide overhand bricklayers with an area
free of interference from other employees not performing related work.
Paragraph (g)(2) prohibits employees, other than those performing
overhand bricklaying and related operations, from being in CAZs that
have been set up for the bricklaying operations.
This provision is essentially the same as the proposed provision.
One commenter (Ex. 2-21) suggested that the line designating the
control zone be erected not less than 6 feet from the edge instead of
the proposed 10 feet, while another commenter, Seedorf Masonry (Ex. 2-
153) stated its total agreement with the proposed 10-foot requirement.
OSHA agrees that at least 10 feet of space is necessary to provide
overhand bricklayers with adequate working space. Another commenter
(Ex. 2-56), apparently confused by the requirement, noted that the
provision needed clarification ``as it will relate to bricklayers
working on the leading edge * * *.'' OSHA observes that overhand
bricklaying operations are not considered leading edge operations.
While the use of a controlled access zone is permitted for both
operations, the criteria for the zone vary depending on whether the
employee is laying bricks (or related work), constructing a leading
edge, or performing some other activity in the controlled area.
Paragraph (g)(3) requires the control lines to be made of ropes,
wires, tapes, or other equivalent materials (i.e., material that can
meet the requirements of paragraph (g)(3)), and supported on
stanchions. Paragraph (g)(3)(i) requires the system to be flagged or
otherwise clearly marked at 6-foot intervals. Paragraphs (g)(3)(ii)
regulates the height of the control zone lines. Overhand bricklaying
control zone height limits are higher than those for other work to
allow the ready passage of materials underneath the line. Paragraph
(g)(3)(iii) requires the line to have a minimum breaking strength of
200 pounds. This minimum strength is required to assure that the lines
will not break if an inattentive worker walks into the line.
The proposed paragraph was identical, except as discussed below.
There was only one comment on this provision. Seedorf Masonry (Ex. 2-
153) noted its total agreement with all of paragraph (g)(3).
OSHA notes that it has revised proposed paragraph (g)(3) by
removing the reference to ``access path.'' In the proposed rule, access
path lines would have been used to identify paths from the controlled
access zone to other areas on the floor or roof that bricklayers might
need to gain access. OSHA has decided that these provisions could cause
considerable confusion and, accordingly, has deleted the mention of
access paths. Instead, OSHA has simply stated that a controlled access
zone must be enlarged as necessary to permit overhand bricklaying and
related work to take place.
Paragraph (g)(4) sets forth criteria for setting up a controlled
access zone on a floor or roof where guardrail systems are not in place
prior to the beginning of overhand bricklaying operations. Paragraph
(g)(5) sets forth criteria for setting up a controlled access zone on a
floor or roof where guardrail systems are in place prior to the
beginning of overhand bricklaying operations. These two paragraphs are
essentially the same as proposed paragraphs (g)(4), (g)(5) and (g)(6).
If a guardrail system has not already been set on the pertinent
floor or roof where the bricklaying work is to be done, the controlled
access zone must be large enough to enclose all points of access,
materials handling areas and storage areas. Final rule paragraph
(g)(5), which is essentially identical to proposed paragraph (g)(6)
provides that where guardrail systems are already in place (because
other trades are using them), and bricklaying work is to be done, those
guardrail systems may be removed to the extent necessary to accomplish
that day's work.
One commenter stated that the proposed paragraphs (4) and (5) were
quite confusing (Ex. 2-153). OSHA agrees that the language of the
proposed paragraph (g)(4) was confusing because it included provisions
for forming access paths which were two lines similar to control zone
lines. As OSHA did in paragraph (g)(3) above, it has removed references
to access path lines in paragraph (g)(4). The provision is now clear
that if there are no guardrail in place already, the CAZ must be large
enough to enclose all areas where the masons and mason tenders are
exposed to fall hazards from unprotected edges. Seedorf (Ex. 2-104)
also noted that the proposed provision appeared to prohibit employees
from leaving the control zone unless there were guardrails on the open
floor. OSHA observes that this perception is basically correct. The
concept of a controlled access zone is to establish an area of limited
size in which only certain employees can enter and work without fall
protection because conventional fall protection systems cannot be used.
Employees must be protected at all times from fall hazards at
unprotected sides and edges when they leave the controlled access zone.
For example, if a bricklayer is working on one side of the floor, a
controlled access zone will be established for that area. When the
bricklayer leaves the control zone and is exposed to fall hazards
elsewhere on the floor or roof, fall protection is required.
Proposed paragraph (g)(7) has been deleted because paragraph (g)(2)
of the final rule already makes it clear that only those employees
engaged in overhand bricklaying (including related work
(Sec. 1926.501(b)(9)) are permitted in the controlled access zone. The
only other employees that are permitted to work in CAZs are those
employees so designated in a fall protection plan. In such cases,
Sec. 1926.502(k)(9) requires the employer to identify those employees
and does not permit other employees to enter the zone.
Paragraph (h)--Safety monitoring systems. This paragraph contains
the criteria which must be followed when safety monitoring systems are
being used. Safety monitoring systems may be used to protect employees
engaged in roofing operations on low-slope roofs (See
Sec. 1926.501(b)(10)) and employees engaged in leading edge operations,
precast concrete or residential construction work through the use of
safety monitoring systems as part of a fall protection plan (See
Sec. 1926.502(k)). Existing rule Sec. 1926.500(g) provides for the use
of safety monitoring systems on low-slope roof perimeters during built-
up roofing work and the existing definition in existing
Sec. 1926.502(p)(7) provides criteria for safety monitoring systems.
Paragraph (h)(1) requires the employer to designate a competent
person as the safety monitor and to ensure that the monitor meets
certain requirements including being able to recognize fall hazards.
The safety monitor is required to warn an employee who appears to be
unaware of a fall hazard or is acting in an unsafe manner. The monitor
must also be on the same surface and within visual sighting distance of
the monitored employee and close enough to communicate orally with the
monitored employee. The monitor may have additional supervisory or non-
supervisory responsibilities, provided that the monitor's other
responsibilities do not interfere with the monitoring function. This
provision effectively restates existing Sec. 1926.502(p)(7).
Paragraph (h)(2) prohibits the use of mechanical equipment where
safety monitoring systems are being used to protect employees from
falling off low-slope roofs. This is essentially the same requirement
as in existing Sec. 1926.500(g)(4).
Paragraph (h)(3) prohibits employees not engaged in roofing work on
low-sloped roofs or employees covered by a fall protection plan from
being in an area where other employees are protected by a safety
monitoring system. As explained in the preamble to the proposal, OSHA
believes that the presence of extraneous employees in these areas can
interfere with work procedures necessary for the effective use of the
safety monitoring system. OSHA notes that this provision is consistent
with the provisions of paragraph (k) which also prohibits employees
from entering a CAZ because a safety monitoring system or other non-
conventional fall protection system is in use in the CAZ.
Paragraph (h)(4), which has been added to the final rule, requires
that each employee performing work in safety monitoring systems areas
comply with directions from safety monitors to avoid fall hazards. Both
the existing rule (Sec. 1926.502(p)(7)) and the proposed rule
(Sec. 1926.502(h)(1)) clearly indicate that the safety monitor must be
a ``competent person,'' which means that the monitor must be capable of
identifying workplace hazards and have the authority to take prompt
corrective measures. Within the context of the safety monitoring
system, the ``corrective measures'' are to have the affected employees
move away from the unprotected side or edge or use other work
procedures to avoid fall hazards. OSHA has added this requirement to
indicate clearly that employers must direct their affected employees to
comply with the warnings of the safety monitor.
There were several comments on the criteria for the use of safety
monitoring systems. MOSH (Ex. 2-31) recommended that OSHA delete
requirements relating to the safety monitoring systems which it felt
would be difficult to enforce. In the final rule, OSHA allows the use
of safety monitoring systems only where the employer can demonstrate
that it is infeasible or creates a greater hazard to use other
conventional systems, except on low-slope roofs, where employers may
generally use a combination safety monitoring system and warning line
system. OSHA believes that the use of safety monitoring systems are
appropriate in situations where conventional fall protection systems
cannot be implemented. It is, however, necessary for employers to
recognize that merely designating an employee as the safety monitor
will not meet the criteria of this paragraph. Persons who do not
satisfy all of the criteria specified in this paragraph and whose other
duties compromise their ability to monitor employees exposed to fall
hazards do not meet the requirements for being safety monitors. Hence,
the employer who uses such a person as a safety monitor will not be in
compliance with the duty requirements of Secs. 1926.501 or 1926.502. In
other words, having a designated safety monitor ``in name only'' is the
same as not having a monitor at all. OSHA emphasizes that safety
monitoring systems are a last resort when other conventional systems
are infeasible--meaning that is it is impossible to accomplish the work
using the conventional systems--or the conventional systems create a
greater hazard. Hence, when employers encounter the infrequent
situation which permits the use of safety monitoring systems as an
alternative fall protection measure, employers must comply with each
and every provision of this paragraph, because otherwise the safety
monitoring system is invalid.
NIOSH (Exs. 2-33 and 27-6), which expressed its opposition to the
use of safety monitoring systems on leading edges (see discussion under
Sec. 1926.501(b)(2) above), recommended that if such systems were
permitted, OSHA should modify paragraph (h) to specify both the number
of workers that can be monitored by one person, specify the area over
which these workers may be distributed, and to set a maximum noise
level to ensure effective communication. However, they offered no
specific suggestions as to what those criteria should be. While OSHA is
not specifying the number of employees that can be monitored by any one
safety monitor, OSHA will expect such information to be included in
fall protection plans when they are developed and the number of
monitors will depend on the different functions the employees are
performing while being monitored, the closeness of workers to monitors,
and other such considerations. In other words, if one safety monitor is
assigned to monitor employees who are not all in the same area, OSHA
will deem the monitor unable to meet the requirements of (h)(1) and,
therefore, conclude that there is no monitoring system in effect. OSHA
expects there will be situations where one monitor is designated to
monitor only 2 employees and other situations where a few more could be
monitored. If a monitor is assigned to monitor 5 employees and 3 of
those employees are working in front of the monitor, and the other 2
are working behind the monitor, OSHA will determine that there is no
monitor for the 2 employees who obviously cannot be under supervision
if the monitor is monitoring the other three. Likewise, weather
conditions can limit the use of safety monitors. OSHA will expect such
information to be discussed in fall protection plans. For example, OSHA
would not expect safety monitoring systems to be implemented in weather
conditions that interfere with visibility.
The Building Trades Employers' Association of Boston and Eastern
Massachusetts, Inc. (Ex. 2-26) commented that, while it did ``not find
fault with the concept [safety monitoring systems],'' it opposed the
requirement in proposed paragraph (h)(1)(vi)--that monitors must not be
so busy with other responsibilities that their monitoring function is
encumbered--because that provision would, in effect, cause the hiring
of additional personnel to act exclusively as monitors.
OSHA observes that proposed paragraph (h) is intended to guide
employers who must follow what OSHA itself considers to be the least
acceptable option for protecting employees from falls.
Another commenter, the Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (Ex.
2-107) stated ``1926.502(h), Safety Monitoring Systems, is a practical
and reasonable method to perform the work of the concrete hollow core
industry * * *.''
In addition, Seedorf Masonry (Ex. 2-153) stated its agreement with
the requirements in paragraph (h)(1), but stressed that it would not
want them to apply in control zones where overhand bricklaying
operations are taking place. OSHA observes that safety monitoring
systems are not listed as an option for fall protection in overhand
bricklaying operations, so paragraph (h) would not be applicable.
Again, OSHA points out that the use of safety monitoring systems is
allowed only to protect employees engaged in roofing operations on low-
slope roofs or employees constructing leading edges, or engaged in
precast concrete or residential construction work, who are operating
under a fall protection plan meeting the requirements of
Sec. 1926.502(k).
Paragraph (i)--Covers. This paragraph sets the performance criteria
for covers when they are used to protect employees from falling into or
through holes in floors, roofs, and other walking/working surfaces. The
proposed requirements, based on existing Sec. 1926.500(f)(5), were
identical to the final rule, except as discussed below.
Paragraph (i)(1) requires that covers in roadways and vehicular
aisles be capable of supporting, without failure, at least twice the
maximum axle load of the largest vehicle expected to cross over the
cover. There were no comments on this provision.
Paragraph (i)(2) requires that all other covers (those not
addressed by paragraph (i)(1)) be capable of supporting, without
failure, at least twice the weight of any employee (including any
equipment or material the employee may be carrying) who may be on the
cover. This provision differs from both the proposed and the existing
rules. Existing Sec. 1926.500(f)(5)(ii) requires floor opening covers
not located in roadways or vehicular aisles to be capable of supporting
the maximum intended load. The proposed rule kept the maximum intended
load requirement and added a requirement that a cover be able to
support 250 pounds, based on what OSHA considered to be the average
maximum weight of an employee with tools. One commenter (Ex. 2-46) was
apparently concerned with OSHA's determination that 250 pounds
represented the average employee with tools. The ACCSH recommended that
no weight at all be placed on the covers addressed in proposed
paragraph (i)(2) (Tr. 6/10/87; pp. 109-113). However, OSHA feels that
it is reasonable to anticipate that employees will walk on covers. OSHA
is also concerned that employees could fall onto the covers, going
through them if they were not sufficiently strong and secured. As one
ACCSH member put it, (Tr. p. 110) ``Sometimes a material used for
covers is not sufficient to handle weights on them.''
Based on the comments and recommendations received, OSHA has
determined that it is inappropriate to prohibit employees from being on
covers and that employees will be adequately protected by a requirement
for each cover to be strong enough to prevent them from falling into
holes. Therefore, OSHA is revising proposed paragraph (i)(2) to require
covers to support twice the weight of the employees, equipment and
materials that may be put on the cover. As noted above, paragraph
(i)(1) has set ``twice the weight'' as the strength requirement for
covers over which vehicles will pass. OSHA believes twice the weight of
the employee, equipment and materials would be appropriate here also.
Paragraph (i)(3) requires covers to be secured when installed so as
to prevent accidental displacement by wind, equipment, and employees.
Proposed paragraph (i)(3), which was based on existing
Sec. 1926.500(f)(5)(ii), required covers to be installed so as to
prevent accidental displacement. OSHA has revised the proposed
paragraph to state more clearly OSHA's intent that covers be secured
when installed so that employees cannot easily remove them, and so that
wind and equipment will not accidentally cause covers to be displaced.
Paragraph (i)(4) requires all covers to be color coded or the word
``HOLE'' or ``COVER'' must appear on the cover to serve as a warning to
employees of the hazard. A note in paragraph (4) indicates that OSHA
does not intend for employers to color code or mark the permanent cast
iron manhole covers or steel grates which cover street or roadways
openings or similar kinds of covers that may be encountered on a
construction worksite.
Paragraph (i)(4) is a new requirement in the final rule. The change
in paragraph (i)(3) and the new provision in (i)(4) have been made
after consideration of recommendations presented to OSHA by ACCSH (Tr.
6/10/87; pp. 109-113) and as a result of the evaluation of the comments
received in response to Issue #7 of the proposed rule, in which OSHA
specifically asked whether or not covers should be marked or color
coded.
Many commenters, in response to Issue #7, supported adding a
requirement that employers mark or color code covers to prevent
accidental displacement (Exs. 2-12, 2-20, 2-36, 2-41, 2-43, 2-45, 2-46,
2-50, 2-89, and 2-99). For example, the BCMALU (Ex. 2-46) commented
that covers should be marked and color-coded so the worker does not
pick up a cover and walk into the hole. They explained that the marking
on the cover would alert the worker that it is something other than a
plain piece of lumber. Other commenters supported both marking and
color coding. One commenter (Ex. 2-99) approved of marking covers, but
stressed the importance of covers being sufficiently strong and
secured. Another commenter (Ex. 2-153) supported the provisions in
paragraph (i) as they were proposed.
Bristol Steel and the NEA (Exs. 2-12 and 2-43) commented, ``Lifting
covers unintentionally and then stepping through the uncovered hole is
a significant hazard which could be reduced if covers were marked or
fastened down.'' They listed three accidents caused by unintentional
removal of covers. The accidents resulted in one fatality and two
permanent disabilities. They also pointed out ``it is not always
feasible to fasten covers to permanent building materials without
causing unacceptable damage; consequently the alternative for marking
covers is proposed.'' Bristol Steel and NEA suggested that
Sec. 1926.502(i)(3) be changed to read ``All covers shall be installed
so as to prevent accidental displacement. Covers shall be marked to
indicate their function as a cover or shall be securely fastened down
to prevent unintentional removal.''
The United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers (Ex.
2-99) commented that covers should be strong enough to withstand the
weight of men and materials, and that they should be securely fastened
to prevent their being displaced. In addition, while stating that they
had no objection to marking covers to indicate their function, they
stated that marking covers ``must not be allowed in lieu of securely
fastening such a cover to prevent accidental displacement.''
The ACCSH recommended that covers be painted a distinctive color
and be fastened in place and that no weight should be permitted on
them. (Tr. 6/10/87; pp. 109-113).
A few commenters responded that covers should neither be marked nor
painted because of maintenance problems, i.e., the markings would wear
off. (Exs. 2-16, 2-19, 2-47, 2-92 and 2-140). As discussed above, OSHA
agrees that painting or labeling covers is necessary for the enhanced
safety afforded affected employees.
Paragraph (j)--Protection from falling objects. This paragraph sets
forth the performance criteria for providing protection from falling
objects. All of the provisions are identical to the proposed
provisions, except as provided below.
Paragraph (j)(1) requires toeboards, when used, to be erected along
the edge of overhead walking/working surfaces for a distance sufficient
to protect employees working below. This is a change from existing
rules in Secs. 1926.500(b)(1), (2), (3)(ii), and (8), which require
toeboards around floor, roof, and platform holes and openings
regardless of whether or not employees are working below. However,
paragraph (j)(1) is consistent with the intent of the existing rule in
Sec. 1926.500(d)(1) and Sec. 1926.501(e) of the final rule which
require protection only where employees below are exposed to the hazard
of falling objects.
Paragraph (j)(2) is a new requirement and it specifies toeboards
shall be capable of withstanding, without failure, a force of at least
50 pounds. This requirement was proposed to set a minimum strength for
toeboards to ensure the ability of the toeboard to restrain falling
objects.
Paragraph (j)(3) specifies how toeboards are to be installed and is
essentially the same as the existing requirement in
Sec. 1926.500(f)(3)(i), except the minimum height of the toeboard has
been reduced from 4 inches to 3\1/2\ inches. In the NPRM, OSHA proposed
to change not only the maximum vertical height of the toeboard, but the
size of the opening or gap between the toeboard and the walking/working
surface. The existing rule set the maximum size of that opening at \1/
4\-inch and OSHA proposed to allow a \1/2\-inch clearance. OSHA
received one comment on the proposed provision. The TVA (Ex. 2-20)
noted that ``many small tools can pass through a one-half inch opening
* * *.'' OSHA also notes that the ANSI A1264.1-1989 standard sets \1/4\
inch as the maximum clearance. Based on this information, OSHA has
determined that the existing rule more adequately addresses the hazard
and has revised the proposed provision accordingly.
Paragraph (j)(4) provides that additional protection, such as
paneling or screening erected from the working level or toeboard to the
top of the top rail or midrail, must be used where tools, equipment, or
materials are higher than the top of a toeboard. This requirement is
substantively the same as the existing requirement in
Sec. 1926.500(f)(3)(ii).
Seedorf Masonry (Ex. 2-153) questioned whether employers would have
to install a screening system on floors or scaffolds since they
typically pile brick and block units on floors and scaffolds and the
pile is higher than the height of a toeboard. OSHA notes that the use
of toeboards, screens or guardrail systems is one of the options
allowed in Sec. 1926.501(c) of the final rule. Paragraph (j)(4) simply
requires that employers who choose to use toeboards as the method of
preventing objects from falling onto employees working below, take the
necessary precautions to ensure that objects do not fall over the
toeboard. Employers can choose from among other options listed in
Sec. 1926.501(c) to provide the necessary protection. However, if an
employer chooses to use toeboards, the employer would be required to
install panels or screens that are high enough to keep bricks from
falling to lower levels if the height of the bricks exceeds the height
of the toeboard, so that appropriate protection is afforded employees
working below.
Paragraph (j)(5) requires that when guardrails are used to prevent
objects from falling, the openings in the guardrail must be small
enough to retain the potential falling objects. This is essentially the
same as the existing requirement in Secs. 1926.500(c)(1)(ii) and
(f)(7)(ii) except the specific limitations on hole size have been
deleted.
Paragraph (j)(6) contains housekeeping provisions for overhand
bricklaying operations which are intended to prevent tripping and to
prevent displacement of materials and equipment to areas below the
walking/working surface.
Paragraph (j)(7) sets forth provisions for storing materials and
equipment during roofing operations. These are essentially the same
requirements as those set in existing 1926.500(g)(5) (vi) and (vii).
Paragraph (j)(8), which did not appear in the proposal, requires
that when canopy structures are erected, they shall be strong enough to
prevent collapse or penetration of falling objects.
In Issue #8, OSHA noted that proposed Sec. 1926.501(e) [final rule
Sec. 1926.501(c)] allowed the use of protective canopies for falling
object protection and requested comments on what criteria should be
specified in Sec. 1926.502(j) to ensure proper protection. SSFI (Ex. 2-
89) commented that ``Historically canopies have been designed for 150
to 300 pound design loads or `light debris'. It is recommended that use
of this type of canopy be continued.'' The National Constructors
Association (Ex. 2-45) commented that a performance standard would be
more appropriate, stating ``It is not practical to attempt to write
regulations on protective canopies * * * .'' ACCSH (Tr. 6/10/87; p.
113) recommended that canopy structures be strong enough to avoid
collapse or penetration when falling objects strike them. Bristol Steel
and the NEA (Exs. 2-12 and 2-43) stated, ``No additional criteria for
protective canopies are needed.'' Miller and Long (Ex. 2-41) commented
that many methods of protection against falling objects are available
and that, given the changeability of the work environment, ``a variety
of methods should be included. Another commenter, Ex. 2-46, stated
``Canopies or catch alls should be used when chipping of concrete with
electric or pneumatic chipping guns are used.''
In view of the comments received, OSHA has determined that the
record does not contain sufficient information to formulate detailed
criteria for the many types of canopy structures. However, the record
does support OSHA action to set a minimum level of performance for
canopies suited to their function which is to prevent falling objects
from reaching employees. OSHA agrees that the canopy must be strong
enough to perform its intended function if the employer provides canopy
structures as the method to protect employees from falling objects.
Paragraph (k)--Fall protection plan. OSHA is promulgating paragraph
(k), which was not part of the proposed rule, to address the measures
that employers who are constructing leading edges, or are engaged in
precast concrete construction or residential construction work must
take when they establish, pursuant to final rule Secs. 1926.501(b)(2),
(b)(12) or (b)(13), that it is either infeasible or would create a
greater hazard to protect employees from fall hazards using guardrail
systems, safety net systems, or personal fall arrest systems for
employee fall protection. OSHA has explained under
Secs. 1926.501(b)(2), (b)(12) and (b)(13) what conditions could enable
a contractor to meet the criteria to use a fall protection plan.
Final rule Secs. 1926.501(b)(2),(b)(12) and (b)(13) contain notes
which indicate clearly that OSHA approaches the pertinent work
activities with the presumption that it is feasible and will not create
a greater hazard to implement at least one of the three specified
conventional fall protection systems. The notes also underscore that
the employer has the burden of establishing that it is appropriate to
implement a fall protection plan which complies with Sec. 1926.502(k)
for a particular workplace situation. OSHA believes that the inclusion
of these notes will facilitate understanding of and compliance with
paragraph (k) of the final rule.
Paragraph (k) had its origin in comments received in response to
Issue #2 of the notice of hearing in which OSHA asked if there were
areas or operations, in addition to those already identified in
proposed Sec. 1926.501, which had unique fall protection requirements
not addressed by the proposed standards and in a Notice of Record
Reopening in (57 FR 34659; August 5, 1992) discussed above in relation
to Sec. 1926.501(b)(12). OSHA requested commenters to describe such
areas and operations in detail and to discuss the fall protection
measures which would be appropriate for those situations.
In response, the Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI), in
addition to their written comments (Ex. 2-44, 2-106, and 2-107),
presented testimony at the public hearing noting that, ``* * * our
field erection is work not appropriately covered by the proposed
regulations; rather, precast concrete erection should be listed as a
separate subpart (or preferably included along with steel erection in
Subpart R).'' A full discussion of PCI's comments, along with OSHA's
decisions, are provided along with the discussion of
Sec. 1926.501(b)(12) above.
A number of commenters (Exs. 27-5, 27-7, 27-10, 27-21, 27-22, and
27-28) responded to the reopening of the record and suggested that OSHA
promulgate the criteria from the Notice of Record Reopening as the
alternative ``fall protection plan'' for the precast concrete
construction industry.
Several commenters (Exs. 27-1, 27-2, 27-6, 27-9, 27-25, 27-36, and
27-42) opposed allowing precast concrete construction employers to
protect their employees by any means other than conventional fall
protection (guardrail systems, personal fall arrest systems and safety
net systems). Some of these commenters (Exs. 27-6, 27-9 and 27-25) were
especially skeptical of safety monitoring systems as an alternative to
conventional measures. In particular, one commenter (Ex. 27-25) stated:
There are no conditions where OSHA should allow precast concrete
construction employers to institute anything other than a
conventional fall protection system to protect workers.
Safety monitoring, controlled access zones systems and a fall
protection plan are examples of additional controls which should be
considered in addition to conventional fall protection systems.
Regulations must be developed which will require design and
installation of anchor points during the construction process so
that workers will have attachments available for fall arrest
protection. Exposure time should not be a considering factor when
evaluating whether to protect a worker. The protection of any worker
who needs to come within two feet of a floor or roof edge for a few
seconds should not rely on an observer when it could be accomplished
by an area limiting tethering device, or other fall arrest system.
the use of a ``safety monitor'' should not be allowed in place of
personal fall protection equipment.
This commenter invoked a comment by NIOSH (Ex. 27-6) which stated
as follows:
Reliance on passive measures, such as safety harnesses, is
generally recognized as more effective than reliance on active
measures that require worker involvement and attention in order to
function. Using a monitor to keep another worker from the edge would
require the active involvement of both the monitor and the worker to
ensure safety.
As discussed above in relation to Sec. 1926.501(b)(2) of the final
rule, OSHA believes that construction employers, including those who
erect precast concrete structures, can, in general, protect their
employees from fall hazards with conventional fall protection, and is
requiring that they do so as a general rule. The Agency agrees with the
commenters who have stated that including fall protection in the
planning and designing of construction work (such as by including
anchor points for personal fall arrest systems in the construction
design specifications) can enable construction employers to implement
appropriate protection. OSHA acknowledges, however, that there may be
circumstances where, despite their best efforts, construction employers
cannot provide conventional fall protection, such as when grouting
operations are underway, and when home builders are setting or bracing
roof trusses. When an employer establishes, through compliance with
Sec. 1926.501(b)(12), that such circumstances exist, the Agency
believes that it is appropriate to require the implementation of
alternative measures through which the employer minimizes the fall
hazards for affected employees.
OSHA has already recognized that circumstances may arise in the
course of overhand bricklaying and roofing operations which would
preclude the use of conventional fall protection. In such cases the
Agency requires that employers take specific alternative measures to
minimize fall hazards for affected employees. The Agency believes that
requiring those alternative measures, when conventional fall protection
cannot be used, will provide the best opportunity to avert employee
injury and death. OSHA has determined that it is also appropriate to
set alternative measures for leading edge construction, precast
concrete construction, and residential construction work so employers
have clear direction as to what they must do if the use of conventional
fall protection is infeasible or would cause a greater hazard in a
particular work area.
As discussed above, the Agency has set criteria in
Sec. 1926.501(b)(2), (b)(12), and (b)(13) for employers who seek to
establish that the use of fall protection is infeasible or would create
a greater hazard for employees when constructing leading edges or
performing precast concrete or residential construction work. Employers
who satisfy those criteria must implement a written ``fall protection
plan'' which complies with Sec. 1926.502(k). OSHA is adding Non-
mandatory Appendix E to provide a sample fall protection plans which
contains the elements and the detail necessary for the Agency to
consider the plan to be in compliance with paragraph (k). This non-
mandatory appendix is provided for the benefit of employers who need
guidance in developing their fall protection plans.
Paragraph (k)(1) provides that a written fall protection plan must
be prepared by a ``qualified'' person (as defined by 29 CFR 1926.32(m),
that the plan be developed specifically for the site where the work is
being done, and that the plan be maintained up to date. The definition
in Sec. 1926.32(m) describes ``qualified'' as a person who ``has
successfully demonstrated his ability to solve or resolve problems
relating to the subject matter, the work, or the project.'' The
inclusion of these requirements was suggested by PCI (Ex. 25-4) and
addressed in the August 5, 1992, record reopening notice (57 FR 34656).
Employers whose workplace situations satisfy the criteria of 29 CFR
1926.501(b)(2), (b)(12) or (b)(13) still must develop and implement
alternative measures that protect affected employees from fall hazards.
It is clear that the abilities of the personnel who develop those
measures will strongly influence their effectiveness. The Agency has
determined that the abilities of a qualified person are needed to
ensure that the fall protection plan minimizes fall hazards. OSHA notes
that an employer may use the services of more than one qualified person
to comply with these requirements, as long as (1) those persons,
collectively, are qualified to prepare the fall protection plan and
approve any changes; and (2) the resulting plan complies with the
applicable requirements of the standards.
Paragraph (k)(1) also provides that the fall protection plan must
be developed for the specific site where the work is being done. OSHA
notes that the designs, erection plans and circumstances for one site
will, in many cases, differ significantly from those for another site.
Accordingly, the fall protection plan for the one site may well be
inapplicable to the other or may require substantial modification
before it can be used. This provision was suggested by PCI (Ex. 25-4)
and was addressed in the August 5, 1992, notice of record reopening (57
FR 34659). The Agency anticipates that compliance with this requirement
will enable an employer to take measures which minimize the fall
hazards at each site.
Paragraph (k)(1) also requires that the fall protection plan be
maintained up to date. The employer must review the fall protection
plan as necessary to determine if it still fits the workplace situation
and must modify the plan as necessary to maintain its effectiveness,
such as when elements of the plan have become inapplicable due to
changes in the design, erection plan or other circumstances of a site.
This provision was suggested by PCI (Ex. 25-4) and was addressed in the
August 5, 1992, notice of reopening (57 FR 34659). It provides clear
notice to employers that they have an ongoing responsibility to monitor
their projects and to revise their fall protection plans to address
changed conditions.
Paragraph (k)(2) provides that any changes in a fall protection
plan must be approved by a qualified person. The qualified person may
either sign or initial and date the changed portion of the fall
protection plan to indicate approval of the plan as modified. This
provision, like paragraph (k)(1), reflects the Agency's belief that the
characteristics set out in 29 CFR 1926.32(m) are needed to assure that
the person who sets the terms of the fall protection plan has the
requisite ability and judgment. This provision was suggested by PCI
(Ex. 25-4) and was addressed in the August 5, 1992, notice of record
reopening (57 FR 34659). The decision regarding the acceptability of
any potential plan changes may be made by any person or persons
``qualified'' to do so. OSHA believes that compliance with this
paragraph will ensure that changes to fall protection plans receive the
same careful scrutiny as the original plans.
Paragraph (k)(3) requires that a copy of the fall protection plan,
with all approved changes, be maintained at the job site, available for
inspection by employees and their authorized representatives. In many
cases, the opportunity to review the plan will provide the necessary
reassurance to employees that the employer has taken appropriate
measures to minimize exposure to fall hazards. In other cases, review
of the plan will alert employees to deficiencies that need to be
brought to the employer's attention for correction. This provision was
suggested by PCI (Ex. 25-4) and was addressed in the August 5, 1992,
notice of record reopening (57 FR 34659). The Agency believes that
compliance with this paragraph will both facilitate operations and help
ensure that the fall protection plan fits the actual workplace
conditions.
Paragraph (k)(4) provides that the implementation of the fall
protection plan must be supervised by a ``competent person''. That term
is defined in 29 CFR 1926.32(f) to mean ``one who is capable of
identifying existing and predictable hazards in the surroundings or
working conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous to
employees, and who has authorization to take prompt corrective measures
to eliminate them.'' The proper implementation of a fall protection
plan will require unflagging vigilance and decisive action. Without the
``built-in'' protection of a guardrail, safety net or personal fall
arrest system, employees must rely on safety monitors and other
measures to warn them away from fall hazards. This provision indicates
clearly that employers must assign supervisors who can promptly
identify and correct any problems arising under the plan. This
provision was suggested by PCI (Ex. 25-4) and was addressed in the
August 5, 1992, notice of record reopening (57 FR 34659).
OSHA notes that a ``competent person'' who also has the abilities
of a ``qualified person'' will be particularly well-positioned to
develop and implement solutions to fall protection problems. The Agency
has not required that the supervisor be both ``competent'' and
``qualified'', because OSHA believes that such consolidation of
function is not essential for employee protection. Also, the Agency
recognizes that more than one person can be a ``competent person'' for
the purposes of paragraph (k)(6), as long as those persons,
collectively, exercise the requisite oversight and authority.
Paragraph (k)(5) provides that an employer who determines that
conventional fall protection cannot be used at a particular worksite
must document the reason why the use of conventional fall protection
systems (guardrail systems, safety net systems, or personal fall arrest
systems) are infeasible or why their use creates a greater hazard. OSHA
has provided guidance in its discussion of Sec. 1926.501(b)(2), (b)(12)
and (b)(13) to assist employers in identifying what constitutes
infeasibility and greater hazard. Employers must explain in writing,
before work begins, for each of the three conventional systems, why
those systems cannot be used at the specific location where the fall
hazard is present. This provision was suggested by PCI (Ex. 25-4) and
was addressed in the August 5, 1992, notice of reopening (57 FR 34659).
The process of developing the rationale will help the employer to
understand the real limits, if any, on the use of fall protection. An
employer who at first assumes that conventional fall protection cannot
be used may well discover upon closer examination that employees in all
or part of those operations can use conventional fall protection. In
addition, the documentation required by paragraph (k)(5) will enable
OSHA to determine if there is an objective basis for the employer's
finding that its operations meet the criteria of Sec. 1926.501(b)(2),
(b)(12), or (b)(13). The purpose of paragraph (k)(5) is to limit the
use of fall protection plans to those situations where such use is
justified.
Paragraph (k)(6) requires the employer, after complying with
paragraph (k)(5) above, to document in the written fall protection plan
the measures that the employer will take to reduce or eliminate the
fall hazard in work areas where conventional fall protection systems
cannot be used. For example, if safety monitoring systems and control
zone systems are going to be used, the written plan must so state. The
employer must comply with all of the provisions described in the fall
protection plan as alternative measures. It will not be acceptable for
employers, under paragraph (k)(6) to list ``nothing'' or ``no measures
to be taken'' as the alternative measure. At the very minimum, the
safety monitoring system (see paragraph (k)(8) must be employed and all
of the criteria in paragraph (h) of this section followed. OSHA notes,
at this point, that if a safety monitoring system is to be used, the
designated monitor must fulfill all of the criteria in paragraph (h).
If monitors are given other work assignments, such as those discussed
under paragraph (h) of this section, which render them unable to
monitor other employees effectively, OSHA will view that situation as
``not in compliance.'' Therefore, employers may need to designate more
than one monitor so that a monitor is always available to fulfill the
criteria of Sec. 1926.502(h).
In situations where conventional systems are not used, OSHA does
not encourage employers to elect the safety monitoring system as a
first choice. Rather, the Agency will permit it to be used in those
circumstances when no other alternative, more protective measures can
be implemented. Examples of such more protective measures include
having employees work from scaffolds, ladders, or vehicle mounted work
platforms to provide a safer working surface and thereby reduce the
hazard of falling. The written plan must include a discussion of these
other measures and the extent to which they can be used. The employer
should also note where the use of those measures would not reduce
exposure, would be unreasonable, infeasible or would create a greater
hazard. The employer's failure to perform this evaluation as part of
the plan will support an OSHA determination that the employer does not
have a fall protection plan and OSHA will consider the employer to be
in violation of Sec. 1926.501(b)(2), (b)(12), or (b)(13). OSHA will
also expect safe work practices to be elements of the alternative
measures. For example, employees engaged in grouting operations would
be expected to position themselves so their backs are not to the fall
hazard. Employees on ladders would use a leg lock to position
themselves more securely than they would otherwise be. In brief,
employers need to preplan the work and plan the use of safe work
practices that eliminate or reduce the possibility of a fall.
The choice of alternative fall protection systems will be
particularly important when, pursuant to 29 CFR 1926.501(b)(2),
(b)(12), or (b)(13), an employer establishes that it must use
alternatives to conventional fall protection. Accordingly, OSHA has
determined that the employer must do what it can to minimize exposure
to fall hazards, before turning to the use of safety monitoring systems
(29 CFR 1926.502(h) under a fall protection plan. The inclusion of this
requirement is based on submission from the PCI (Ex. 25-4) and was
addressed in the August 5, 1992, record reopening notice (57 FR 34657).
Paragraph (k)(7) requires the employer to identify in the plan,
each location where conventional fall protection cannot be used and to
classify those locations as controlled access zones. Controlled access
zones must conform to the criteria in paragraph (g). Compliance with
this provision will provide a reference point to enable the employer to
distinguish between those work areas where the fall protection plan
applies and those where it does not. This provision was suggested by
PCI (Ex. 25-4) and was addressed in the August 5, 1992, notice of
record reopening (57 FR 34657). It was also recommended by Ryland, the
Home Builders Association of Maryland, and Hallmark Builders (Ex. 27-
23, 27-24, 27-26).
OSHA has determined that, when it is impossible to perform the work
with conventional fall protection, the work must be performed in a
controlled access zone (CAZ). The CAZ prevents employees who are not
engaged in the activities covered by the fall protection plan from
being exposed to fall hazards in the areas where those activities are
being conducted.
Paragraph (k)(8) requires that a safety monitoring system must be
implemented where no other alternative measures have been implemented.
Safety monitoring systems must comply with the criteria in
Sec. 1926.502(h). There has been considerable discussion above in
relation to Secs. 1926.501(b)(2) and 1926.502(h) regarding the role of
safety monitoring systems in minimizing exposure to fall hazards. OSHA
has added this requirement because it believes that employers must, at
a minimum, have a competent person assigned to monitor those employees
who have not been provided conventional fall protection to warn the
employees when they are acting in an unsafe manner or approaching an
unprotected side or edge, among other activities when other, more
protective measures, are not used.
PCI (Ex. 27-7) as discussed above, supported the use of safety
monitoring systems and also commented that some contractors use safety
monitoring systems now as part of their fall protection efforts,
stating that ``* * * safety monitoring or controlled access zones
systems in conjunction with a fall protection plan is more safe * *
*.'' Rocky Mountain Prestress (Ex. 27-8) also supported the use of
safety monitors as part of a fall protection plan.
Paragraph (k)(9) provides that the fall protection plan must
identify, by name or other method, those employees who are authorized
to work in CAZs. The paragraph further requires that only employees
identified in the fall protection plan be allowed to enter CAZs. This
provision was suggested by PCI (Ex. 25-4) and was addressed in the
August 5, 1992, notice of record reopening (57 FR 34657).
OSHA anticipates that compliance with this paragraph will enable an
employer to maintain control over access to a CAZ, minimizing the
number of employees exposed to fall hazards. This provision, like the
rest of paragraph (k), reflects the Agency's position that although
there may be situations where fall protection cannot be used, any
deviation from the general requirements for fall protection must be
construed as narrowly as possible.
Paragraph (k)(10) provides that, if an employee falls while
performing work covered by a fall protection plan or there is other
reason to believe that the substance or implementation of the plan is
deficient (e.g., a near miss), the employer must review the fall
protection plan and make any changes in work practices, training,
erection procedures, or construction practices needed to correct any
deficiencies in the plan. Given the immediacy of the hazards to which
employees covered by a fall protection plan may be exposed, it is
essential that contractors promptly revise their plans to incorporate
what they learn through experience.
This paragraph underscores the Agency's determination that
employers must minimize any fall hazards to which employees might be
exposed through the use of fall protection plans. This provision was
suggested by PCI (Ex. 27-22), and was endorsed by Rocky Mountain
Prestress, Inc. (Ex. 27-28) for the precast/prestress concrete
industry. Rocky Mountain further stated that they had implemented a
fall protection plan and it ``has been very successful on several major
precast projects * * *.''
Both PCI and Rocky Mountain submitted sample fall protection plans
(Exs. 27-22 and 27-28) which have been used by OSHA in the development
of non-mandatory appendix E-- Sample Fall Protection Plans.
One final comment that is not related to any of the above
discussion was heard at the public hearing on the proposed rule, when
WACO International (Tr. 03/22/88, p. 45) presented testimony regarding
a hydraulic, self-climbing safety screen. They suggested that it was an
alternative to safety net systems and other conventional devices used
for protecting workers from exterior fall hazards. WACO requested that
OSHA revise existing Sec. 1926.105(a) to specifically identify safety
screens as a viable option for compliance with perimeter protection
safety standards. They also stated that safety screens, unlike safety
nets, do not require added hours of perimeter exposure after the
installation to maintain them.
OSHA observes that information on the use of such safety screens is
limited since the screens have been used in Australia, not in the
United States. The WACO representative did testify, however, that no
one had fallen off the side of a building in the 10 years that the
screen had been used in Australia (Tr. 3/22/88. pg. 47).
Based on the limited information and evidence available to OSHA at
this time, OSHA has decided not to incorporate specific provisions for
safety screens in the final rule at this time. However, OSHA notes that
such screens may be acceptable as a safety net system or guardrail
system provided the screen can meet the performance criteria set forth
in the various paragraphs in Sec. 1926.502 for such systems. Therefore,
nothing in subpart M shall be construed to prohibit the use of safety
screens.
Sec. 1926.503--Training
The introductory text states that this section supplements and
clarifies the requirements of Sec. 1926.21 regarding the hazards
addressed in subpart M.
The paragraph (a) requires employers to provide a training program
for each employee exposed to fall hazards so that each employee can
recognize fall hazards and know how to avoid them. This section
identifies components of the requisite training, but does not specify
the details of the training program.
Employers need not retrain employees who were trained by a previous
employer or were trained prior to the effective data of the standard,
as long as the employee demonstrates an understanding of the subjects
covered by paragraph (a) of this section.
Paragraph (a) also states the subject areas to be addressed in the
required training programs. The list of subjects reflects OSHA's
determination that fall protection equipment and systems are only
effective when they are properly designed, built, located, maintained,
and used. Employers are required to ensure that each employee is
trained, as necessary, by a competent person qualified in the following
areas: The nature of the fall hazards in the work area; the correct
procedures for erecting, maintaining, disassembling, using and
inspecting the fall protection systems to be used; the role of
employees in the safety monitoring systems when used; the role of
employees in fall protection plans; and the standards contained in
subpart M.
Employees covered by a fall protection plan will, for example, need
training to understand and to work effectively within the constraints
of a CAZ. Affected employees will also need training on how to work
with a safety monitor if a monitor is in use, to ensure that they
respond appropriately when they hear a warning. OSHA recognizes that
much of the information covered by training will be site-specific, so
the Agency is framing this provision in performance-oriented terms.
This approach to training provides flexibility for the employer in
designing the training program. The proposed paragraph has been amended
to require that the training be provided by a ``competent person.''
This provision was added at the recommendation of the ACCSH (Tr. 6/9/
87; P. 266). OSHA agrees that the involvement of a competent person who
is qualified in the subject areas provides appropriate assurance that
employees will be adequately trained. OSHA has also deleted the words
``and instructed'' from the introductory text of proposed paragraph
(a)(1) for the sake of clarity.
In Issue #5, OSHA requested public comment on whether or not a more
specific requirement for training would be appropriate. OSHA also asked
for data on the costs and effectiveness of training requirements in
reducing the risk of injuries or fatalities, and whether more or less
specific requirements were appropriate. In addition, commenters were
asked to respond with information about currently available safety
programs and their adequacy; the safety records of employees who have
been trained; the scope and necessary elements of training programs;
the relationship of the additional specific provisions in
Sec. 1926.503(a)(2) with the more general Sec. 1926.21 requirements;
costs and benefits related to this issue; and any recordkeeping burdens
these provisions might impose.
Many commenters responded to this issue by commenting on the need
and value of employee training. (Exs. 2-6, 2-9, 2-12, 2-19, 2-23, 2-43,
2-46, and 2-50). Most of these commenters also stated their belief that
the proposed requirements for training and retraining were adequate,
with some commenters noting that further requirements were unnecessary
(Exs. 2-12, 2-19, 2-23, 2-43). Bristol Steel and the NEA (Exs. 2-12 and
2-43) commented as follows: ``Suitable training is an essential element
of accident prevention. The specific training requirements proposed in
Section 1926.503 are appropriate and necessary to inform employees of
accident prevention measures* * *.''
The AGC (Exs. 2-16, 2-47, and 2-92) indicated that specific
training requirements did not provide the flexibility needed to cover
all construction situations, observing that foremen and supervisors
provided the more specific type of training. Also, a commenter (Ex. 2-
51) noted the mobility of the workforce and other factors and
recommended that OSHA refrain from being specific in the training
requirements. The commenter also stated that the general requirements
for training in Sec. 1926.21 are more pertinent to construction. The
MCISC (Ex. 2-140) stated, ``We believe that training is the key to
accident reduction but also that it is already covered in the existing
OSHA standard under 1926.20 and 1926.21.''
On the other hand, R&TC (Ex. 2-36) commented that more specific
requirements were needed for live demonstrations (under controlled
conditions). The National Constructors Association (Ex. 2-45) also
commented that ``Requirements for training should address specifics as
to task and hazard involved.'' The ANSI Z359 Committee (Ex. 2-50)
suggested that ``Fall protection training should perhaps be the subject
of a national standard.'' ACCSH recommended that the training be given
by a competent person. (Tr. 6/10/87; p. 95).
Also, the Roofers Union (Ex. 2-99) in support of more specific
requirements, commented that ``These requirements must be specific to
avoid employers merely handing out material for workers to read.'' The
commenter also stated that competent persons must conduct the training.
Finally, other commenters (Exs. 2-89 and 2-95) offered to develop
training programs in support of the OSHA training requirements. The
SSFI (Ex. 2-89) commented that its members ``are willing to assist OSHA
in developing training programs that would be used for these purposes
by the employer prior to the employee starting work at a job site.''
They also commented that on-the-job training should not be a substitute
for prior training. The MCAA (Exs. 2-95) also commented that it would
endeavor to develop training aid programs for its membership. OSHA
encourages these groups and appreciates their efforts to develop
training programs.
The Agency is adding a new paragraph (b) to final rule
Sec. 1926.503 to require employers to verify that employees have been
trained as required by paragraph (a). In particular, final rule
paragraph (b)(1) requires employers to prepare a written certification
record. Final rule paragraph (b)(1) further specifies that the written
certification record shall contain the name or other identity of the
employee trained, the date(s) of the training, and the signature of the
person who conducted the training or the signature of the employer.
As noted above, OSHA does not require retraining provided the
employee can demonstrate the ability to recognize the hazards of
falling and the procedures to be followed to minimize fall hazards as
required by paragraph (a). OSHA recognizes that in many cases an
employer will be unable to identify the date on which the previous
training was provided. Accordingly, when employers relying on previous
training prepare their certification records, they shall indicate the
date the employer determined the prior training was adequate rather
than the date of actual training.
The certification record can be prepared in any format an employer
chooses, including preprinted forms, computer generated lists, or 3 x 5
cards.
OSHA recognizes that many employers have already been providing
affected employees with training that complies with final rule
Secs. 1926.503(a) and that requiring those employers to repeat the
pertinent training would be unreasonably burdensome.
Paragraph (b)(2) requires that the latest certification record be
maintained.
These provisions, which were not proposed, have been added because,
based on the discussion of the need for training records in Issue #5
and the response to that Issue, OSHA has determined that verification
of training through a written certification is reasonably necessary for
the protection of employees.
The AGC (Exs. 2-16, 2-47 and 2-92) and the ABC (Ex. 2-51) stated
that a requirement for training records would be unreasonably
burdensome. Bristol Steel and the NEA (Exs. 2-12 and 2-43) stated
``[w]ritten training records should not be required, and the proposed
standard does not require any. Preparation and maintenance of * * *
records could easily require 0.05 to 0.2 manhours per employee per
year, at a cost of $2.00 to $10.00 per employee, and would not further
the objectives of accident prevention.'' The NCA (Ex. 2-45) simply
stated [c]ompliance with training requirements should not include OSHA
recordkeeping requirements.
On the other hand, the State of Maryland (Ex. 2-31) stated
``[t]raining program should be documented as to attendance and subjects
reviewed.'' In addition, the BCMALU (Ex. 2-46) stated ``[t]raining
could be marked on an Individuals payroll sheet or whatever, it should
be no big bookkeeping problem and the cost is minor compared to the
work produced, when you are confident it is safe and reduced Insurance
rates.''
OSHA has determined, after careful review of these comments, that
some record of training is needed to provide assurance that the
required training has, in fact, been provided. Given the performance-
oriented focus of this rulemaking, the Agency has determined that the
generation and review of extensive documentation would impose
unnecessary burdens. Accordingly, OSHA will require verification of
training through a certification which contains the above-listed
information.
The Agency notes that OSHA has also required certification of
training in the personal protective equipment standard for general
industry, Sec. 1910.132(f)(4); the permit-required confined space
standard, Sec. 1910.146(g)(4); the control of hazardous energy
(lockout/tagout) standard, Sec. 1910.147(c)(7)(iv); and in the
Telecommunications standard, Sec. 1910.268(c). OSHA also notes that the
preparation of a certification will not preclude a citation if the
Agency determines that employees have not, in fact, been trained. The
Agency believes that this provision will impose a minimal burden, while
enabling the employer and OSHA to verify the status of training
efforts.
As stated in Sec. 1926.503(c), fall protection training must be
repeated when changes in workplace conditions or changes in the types
of fall protection systems or equipment to be used render previous
training obsolete, and when inadequacies in an affected employee's
knowledge or use of fall protection systems or equipment indicate that
the employee has not retained the understanding or skill required by
paragraph (a). This provision is similar to the proposed provision but
has been revised to indicate clearly that employers have an ongoing
responsibility to maintain employee proficiency in the use and care of
fall protection equipment.
Appendices A to E
The final rule adds five appendices (discussed below), to revised
subpart M. The proposed rule contained only three appendices.
Appendices D, and E were not proposed, but have been added to give
clarification and examples of how to comply with certain requirements.
These Appendices are non-mandatory, and neither impose additional
requirements nor detract from the requirements contained in this
subpart. They are intended to provide useful, explanatory material and
information to employers and employees to assist them in compliance
with the standards.
Appendix A to Subpart M--Roof Widths
This appendix is provided to serve as a guide to assist employers
in complying with the requirements of Sec. 1926.501(b)(10). This
appendix is non-mandatory. The record compiled for the promulgation of
existing Sec. 1926.500(g), which requires the guarding of low-pitched
roofs during the performance of roofing work, demonstrated that there
was confusion as to which dimension of a building should be considered
to be the width of a roof. This appendix explains that in all cases
buildings are viewed in plan view (i.e., viewed from above, looking
down). The width of the roof is then the narrower of the two primary
dimensions which define the roof area. Although the Appendix does not
show all possible roof configurations, it does give some common
arrangements. Final Appendix A is unchanged from the proposed Appendix
A. There were no comments on proposed Appendix A.
Appendix B to Subpart M--Guardrail Systems
As explained in the discussion of Sec. 1926.502(b) governing
guardrail systems, this appendix is a non-mandatory set of guidelines
provided to assist employers in complying with the requirements of
Sec. 1926.502(b) (3), (4) and (5). An employer may use these guidelines
as a starting point for designing guardrail systems. However, the
guidelines do not provide all the information necessary to build a
complete system, and the employer is still responsible for designing
and assembling these components in such a way that the completed system
will meet the requirements of the standard. Components for which no
specific guidelines are given in the appendix (e.g., joints, base
connections, components made with other materials, and components with
other dimensions) must also be designed and constructed in such a way
that the completed system will meet the requirements of
Sec. 1926.502(b) (3), (4) and (5). Final Appendix B is unchanged from
the proposed Appendix B. There were no comments on proposed Appendix B.
Appendix C to Subpart M--Personal Fall Arrest Systems
Appendix C is provided to serve as a guide to assist employers in
complying with the test requirements of paragraph Sec. 1926.502(d) and
Sec. 1926.502(e). Personal fall arrest systems and positioning device
systems which have been tested in accordance with the criteria of this
non-mandatory appendix will be deemed by OSHA to meet the performance
criteria of paragraphs Sec. 1926.502(d)(16) and Sec. 1926.502(e) (3)
and (4). Appendix C also provides additional non-mandatory guidelines
for personal fall arrest systems. Final Appendix C differs from the
proposed Appendix C in that it provides additional information
consistent with the guidelines provided in the appendix for powered
platforms.
Appendix D to Subpart M--Positioning Device Systems
Appendix D is a new appendix which has been added to the final rule
to complement Appendix C and provide additional information on testing
methods for positioning device systems. Appendix D also contains
guidelines for inspecting positioning device systems to assist in
complying with the requirements of Sec. 1926.502(e)(5).
Appendix E to Subpart M--Sample Fall Protection Plans
This is a new Appendix to the final rule and has been added to
assist employers who are able to demonstrate that the use of
conventional fall protection measures are infeasible or create a
greater hazard when constructing leading edges, or erecting precast
concrete structures, or when engaged in residential construction work.
The plans in Appendix E were developed specifically for a precast
concrete worksite and a residential construction site, and can be
modified and tailored for use in the other areas where OSHA permits
employers to develop a Fall Protection Plans (See Sec. 1926.501(b)(2),
(b)(12) and (b)(13).
Discussion of Specific Issues Raised in the Proposed Rule
In the proposed rule, OSHA raised 27 specific issues. The comments
and testimony received in response to issues that address specific
provisions of the final rule are discussed above with those provisions.
The other, more general issues are discussed below, along with the
Agency's decisions with respect to those issues.
In Issue #1, OSHA asked for public comment on the extent to which
current practices would meet the proposed rule; the feasibility and
utility of the proposed rule; and any costs or benefits of the proposed
rule not addressed by OSHA. OSHA also asked for any accident reports
which indicated that the proposal did not properly address fall
hazards.
In response, OSHA received a variety of comments, some which took
exception to OSHA's estimate of the number of construction workers who
die each year from falls at construction sites. Other comments
reflected commenters thoughts and opinions on the practicality and
feasibility of the proposed rule. For example, with regard to OSHA's
estimate that 45-60 workers are killed on construction jobs each year,
one commenter (Ex. 2-36) stated his belief that the actual number
killed was higher because, he noted, the National Safety Council's
Accident Facts and insurance data which indicated that construction and
scaffold falls may approach 1,000 per year. The commenter also included
a copy of an article in which a representative of one union of
construction workers stated that in one year 41 of their members alone
were killed due to falls.
Another commenter, Terry Schmidt, Chairman of the ANSI Z359
Committee (Ex. 2-50) stated, ``There is evidence to suggest that OSHA's
estimate of 45-60 fatal falls per year in construction is perhaps
erroneously very low.'' The point being made by these commenters is
that the number of workers killed in falls each year is higher than
that which OSHA estimated at the time of proposal and that a fall
protection rule would, therefore, achieve additional benefits in that
more lives would be saved.
With regard to OSHA question on costs, the Great Lakes Fabricators
& Erectors Association (Ex. 2-19) commented that the regulations, as
proposed, provided sufficient protection at reasonable cost levels.
With regard to current practices in the industry and on feasibility
and utility of the proposed rule, the National Constructors Association
(NCA) (Ex. 2-45), commented that the current level of practice which
meets the requirements of the proposed changes is minimal to non-
existent. They also stated, ``The feasibility is questionable
especially with the requirements for floor covering and extending
perimeter nets to 15 feet,'' and noted that costs would increase to
provide the proposed safety measures.
The United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers, and Allied Workers (Ex.
2-99) said, ``The use of fall protection in the roofing industry is at
best minimal.''
Bristol Steel and NEA (Ex. 2-12 and 2-43) commented that the
proposed standards generally reflected current accepted practices.
OSHA concludes, based on the record and as discussed above, that
the final rule will have the effect of significantly reducing the risk
of death or injury to workers. OSHA also concludes that the final rule
will result in greater compliance than currently exist. Therefore, OSHA
has decided promulgation of this final rule is necessary.
In Issue #3, OSHA noted that in some of the existing and proposed
provisions, it had used specific numerical limits to define and clarify
various duties. As an example, OSHA noted that Sec. 1926.502(a) of the
existing rule and Sec. 1926.500(b) of the proposed rule defined the
term ``hole'' by giving a physical measurement. This measurement was
then used to determine when certain safety systems must be used to
protect against fall hazards. These and other limits were based on
existing requirements and national consensus standards, and were used
in lieu of more performance-oriented language such as ``covers shall be
used on all holes which are large enough to constitute a fall hazard,''
or language which requires a numerical limit but then allows other
configurations which give ``equivalent'' protection. OSHA believes that
the use of specific limits in certain provisions is necessary to
provide notice to employers as to how they can comply with a provision
and how OSHA intends to enforce the provision. OSHA has attempted to
restrict the use of such limits in the final rule to situations where
it is necessary to specify a single criterion for employee protection,
to promote consistency in hazard abatement, and to minimize legal
disputes over the intent of the requirement.
Issue #3 requested comment on the appropriateness of using
specification language as opposed to a non-mandatory appendix for
guidance of employers. OSHA also requested that if the specification
language was not appropriate, that commenters state how the provisions
should be written to provide the desired flexibility and the required
fair notice. If commenters felt the continued use of such limits to be
appropriate, they were asked to comment on whether the proposed limits
were sufficient to abate the hazards. Commenters were also requested to
include appropriate cost and injury data.
In response to this issue, several commenters agreed that OSHA's
use of specification language was appropriate (Exs. 2-12, 2-36, 2-46 2-
50, 2-56, 2-89, and 2-99). Other commenters (Exs. 2-16, 2-45, 2-47, 2-
51, 2-92, 2-103, and 2-140) noted that performance-oriented language
with non-mandatory appendices was preferred, though they did not
recommend that any particular specification type language be rewritten.
ACCSH (Tr. 6/10/87; p. 67), on the other hand, recommended that
specification language be used in Subpart M and that the specifications
be included in the body of the standard rather than the appendix.
After careful consideration of the record on this issue, OSHA has
determined that there are some instances where OSHA regulations must be
specific, such as when defining the dimensions of a hole, and that
there are other instances where performance language is more
appropriate, such as where OSHA can identify the hazard, state the
desired results, and leave it up to the employer to choose the
appropriate method for eliminating or reducing the hazard. OSHA
believes that the final rule is neither too specific nor so
performance-oriented that employers will have difficulty in complying
with the final rule. OSHA has not made any revisions based solely on
the comments received in response to this issue.
Issue #4--see Sec. 1926.501(b)(1)
Issue #5--see Sec. 1926.503 (a) and (b)
Issue #6--see Sec. 1926.500(a)(1)(ii)
Issue #7--see Sec. 1926.502(i) (3) and (4)
Issue #8--see Sec. 1926.501(e)
Issue #9--see Sec. 1926.502(c)(5) and Sec. 1926.502(e)(5)
Issue #10--see Sec. 1926.502(f)
Issue #11--see Sec. 1926.501(b)(10)
Issue #12--see Sec. 1926.501(b)(7) and (e)
Issue #13--see (c)(1) of Sec. 1926.501.
Issues #14 through #26--see Sec. 1926.502(d)
In Issue #27, OSHA noted that Subpart V--Power Transmission and
Distribution provided additional criteria for personal climbing
equipment, lineman's body belts, safety straps and lanyards. OSHA also
noted that paragraph Sec. 1926.951(b)(4) required lanyards and
lifelines to meet the requirements in the existing rule at
Sec. 1926.104, Safety belts, lifelines, and lanyards. Public comment
was requested on the economic impact, and any other impact, that would
result if the reference to Sec. 1926.104 were changed to
Sec. 1926.502(d)--Personal fall arrest systems and Sec. 1926.502(e)--
Positioning device systems.
All the commenters who responded to the questions raised in this
issue indicated that there would be no impact, economic or otherwise,
as a result of the OSHA contemplated changes, and they agreed that the
reference should be changed. (Exs. 2-12, 2-27, 2-43 and 2-50). OSHA
agrees with the commenters and has revised the provision in
Sec. 1926.951(b)(4) to require lifeline and lanyards to be in
compliance with Sec. 1926.502.
Discussion of Issues Raised in the Notice of Hearing
On January 26, 1988, OSHA published a Notice of Hearing in the
Federal Register [53 FR 2048]. In that Notice, OSHA raised four new
issues specific to the proposed rule on fall protection. Those issues
involved steel erection, precast concrete, guardrail systems and safety
net systems. The comments received on these issues have already been
discussed except Issue M-1 on Steel Erection in which OSHA raised a
number of concerns which related to fall protection measures for the
employees engaged in steel erection activities. OSHA received
considerable data primarily through testimony and post hearing comments
concerning the subjects addressed in Issue M-1 and M-2. Comments
related to the construction of buildings are not discussed in this
final rule since the information was intended for use at a later date
as OSHA stated in the hearing notice. OSHA recently established the
Steel Erection Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee (SENRAC) to
assist the Agency in developing a proposed revision of subpart R--Steel
Erection, which includes fall protection requirements for employees
performing steel erection work in buildings (59 FR 24389; May 11,
1994). The comments received in response to Issue #1 and #2 have been
made a part of the record of this new rulemaking. Final Subpart M does
not set the duty to provide fall protection for workers engaged in
steel erection of buildings. The requirements of Sec. 1926.105(a),
which is being deleted from part 1926 in this rulemaking, will continue
to apply to steel erection of buildings until subpart R is revised.
Because the requirements of that section will now apply only to steel
erection of buildings, OSHA is redesignating Sec. 1926.105(a) as
Sec. 1926.753 of subpart R. This requirement for employees to have fall
protection outside (at the perimeter) of buildings, complements the
requirements already in subpart R which require fall protection inside
the buildings. Together, these requirements will maintain continuity of
coverage for these workers until subpart R is revised. Fall protection
requirements for activities involving steel erection other than
buildings, such as the erection of bridges and tanks are, of course,
not currently addressed in subpart R. Therefore, subpart M will set the
requirements to have fall protection in these other areas.
In Issue #2 of the notice of hearing, OSHA asked if there were
areas or operations, in addition to those already identified in
proposed Sec. 1926.501, which had unique fall protection requirements
not addressed by the proposed standards. OSHA requested commenters to
describe such areas and operations in detail and to discuss the fall
protection systems which should be used.
OSHA received many responses to Issue #2. The largest number of
commenters mentioned steel erection as an activity that was so unique
that it should have separate fall protection requirements. (Exs. 2-16,
2-27, 2-45, 2-47, 2-51, and 2-92). Some commenters suggested that the
requirements be placed in a separate subpart of the construction safety
and health standards; namely, subpart R--Steel Erection. Others (Exs.
2-12, 2-36, and 2-43) commented that the proposed standards were
adequate for all structural erection operations, and pointed out how
the leading edge requirements might apply to structural erection work.
In addition, testimony given at the public hearing supported the
need to address fall protection for steel erection separately. OSHA's
decision that fall protection for workers engaged in steel erection
activities will be the subject of a separate rulemaking effort was
discussed in the hearing notice for Subpart M issued on January 26,
1988, [53 FR 2052].
IV. Summary of the Regulatory Impact Analysis
Introduction
Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act required
OSHA to analyze the costs, benefits, and other consequences and impacts
associated with this standard. Consistent with these requirements, OSHA
has prepared a regulatory impact analysis for revised subpart M. The
following is a summary of this analysis, which is available from OSHA's
docket office.
The regulatory impact analysis includes a description of the
industries affected by the regulation, the evaluation of the risks
addressed, the assessment of the benefits attributable to the revised
standard, the determination of the technological feasibility of new
requirements, the estimation of the costs of compliance with subpart M
requirements, the determination of the economic feasibility of
compliance with the standard, and the analysis of the economic and
other impacts associated with this rulemaking.
Affected Industries
The requirements of revised subpart M apply to all establishments
in the construction industry. As classified by the 1987 Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) manual, the industry can be divided
into three broad types of activities: building construction general
contractors (SIC 15), heavy construction general and special trade
contractors (SIC 16) and construction by other special trade
contractors (SIC 17).
The total value of construction work is approximately $500 billion
annually. About 75 percent of this amount ($370 billion) involves the
construction of buildings, including single family houses ($124
billion). The total value of nonbuilding construction work includes $45
billion for the construction of highways, streets, parking areas,
bridges, and tunnels, and another $13 billion for the construction of
sewers and water mains.
Construction work includes new construction as well as additions,
alterations, reconstruction, maintenance, and repairs. Of the total
value of construction work of $500 billion, about $328 billion (66
percent) involves new construction.
Evaluation of Risk and Potential Benefits
Of the 115,000 injuries due to falls that occur in the construction
industry annually, 68,000 are addressed by the subpart M standard while
the remaining 47,000 are attributable to circumstances addressed by
standards other than subpart M. Injuries and fatalities due to falls in
construction that are not covered by subpart M include falls that are
not associated with subpart M criteria for fall protection systems
(Sec. 1926.502) and involve ladders, stairs, scaffolds, vehicles, and
skeletal steel erection of buildings. Similarly, of the 158 fatalities
due to falls in construction annually, 95 are covered by provisions of
the revised subpart M standard.
Revisions to subpart M promulgated through this rulemaking are
expected to result in the prevention of 22 fatalities and 15,600
injuries annually in addition to the fatalities and injuries that would
be prevented through full compliance with the existing standard. Most
of the falls in construction addressed by subpart M could be prevented
through compliance with the existing as well as with the revised
standards.
In addition to the unquantifiable reductions in pain and suffering,
the prevention of injuries will result in estimated savings of over
$200 million annually. This estimate includes savings related to wage
and productivity losses, medical costs, administrative expenses, and
other costs associated with accidents.
Technological Feasibility
Since the requirements of the revised subpart M can be met with
existing equipment and methods that are readily available, the standard
is considered to be technologically feasible.
Costs
The total estimated costs associated with new requirements included
in the revised subpart M standard amount to about $40 million annually.
The majority of these costs ($25 million) involve costs associated with
providing increased fall protection for employees working on roofs.
Other components of the estimated compliance costs involve inspections
and tests of personnel safety nets ($5.4 million), and additional
training for employees exposed to fall hazards ($6.6 million).
Economic Impacts
Compliance with the requirements of the revised subpart M standard
has been determined to be economically feasible and is not expected to
produce any significant adverse economic impacts. The costs that are
imposed by the regulation should be a minimal burden on construction
establishments. The estimated compliance costs represent less than 0.01
percent of total construction revenues and less than 0.5 percent of
revenues for each individual construction sector.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, OSHA has made an
assessment of the impact of the revised standard and has concluded that
it will not have a significant impact upon a substantial number of
small entities. The estimated compliance costs do not involve large
capital expenditures, and there is no significant differential effect
on small firms relative to that on large firms.
OSHA has included non-mandatory appendices as part of the
regulation to help improve compliance with the standard and reduce the
potential for misunderstanding. These appendices will also help to
minimize impacts on small firms by significantly reducing the effort
needed to develop a compliance strategy.
V. Statutory Considerations
A. Introduction
OSHA has described fall hazards, falling object hazards and the
measures required to protect affected employees from those hazards in
Section I, Background; Section II, Hazards Involved; and Section III,
Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule, above. The Agency is
providing the following discussion of the statutory mandate for OSHA
rulemaking activity to explain the legal basis for its determination
that the revised fall protection standard, as promulgated, is
reasonably necessary to protect affected employees from significant
risks of injury and death.
Section 2(b)(3) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act
authorizes ``the Secretary of Labor to set mandatory occupational
safety and health standards applicable to businesses affecting
interstate commerce'', and section 5(a)(2) provides that ``[e]ach
employer shall comply with occupational safety and health standards
promulgated under this Act'' (emphasis added). Section 3(8) of the OSH
Act (29 U.S.C. Sec. 652(8)) provides that ``the term 'occupational
safety and health standard' means a standard which requires conditions,
or the adoption or use of one or more practices, means, methods,
operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to
provide safe or healthful employment and places of employment.''
In two recent cases, reviewing courts have expressed concern that
OSHA's interpretation of these provisions of the OSH Act, particularly
of section 3(8) as it pertains to safety rulemaking, could lead to
overly costly or under-protective safety standards. In International
Union, UAW v. OSHA, 938 F.2d 1310 (D.C. Cir. 1991), the District of
Columbia Circuit rejected substantive challenges to OSHA's lockout/
tagout standard and denied a request that enforcement of that standard
be stayed, but it also expressed concern that OSHA's interpretation of
the OSH Act could lead to safety standards that are very costly and
only minimally protective. In National Grain & Feed Ass'n v. OSHA, 866
F.2d 717 (5th Cir. 1989), the Fifth Circuit concluded that Congress
gave OSHA considerable discretion in structuring the costs and benefits
of safety standards but, concerned that the grain dust standard might
be under-protective, directed OSHA to consider adding a provision that
might further reduce significant risk of fire and explosion.
OSHA rulemakings involve a significant degree of agency expertise
and policy-making discretion to which reviewing courts must defer.
(See, for example, Building & Constr. Trades Dep't, AFL-CIO v. Brock,
838 F.2d 1258, 1266 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Industrial Union Dep't, AFL-CIO
v. American Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 655 n. 62 (1980).) At the
same time, the Agency's technical expertise and policymaking authority
must be exercised within discernable limits. The lockout/tagout and
grain handling standard decisions sought clarification of the Agency's
view of the scope of its expertise and authority. In light of those
decisions, the preamble to this safety standard states OSHA's views
regarding the limits of its safety rulemaking authority and explains
why the Agency is confident that its interpretive views have in the
past avoided regulatory extremes and continue to do so in this rule.
Stated briefly, the OSH Act requires that, before promulgating any
occupational safety standard, OSHA demonstrate based on substantial
evidence in the record as a whole that: (1) the proposed standard will
substantially reduce a significant risk of material harm; (2)
compliance is technologically feasible in the sense that the protective
measures being required already exist, can be brought into existence
with available technology, or can be created with technology that can
reasonably be developed; (3) compliance is economically feasible in the
sense that industry can absorb or pass on the costs without major
dislocation or threat of instability; and (4) the standard is cost
effective in that it employs the least expensive protective measures
capable of reducing or eliminating significant risk. Additionally,
proposed safety standards must be compatible with prior Agency action,
must be responsive to significant comment in the record, and, to the
extent allowed by statute, must be consistent with applicable Executive
Orders. These elements limit OSHA's regulatory discretion for safety
rulemaking and provide a decision- making framework for developing a
rule.
B. Congress Concluded That OSHA Regulations are Necessary To Protect
Workers From Occupational Hazards and That Employers Should Be Required
To Reduce or Eliminate Significant Workplace Health and Safety Threats
At section 2(a) of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 651(a)), Congress
announced its determination that occupational injury and illness should
be eliminated as much as possible: ``The Congress finds that
occupational injury and illness arising out of work situations impose a
substantial burden upon, and are a hindrance to, interstate commerce in
terms of lost production, wage loss, medical expenses, and disability
compensation payments.'' Congress therefore declared ``it to be its
purpose and policy * * * to assure so far as possible every working man
and woman in the Nation safe * * * working conditions [29 U.S.C.
651(b)].''
To that end, Congress instructed the Secretary of Labor to adopt
existing federal and consensus standards during the first two years
after the OSH Act became effective and, in the event of conflict among
any such standards, to ``promulgate the standard which assures the
greatest protection of the safety or health of the affected employees
[29 U.S.C. 655(a)].'' Congress also directed the Secretary to set
mandatory occupational safety standards [29 U.S.C. 651(b)(3)], based on
a rulemaking record and substantial evidence [29 U.S.C. 655(b)(2)],
that are ``reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe * * *
employment and places of employment.'' When promulgating permanent
safety or health standards that differ from existing national consensus
standards, the Secretary must explain ``why the rule as adopted will
better effectuate the purposes of this Act than the national consensus
standard [29 U.S.C. 655(b)(8)].'' Correspondingly, every employer must
comply with OSHA standards and, in addition, ``furnish to each of his
employees employment and a place of employment which are free from
recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or
serious physical harm to his employees [29 U.S.C. 654(a)].''
``Congress understood that the Act would create substantial costs
for employers, yet intended to impose such costs when necessary to
create a safe and healthful working environment. Congress viewed the
costs of health and safety as a cost of doing business * * *. Indeed,
Congress thought that the financial costs of health and safety problems
in the workplace were as large as or larger than the financial costs of
eliminating these problems [American Textile Mfrs. Inst. Inc. v.
Donovan, 452 U.S. 490, 519-522 (1981) (ATMI); emphasis was supplied in
original].'' ``[T]he fundamental objective of the Act [is] to prevent
occupational deaths and serious injuries [Whirlpool Corp. v. Marshall,
445 U.S. 1, 11 (1980)].'' ``We know the costs would be put into
consumer goods but that is the price we should pay for the 80 million
workers in America [S. Rep. No. 91-1282, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970);
H.R. Rep. No. 91-1291, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970), reprinted in Senate
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Legislative History of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, (Committee Print 1971)
(``Leg. Hist.'') at 444 (Senator Yarborough)].'' ``Of course, it will
cost a little more per item to produce a washing machine. Those of us
who use washing machines will pay for the increased cost, but it is
worth it, to stop the terrible death and injury rate in this country
[Id. at 324; see also 510-511, 517].''
[T]he vitality of the Nation's economy will be enhanced by the
greater productivity realized through saved lives and useful years
of labor.
When one man is injured or disabled by an industrial accident or
disease, it is he and his family who suffer the most immediate and
personal loss. However, that tragic loss also affects each of us. As
a result of occupational accidents and disease, over $1.5 billion in
wages is lost each year [1970 dollars], and the annual loss to the
gross national product is estimated to be over $8 billion. Vast
resources that could be available for productive use are siphoned
off to pay workmen's compensation and medical expenses * * *.
Only through a comprehensive approach can we hope to effect a
significant reduction in these job death and casualty figures. [Id.
at 518-19 (Senator Cranston)]
Congress considered uniform enforcement crucial because it would
reduce or eliminate the disadvantage that a conscientious employer
might experience where inter-industry or intra-industry competition is
present. Moreover, ``many employers--particularly smaller ones--simply
cannot make the necessary investment in health and safety, and survive
competitively, unless all are compelled to do so [Leg. Hist. at 144,
854, 1188, 1201].''
Thus, the statutory text and legislative history make clear that
Congress conclusively determined that OSHA regulation is necessary to
protect workers from occupational hazards and that employers should be
required to reduce or eliminate significant workplace health and safety
threats.
C. As Construed By the Courts and By OSHA, the OSH Act Sets Clear and
Reasonable Limits for Agency Rulemaking Action
OSHA has long followed the teaching that section 3(8) of the OSH
Act requires that, before it promulgates ``any permanent health or
safety standard, [it must] make a threshold finding that a place of
employment is unsafe--in the sense that significant risks are present
and can be eliminated or lessened by a change in practices [Industrial
Union Dep't, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 642
(1980) (plurality) (Benzene); emphasis was supplied in original].''
Thus, the national consensus and existing federal standards that
Congress instructed OSHA to adopt summarily within two years of the OSH
Act's inception provide reference points concerning the least an OSHA
standard should achieve (29 U.S.C. Secs. 655(a)). As a result, OSHA is
precluded from regulating insignificant risks or from issuing standards
that do not at least lessen risk in a significant way.
The OSH Act also limits OSHA's discretion to issue overly
burdensome rules, as the Agency also has long recognized that ``any
standard that was not economically or technologically feasible would a
fortiori not be `reasonably necessary or appropriate' under the Act.
See Industrial Union Dep't v. Hodgson, [499 F.2d 467, 478 (D.C. Cir.
1974)] (`Congress does not appear to have intended to protect employees
by putting their employers out of business.') [American Textile Mfrs.
Inst. Inc., 452 U.S. at 513 n. 31 (a standard is economically feasible
even if it portends `disaster for some marginal firms,' but it is
economically infeasible if it `threaten[s] massive dislocation to, or
imperil[s] the existence of,' the industry)].''
By stating the test in terms of ``threat'' and ``peril,'' the
Supreme Court made clear in ATMI that economic infeasibility begins
short of industry-wide bankruptcy. OSHA itself has placed the line
considerably below this level. (See for example, ATMI, 452 U.S. at 527
n. 50; 43 FR 27,360 (June 23, 1978). Proposed 200 g/m\3\ PEL
for cotton dust did not raise serious possibility of industry-wide
bankruptcy, but impact on weaving sector would be severe, possibly
requiring reconstruction of 90 percent of all weave rooms. OSHA
concluded that the 200 g/m\3\ level was not feasible for
weaving and that 750 g/m\3\ was all that could reasonably be
required). See also 54 FR 29,245-246 (July 11, 1989); American Iron &
Steel Institute, 939 F.2d at 1003. OSHA raised engineering control
level for lead in small nonferrous foundries to avoid the possibility
of bankruptcy for about half of small foundries even though the
industry as a whole could have survived the loss of small firms.) All
OSHA standards must also be cost-effective in the sense that the
protective measures being required must be the least expensive measures
capable of achieving the desired end (ATMI, at 514 n. 32; Building and
Constr. Trades Dep't, AFL-CIO v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258, 1269 (D.C. Cir.
1988)). OSHA gives additional consideration to financial impact in
setting the period of time that should be allowed for compliance,
allowing as much as ten years for compliance phase-in. (See United
Steelworkers of Am. v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1278 (D.C. Cir. 1980),
cert. denied, 453 U.S. 913 (1981).) Additionally, OSHA's enforcement
policy takes account of financial hardship on an individualized basis.
OSHA's Field Operations Manual provides that, based on an employer's
economic situation, OSHA may extend the period within which a violation
must be corrected after issuance of a citation (CPL. 2.45B, Chapter
III, paragraph E6d(3)(a), Dec. 31, 1990).
To reach the necessary findings and conclusions, OSHA conducts
rulemaking in accordance with the requirements of section 6 of the OSH
Act. The rulemaking process enables the Agency to determine the
qualitative and, if possible, the quantitative nature of the risk with
(and without) regulation, the technological feasibility of compliance,
the availability of capital to the industry and the extent to which
that capital is required for other purposes, the industry's profit
history, the industry's ability to absorb costs or pass them on to the
consumer, the impact of higher costs on demand, and the impact on
competition with substitutes and imports. (See ATMI at 2501-2503;
American Iron & Steel Institute generally.) Section 6(f) of the OSH Act
further provides that, if the validity of a standard is challenged,
OSHA must support its conclusions with ``substantial evidence in the
record considered as a whole,'' a standard that courts have determined
requires fairly close scrutiny of agency action and the explanation of
that action. (See Steelworkers, 647 F.2d at 1206-1207.)
OSHA's powers are further circumscribed by the independent
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, which provides a
neutral forum for employer contests of citations issued by OSHA for
noncompliance with health and safety standards (29 U.S.C. Secs. 659-
661; noted as an additional constraint in Benzene at 652 n. 59). OSHA
must also respond rationally to similarities and differences among
industries or industry sectors. (See Building and Constr. Trades Dep't,
AFL-CIO v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258, 1272-73 (D.C. Cir. 1988).)
OSHA rulemaking is thus constrained first by the need to
demonstrate that the standard will substantially reduce a significant
risk of material harm, and then by the requirement that compliance is
technologically capable of being done and not so expensive as to
threaten economic instability or dislocation for the industry. Within
these bounds, further constraints such as the need to find cost-
effective measures and to respond rationally to all meaningful comment
militate against regulatory extremes.
D. The Revised Fall Protection Standard Complies With the Statutory
Criteria Described Above and is not Subject to the Additional
Constraints Applicable to Section 6(b)(5) Standards
Standards which regulate hazards that are frequently undetectable
because they are subtle or develop slowly or after long latency
periods, are frequently referred to as ``health'' standards. Standards
that regulate hazards, such as falls, explosions or electrocutions,
that cause immediately noticeable physical harm, are called ``safety''
standards. (See National Grain & Feed Ass'n v. OSHA (NGFA II), 866 F.2d
717, 731, 733 (5th Cir. 1989). As noted above, section 3(8) provides
that all OSHA standards must be ``reasonably necessary or
appropriate.'' In addition, section 6(b)(5) requires that OSHA set
health standards which limit significant risk ``to the extent
feasible.'' OSHA has determined that the revised fall protection
standard is a safety standard, because the revised standard addresses
hazards, such as falls from elevations and falling objects, that are
immediately dangerous to life or health, not the longer term, less
obvious hazards subject to section 6(b)(5).
The OSH Act and its legislative history clearly indicate that
Congress intended for OSHA to distinguish between safety standards and
health standards. For example in section 2(b)(6) of the OSH Act,
Congress declared that the goal of assuring safe and healthful working
conditions and preserving human resources would be achieved, in part:
* * * by exploring ways to discover latent diseases, establishing
causal connections between diseases and work in environmental
conditions, and conducting other research relating to health
problems, in recognition of the fact that occupational health
standards present problems often different from those involved in
occupational safety.
The legislative history makes this distinction even clearer:
[The Secretary] should take into account that anyone working in
toxic agents and physical agents which might be harmful may be
subjected to such conditions for the rest of his working life, so
that we can get at something which might not be toxic now, if he
works in it a short time, but if he works in it the rest of his life
might be very dangerous; and we want to make sure that such things
are taken into consideration in establishing standards. [Leg. Hist.
at 502-503 (Sen. Dominick), quoted in Benzene at 648-49]
Additionally, Representative Daniels distinguished between
``insidious `silent killers' such as toxic fumes, bases, acids, and
chemicals'' and ``violent physical injury causing immediate visible
physical harm'' (Leg. Hist. at 1003), and Representative Udall
contrasted insidious hazards like carcinogens with ``the more visible
and well-known question of industrial accidents and on-the-job injury''
(Leg. Hist. at 1004). (See also, for example, S.Rep. No. 1282, 91st
Cong., 2d Sess 2-3 (1970), U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 1970, pp.
5177, 5179, reprinted in Leg. Hist. at 142-43, discussing 1967 Surgeon
General study that found that 65 percent of employees in industrial
plants ``were potentially exposed to harmful physical agents, such as
severe noise or vibration, or to toxic materials''; Leg.Hist at 412;
id. at 446; id. at 516; id. at 845; International Union, UAW at 1315.)
In reviewing OSHA rulemaking activity, the Supreme Court has held
that section 6(b)(5) requires OSHA to set ``the most protective
standard consistent with feasibility'' (Benzene at 643 n. 48). As
Justice Stevens observed:
The reason that Congress drafted a special section for these
substances * * * was because Congress recognized that there were
special problems in regulating health risks as opposed to safety
risks. In the latter case, the risks are generally immediate and
obvious, while in the former, the risks may not be evident until a
worker has been exposed for long periods of time to particular
substances. [Benzene, at 649 n. 54.]
Challenges to the grain dust and lockout/tagout standards included
assertions that grain dust in explosive quantities and uncontrolled
energy releases that could expose employees to crushing, cutting,
burning or explosion hazards were harmful physical agents so that OSHA
was required to apply the criteria of section 6(b)(5) when determining
how to protect employees from those hazards. Reviewing courts have
uniformly rejected such assertions. For example, the Court in
International Union, UAW v. OSHA, 938 F.2d 1310 (D.C. Cir. 1991)
rejected the view that section 6(b)(5) provided the statutory criteria
for regulation of uncontrolled energy, holding that such a ``reading
would obliterate a distinction that Congress drew between `health' and
`safety' risks.'' The Court also noted that the language of the OSH Act
and the legislative history supported the OSHA position (International
Union, UAW at 1314). Additionally, the Court stated: ``We accord
considerable weight to an agency's construction of a statutory scheme
it is entrusted to administer, rejecting it only if unreasonable''
(International Union, UAW at 1313, citing Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC,
467, U.S. 837, 843 (1984)).
The Court reviewing the grain dust standard also deferred to OSHA's
reasonable view that the Agency was not subject to the feasibility
mandate of section 6(b)(5) in regulating explosive quantities of grain
dust (National Grain & Feed Association v. OSHA (NGFA II), 866 F.2d
717, 733 (5th Cir. 1989)). It therefore applied the criteria of section
3(8), requiring the Agency to establish that the standard is
``reasonably necessary or appropriate'' to protect section 3(8),
requiring the Agency to establish that the standard is ``reasonably
necessary or appropriate'' to protect employee safety.
As explained in Section I, Background, and Section III, Summary and
Explanation of the Standard, above, and in Section VI, Summary of the
Final Regulatory Impact Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,
below, OSHA has determined that the failure to protect employees from
fall hazards poses significant risks to employees and that the
provisions of the final rule are reasonably necessary to protect
affected employees from those risks. The Agency estimates that
compliance with the revised fall protection standard will cost $70
million annually and will reduce the risk of the identified hazards
(preventing 79 fatalities and 56,400 injuries annually). This
constitutes a substantial reduction of significant risk of material
harm for the exposed population of approximately 4 million construction
employees. The Agency believes that compliance is technologically
feasible because the rulemaking record indicates that the measures
required by the standard are already in general use throughout the
construction industry.
Additionally, OSHA believes that compliance is economically
feasible as documented in the Regulatory Impact Analysis.
As detailed in Table 1, below, the standard's costs, benefits, and
compliance requirements are consistent with those of other OSHA safety
standards, such as the Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency
Response (HAZWOPER) standard.
Table 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of No. of
deaths injuries Annual cost Annual cost
Standard (CFR cite) Final rule date (FR cite) prevented prevented first five next five
annually annually yrs (mill) yrs (mill)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grain handling (1910.272)....... 12-31-87 (52 FR 49622).... 18 394 5.9-33.4 5.9-33.4
HAZWOPER (1910.120)............. 3-6-89 (54 FR 9311)....... 32 18,700 153 153
Excavations (Subpt P)........... 10-31-89 (54 FR 45,954)... 74 800 306 306
Process Safety Mgmt (1910.119).. 2-24-92 57 FR 6356........ 330 1,917 880.7 470.8
Permit-Required Confined Spaces 1-14-93 58 FR 4462........ 54 5,041 202.4 202.4
(1910.146).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA assessed employee risk by evaluating exposure to fall hazards
throughout the construction industry, except insofar as
Sec. 1926.500(a)(2) specified construction activity that is not covered
by subpart M. The Summary of the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis and
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, Section IV, above, presents OSHA's
estimate of the costs and benefits of the revised fall protection
standard in terms of the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes
for the industries regulated.
The record indicates clearly that employees in all covered sectors
face significant risks related to fall hazards, and that compliance
with the revised fall protection standard is reasonably necessary to
protect affected employees from that risk.
OSHA has considered and responded to all substantive comments
regarding the proposed fall protection standard on their merits in the
Section III, Summary and Explanation of the Standard, earlier in this
preamble. In particular, OSHA evaluated all suggested changes to the
proposed rule in terms of their impact on worker safety, their
feasibility, their cost effectiveness, and their consonance with the
OSH Act.
VI. References
1. Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health,
Transcripts of meetings held on November 29-30, 1977; January 10,
1978; February 14, 1978; December 5, 1978; December 16, 1978; June
29-30, 1982.
2. U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Preliminary Regulatory Impact and Regulatory
Flexibility Assessment of Subpart M--Fall Protection, Office of
Regulatory Analysis, Washington, D.C., March 1984.
3. U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Occupational Fatalities Related to Roofs, Ceilings,
and Floors as Found in Reports of OSHA Fatality/Catastrophe
Investigations, November, 1979.
4. American National Standard ANSI A10.11-1979, American
National Standard for Safety Nets Used During Construction, Repair,
and Demolition Operations, American National Standards Institute,
New York.
5. American National Standard, ANSI A10.14-1975, Requirements
for Safety Belts, Harnesses, Lanyards, Lifelines, and Droplines for
Construction and Industrial Use, American National Standards
Institute, New York.
6. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Occupational Injuries and Illnesses in 1979: Summary, Washington,
D.C., April 1981.
7. Andrew C. Sulowski, ``Selecting Fall Arresting Systems,''
National Safety News, October 1979.
8. National Bureau of Standards (NBS), NBSIR 76-1146 A Study of
Personal Fall-Safety Equipment, Washington, D.C.: NBS, June l977.
9. International Standards Organization (ISO), Secretariat
Association Francaise de Normalisation (AFNOR). Personal Fall
Arresting Systems and Components, (ISO/TC 94/SC4 N50E). New York,
NY: ANSI, 1983.
10. Noel, Georges; Amphoux, M., et al, Safety Equipment in
Construction and Public Works Transportation, (No. 362) Technical
Institute for Construction and Public Works. Montreuil, France:
1978.
11. British Standards Institution (BSI). Specification for
Industrial Safety Belts, Harnesses and Safety Lanyards, (BS 1397),
London, England: BSI, 1979.
12. Hearon, Bernard F. and Brinkley, James W., Fall Arrest and
Post-Fall Suspension: Literature Review and Directions for Further
Research, (AFAMRL-TR-84-021), Air Force Aerospace Medical Research
Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB, Dayton, Ohio: 1984.
13. Written comments on OSHA's Proposed Rule on Powered
Platforms for Exterior Building Maintenance (50 FR 2890, January 22,
1985), Docket No. S-700A.
14. Yancey, Carino and Sansalone, Perimeter Safety Net
Projection Requirements, Center for Building Technology, National
Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C., May 1986 (NBSIR 85-3271).
VII. State Plan Requirements
The 25 States and territories with their own OSHA-approved
occupational safety and health plans must revise their existing
standards within 6 months of the publication date of the final standard
or show OSHA why there is no need for action, e.g., because an existing
State standard covering this area is already ``at least as effective''
as the revised Federal standard. These States and territories are:
Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, (State and local government
workers only), Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan,
Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, (State and local government
workers only), North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Virgin Islands, Washington and
Wyoming.
VIII. Federalism
The Final Rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive
Order 12612 (52 FR 41685; October 30, 1987) regarding Federalism. This
Order requires that agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from
limiting state policy options, consult with states prior to taking any
actions that would restrict state policy options, and take such actions
only when there is clear constitutional authority and the presence of a
problem of national scope. The Order provides for preemption of state
law only if there is a clear Congressional intent for the agency to do
so. Any such preemption is to be limited to the extent possible.
Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act),
expresses Congress' clear intent to preempt state laws relating to
issues with respect to which Federal OSHA has promulgated occupational
safety or health standards. Under the OSH Act a state can avoid
preemption only if it submits, and obtains Federal approval of, a plan
for the development of such standards and their enforcement.
Occupational safety and health standards developed by such Plan-States
must, among other things, be at least as effective in providing safe
and healthful employment and places of employment as the Federal
standards. Where such standards are applicable to products distributed
or used in interstate commerce, they may not unduly burden commerce,
must be justified by compelling local conditions, see Section 18(c)(2).
The Federal fall protection standards for construction workers are
not unique to any one state or region of the country. Nonetheless,
states with occupational safety and health plans approved under Section
18 of the OSH Act will be able to develop their own state standards to
deal with any special problems which might be encountered in a
particular area. Moreover, because this standard is written in general,
performance-oriented terms, there is considerable flexibility for State
plans to require, and for affected employers to use, methods of
compliance which are appropriate to the working conditions covered by
the standard.
In brief, this Final Rule addresses a clear national problem
related to occupational safety and health of construction workers.
Those states which have elected to participate under Section 18 of the
OSH Act are not preempted by this standard, and will be able to address
special conditions within the framework of the Federal Act while
ensuring that the state standards are at least as effective as that
standard.
IX. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
The OMB regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, contain procedures for
agencies to follow in obtaining OMB clearance for information
collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. The final Fall Protection standard requires employers who
use fall protection plans to allow OSHA access to those plans to
determine if they are in compliance with Sec. 1926.502(k). The
collection of information has been approved and the OMB clearance
number is 1218-0197.
X. Authority
This document was prepared under the direction of Joseph A. Dear,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20210.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1926
Construction industry, Construction safety, Excavations, Fall
protection, Hoisting safety, Occupational safety and health, Protective
equipment, Safety, Tools.
Accordingly, pursuant to sections 4, 6(b) and 8(g) of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657),
section 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40
U.S.C. 333), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-90 (55 FR 35736), and 29
CFR part 1911, 29 CFR parts 1910 and 1926 are amended as set forth
below.
Signed at Washington, DC this 29th day of July 1994.
Joseph A. Dear,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
PART 1910--[AMENDED]
Subpart R--[Amended]
1. The authority citation for subpart R of part 1910 continues to
read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 6, and 8, Occupational Safety and Health Act
of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No.
12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), or 9-83 (48 FR 35736), or 1-
90 (55 FR 9033), as applicable.
2. Paragraph (g)(2)(i) of Sec. 1910.269 is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 1910.269 Electric power generation, transmission, and
distribution.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(2) Fall protection. (i) Personal fall arrest equipment shall meet
the requirements of subpart M of Part 1926 of this Chapter.
* * * * *
PART 1926--[AMENDED]
Subpart E--[Amended]
3. The authority citation for subpart E of part 1926 is revised to
read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards
Act (Construction Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 333); Secs. 4, 6, 8,
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,
657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR
25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), or 1-90 (55 FR 9033), as applicable.
Sec. 1926.104 [Removed]
4. Section Sec. 1926.104 is removed.
Sec. 1926.753 [Added]
5. Paragraph (a) of Sec. 1926.105 is redesignated as new
Sec. 1926.753 in subpart R and the section heading ``Safety Nets.'' is
added.
Sec. 1926.105 [Removed and Reserved]
6. Section 1926.105 is removed and reserved.
Sec. 1926.107 [Amended]
7. Paragraphs (b), (c) and (f) of Sec. 1926.107 are removed.
Subpart H--[Amended]
8. The authority citation for subpart H of Part 1926 is revised to
read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards
Act (Construction Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 333); Secs. 4, 6, 8,
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,
657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR
25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), or 1-90 (50 FR 9033), as applicable.
Section 1926.250 also issued under 29 CFR Part 1911.
9. Paragraph (b)(2) of Sec. 1926.250 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1926.250 General requirements for storage.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Each employee required to work on stored material in silos,
hoppers, tanks, and similar storage areas shall be equipped with
personal fall arrest equipment meeting the requirements of subpart M of
this part.
* * * * *
Subpart N--[Amended]
10. The authority citation for subpart N of Part 1926 continues to
read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards
Act (Construction Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 333); Secs. 4, 6, 8,
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,
657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR
25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), or 1-90 (55 FR 9033), as applicable.
11. Paragraphs (c)(2) and (g)(4)(i)(C) of Sec. 1926.550 are
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1926.550 Cranes and derricks.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) Each employee required to perform duties on the horizontal boom
of hammerhead tower cranes shall be protected against falling by
guardrails or by a personal fall arrest system in conformance with
subpart M of this part.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) The personnel platform itself, except the guardrail system and
personal fall arrest system anchorages, shall be capable of supporting,
without failure, its own weight and at least five times the maximum
intended load. Criteria for guardrail systems and personal fall arrest
system anchorages are contained in subpart M of this Part.
* * * * *
Subpart P--[Amended]
12. The authority citation for subpart P of Part 1926 continues to
read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards
Act (Construction Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 333); Secs. 4, 6, 8,
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,
657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR
25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), or 1-90 (55 FR 9033), as applicable.
Section 1926.651 also issued under 29 CFR Part 1911.
13. The section heading and paragraph (1) of Sec. 1926.651 are
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1926.651 Specific excavation requirements.
* * * * *
(1) Walkways shall be provided where employees or equipment are
required or permitted to cross over excavations. Guardrails which
comply with Sec. 1926.502(b) shall be provided where walkways are 6
feet (1.8 m) or more above lower levels.
Subpart Q--[Amended]
14. The authority citation for subpart Q of Part 1926 continues to
read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards
Act (Construction Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 333); Secs. 4, 6, 8,
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,
657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR
25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), or 1-90 (55 FR 9033), as applicable.
Sec. 1926.701 [Amended]
15. Paragraph (f)(2) of Sec. 1926.701 is removed and the paragraph
designation (1) is removed.
16. The authority citation for subpart R of Part 1926 is revised to
read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards
Act (Construction Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 333); Secs. 4, 6, 8,
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,
657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR
25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), or 1-90 (55 FR 9033), as applicable.
Subpart V--[Amended]
17.-18. The authority citation for subpart V of Part 1926 is
revised to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards
Act (Construction Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 333); Secs. 4, 6, 8,
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,
657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR
25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), or 1-90 (55 FR 9033), as applicable.
Section 1926.951 also issued under 29 CFR Part 1911.
19. Paragraph (b)(4)(i) of Sec. 1926.951 is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 1926.951 Tools and protective equipment.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4)(i) Lifelines and lanyards shall comply with the provisions of
Sec. 1926.502.
* * * * *
21. Subpart M of Part 1926 is revised to read as follows:
Subpart M--Fall Protection
Sec.
1926.500 Scope, application, and definitions applicable to this
subpart.
1926.501 Duty to have fall protection.
1926.502 Fall protection systems criteria and practices.
1926.503 Training requirements.
Appendix A to Subpart M--Determining Roof Widths
Appendix B to Subpart M--Guardrail Systems
Appendix C to Subpart M--Personal Fall Arrest Systems
Appendix D to Subpart M--Positioning Device Systems
Appendix E to Subpart M--Sample Fall Protection Plans
Subpart M--Fall Protection
Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards
Act (Construction Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 333); Sec. 4, 6, 8,
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,
657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-90 (55 FR 9033); and 29 CFR
Part 1911.
Sec. 1926.500 Scope, application, and definitions applicable to this
subpart.
(a) Scope and application. (1) 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.
(2) Section 1926.501 sets forth those workplaces, conditions,
operations, and circumstances for which fall protection shall be
provided except as follows:
(i) Requirements relating to fall protection for employees working
on scaffolds are provided in subpart L of this part.
(ii) Requirements relating to fall protection for employees working
on certain cranes and derricks are provided in subpart N of this part.
(iii) Requirements relating to fall protection for employees
performing steel erection work in buildings are provided in subpart R
of this part.
(iv) Requirements relating to fall protection for employees working
on certain types of equipment used in tunneling operations are provided
in subpart S of this part.
(v) Requirements relating to fall protection for employees engaged
in the construction of electric transmission and distribution lines and
equipment are provided in subpart V of this part.
(vi) Requirements relating to fall protection for employees
working on stairways and ladders are provided in subpart X of this
part.
(3) Section 1926.502 sets forth the requirements for the
installation, construction, and proper use of fall protection required
by part 1926, except as follows:
(i) Performance requirements for guardrail systems used on
scaffolds and performance requirements for falling object protection
used on scaffolds are provided in subpart L of this part.
(ii) Performance requirements for stairways, stairrail systems, and
handrails are provided in subpart X of this part.
(iii) Additional performance requirements for personal climbing
equipment, lineman's body belts, safety straps, and lanyards are
provided in Subpart V of this part.
(4) Section 1926.503 sets forth requirements for training in the
installation and use of fall protection systems.
(b) Definitions.
Anchorage means a secure point of attachment for lifelines,
lanyards or deceleration devices.
Body belt (safety belt) means a strap with means both for securing
it about the waist and for attaching it to a lanyard, lifeline, or
deceleration device.
Body harness means straps which may be secured about the employee
in a manner that will distribute the fall arrest forces over at least
the thighs, pelvis, waist, chest and shoulders with means for attaching
it to other components of a personal fall arrest system.
Buckle means any device for holding the body belt or body harness
closed around the employee's body.
Connector means a device which is used to couple (connect) parts of
the personal fall arrest system and positioning device systems
together. It may be an independent component of the system, such as a
carabiner, or it may be an integral component of part of the system
(such as a buckle or dee-ring sewn into a body belt or body harness, or
a snap-hook spliced or sewn to a lanyard or self-retracting lanyard).
Controlled access zone (CAZ) means an area in which certain work
(e.g., overhand bricklaying) may take place without the use of
guardrail systems, personal fall arrest systems, or safety net systems
and access to the zone is controlled.
Dangerous equipment means equipment (such as pickling or
galvanizing tanks, degreasing units, machinery, electrical equipment,
and other units) which, as a result of form or function, may be
hazardous to employees who fall onto or into such equipment.
Deceleration device means any mechanism, such as a rope grab, rip-
stitch lanyard, specially-woven lanyard, tearing or deforming lanyards,
automatic self-retracting lifelines/lanyards, etc., which serves to
dissipate a substantial amount of energy during a fall arrest, or
otherwise limit the energy imposed on an employee during fall arrest.
Deceleration distance means the additional vertical distance a
falling employee travels, excluding lifeline elongation and free fall
distance, before stopping, from the point at which the deceleration
device begins to operate. It is measured as the distance between the
location of an employee's body belt or body harness attachment point at
the moment of activation (at the onset of fall arrest forces) of the
deceleration device during a fall, and the location of that attachment
point after the employee comes to a full stop.
Equivalent means alternative designs, materials, or methods to
protect against a hazard which the employer can demonstrate will
provide an equal or greater degree of safety for employees than the
methods, materials or designs specified in the standard.
Failure means load refusal, breakage, or separation of component
parts. Load refusal is the point where the ultimate strength is
exceeded.
Free fall means the act of falling before a personal fall arrest
system begins to apply force to arrest the fall.
Free fall distance means the vertical displacement of the fall
arrest attachment point on the employee's body belt or body harness
between onset of the fall and just before the system begins to apply
force to arrest the fall. This distance excludes deceleration distance,
and lifeline/lanyard elongation, but includes any deceleration device
slide distance or self-retracting lifeline/lanyard extension before
they operate and fall arrest forces occur.
Guardrail system means a barrier erected to prevent employees from
falling to lower levels.
Hole means a gap or void 2 inches (5.1 cm) or more in its least
dimension, in a floor, roof, or other walking/working surface.
Infeasible means that it is impossible to perform the construction
work using a conventional fall protection system (i.e., guardrail
system, safety net system, or personal fall arrest system) or that it
is technologically impossible to use any one of these systems to
provide fall protection.
Lanyard means a flexible line of rope, wire rope, or strap which
generally has a connector at each end for connecting the body belt or
body harness to a deceleration device, lifeline, or anchorage.
Leading edge means the edge of a floor, roof, or formwork for a
floor or other walking/working surface (such as the deck) which changes
location as additional floor, roof, decking, or formwork sections are
placed, formed, or constructed. A leading edge is considered to be an
``unprotected side and edge'' during periods when it is not actively
and continuously under construction.
Lifeline means a component consisting of a flexible line for
connection to an anchorage at one end to hang vertically (vertical
lifeline), or for connection to anchorages at both ends to stretch
horizontally (horizontal lifeline), and which serves as a means for
connecting other components of a personal fall arrest system to the
anchorage.
Low-slope roof means a roof having a slope less than or equal to 4
in 12 (vertical to horizontal).
Lower levels means those areas or surfaces to which an employee can
fall. Such areas or surfaces include, but are not limited to, ground
levels, floors, platforms, ramps, runways, excavations, pits, tanks,
material, water, equipment, structures, or portions thereof.
Mechanical equipment means all motor or human propelled wheeled
equipment used for roofing work, except wheelbarrows and mopcarts.
Opening means a gap or void 30 inches (76 cm) or more high and 18
inches (48 cm) or more wide, in a wall or partition, through which
employees can fall to a lower level.
Overhand bricklaying and related work means the process of laying
bricks and masonry units such that the surface of the wall to be
jointed is on the opposite side of the wall from the mason, requiring
the mason to lean over the wall to complete the work. Related work
includes mason tending and electrical installation incorporated into
the brick wall during the overhand bricklaying process.
Personal fall arrest system means a system used to arrest an
employee in a fall from a working level. It consists of an anchorage,
connectors, a body belt or body harness and may include a lanyard,
deceleration device, lifeline, or suitable combinations of these. As of
January 1, 1998, the use of a body belt for fall arrest is prohibited.
Positioning device system means a body belt or body harness system
rigged to allow an employee to be supported on an elevated vertical
surface, such as a wall, and work with both hands free while leaning.
Rope grab means a deceleration device which travels on a lifeline
and automatically, by friction, engages the lifeline and locks so as to
arrest the fall of an employee. A rope grab usually employs the
principle of inertial locking, cam/level locking, or both.
Roof means the exterior surface on the top of a building. This does
not include floors or formwork which, because a building has not been
completed, temporarily become the top surface of a building.
Roofing work means the hoisting, storage, application, and removal
of roofing materials and equipment, including related insulation, sheet
metal, and vapor barrier work, but not including the construction of
the roof deck.
Safety-monitoring system means a safety system in which a competent
person is responsible for recognizing and warning employees of fall
hazards.
Self-retracting lifeline/lanyard means a deceleration device
containing a drum-wound line which can be slowly extracted from, or
retracted onto, the drum under slight tension during normal employee
movement, and which, after onset of a fall, automatically locks the
drum and arrests the fall.
Snaphook means a connector comprised of a hook-shaped member with a
normally closed keeper, or similar arrangement, which may be opened to
permit the hook to receive an object and, when released, automatically
closes to retain the object. Snaphooks are generally one of two types:
(1) The locking type with a self-closing, self-locking keeper which
remains closed and locked until unlocked and pressed open for
connection or disconnection; or
(2) The non-locking type with a self-closing keeper which remains
closed until pressed open for connection or disconnection. As of
January 1, 1998, the use of a non-locking snaphook as part of personal
fall arrest systems and positioning device systems is prohibited.
Steep roof means a roof having a slope greater than 4 in 12
(vertical to horizontal).
Toeboard means a low protective barrier that will prevent the fall
of materials and equipment to lower levels and provide protection from
falls for personnel.
Unprotected sides and edges means any side or edge (except at
entrances to points of access) of a walking/working surface, e.g.,
floor, roof, ramp, or runway where there is no wall or guardrail system
at least 39 inches (1.0 m) high.
Walking/working surface means 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 including ladders, vehicles, or
trailers, on which employees must be located in order to perform their
job duties.
Warning line system means a barrier erected on a roof to warn
employees that they are approaching an unprotected roof side or edge,
and which designates an area in which roofing work may take place
without the use of guardrail, body belt, or safety net systems to
protect employees in the area.
Work area means that portion of a walking/working surface where job
duties are being performed.
Sec. 1926.501 Duty to have fall protection.
(a) General. (1) This section sets forth requirements for employers
to provide fall protection systems. All fall protection required by
this section shall conform to the criteria set forth in Sec. 1926.502
of this subpart.
(2) The employer shall determine if the walking/working surfaces on
which its employees are to work have the strength and structural
integrity to support employees safely. Employees shall be allowed to
work on those surfaces only when the surfaces have the requisite
strength and structural integrity.
(b)(1) Unprotected sides and edges. Each employee on a walking/
working surface (horizontal and vertical surface) with an unprotected
side or edge which is 6 feet (1.8 m) 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.
(2) Leading edges. (i) Each employee who is constructing a leading
edge 6 feet (1.8 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 Sec. 1926.502.
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 Sec. 1926.502(k) for a
particular workplace situation, in lieu of implementing any of those
systems.
(ii) Each employee on a walking/working surface 6 feet (1.8 m) or
more above a lower level where leading edges are under construction,
but who is not engaged in the leading edge work, shall be protected
from falling by a guardrail system, safety net system, or personal fall
arrest system. If a guardrail system is chosen to provide the fall
protection, and a controlled access zone has already been established
for leading edge work, the control line may be used in lieu of a
guardrail along the edge that parallels the leading edge.
(3) Hoist areas. Each employee in a hoist area shall be protected
from falling 6 feet (1.8 m) or more to lower levels by guardrail
systems or personal fall arrest systems. If guardrail systems, [or
chain, gate, or guardrail] or portions thereof, are removed to
facilitate the hoisting operation (e.g., 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.
(4) Holes. (i) Each employee on walking/working surfaces shall be
protected from falling through holes (including skylights) more than 6
feet (1.8 m) above lower levels, by personal fall arrest systems,
covers, or guardrail systems erected around such holes.
(ii) Each employee on a walking/working surface shall be protected
from tripping in or stepping into or through holes (including
skylights) by covers.
(iii) Each employee on a walking/working surface shall be protected
from objects falling through holes (including skylights) by covers.
(5) Formwork and reinforcing steel. Each employee on the face of
formwork or reinforcing steel shall be protected from falling 6 feet
(1.8 m) or more to lower levels by personal fall arrest systems, safety
net systems, or positioning device systems.
(6) Ramps, runways, and other walkways. Each employee on ramps,
runways, and other walkways shall be protected from falling 6 feet (1.8
m) or more to lower levels by guardrail systems.
(7) Excavations. (i) Each employee at the edge of an excavation 6
feet (1.8 m) or more in depth shall be protected from falling by
guardrail systems, fences, or barricades when the excavations are not
readily seen because of plant growth or other visual barrier;
(ii) Each employee at the edge of a well, pit, shaft, and similar
excavation 6 feet (1.8 m) or more in depth shall be protected from
falling by guardrail systems, fences, barricades, or covers.
(8) Dangerous equipment. (i) Each employee less than 6 feet (1.8 m)
above dangerous equipment shall be protected from falling into or onto
the dangerous equipment by guardrail systems or by equipment guards.
(ii) Each employee 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above dangerous equipment
shall be protected from fall hazards by guardrail systems, personal
fall arrest systems, or safety net systems.
(9) Overhand bricklaying and related work. (i) Except as otherwise
provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each employee performing
overhand bricklaying and related work 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above
lower levels, shall be protected from falling by guardrail systems,
safety net systems, personal fall arrest systems, or shall work in a
controlled access zone.
(ii) Each employee reaching more than 10 inches (25 cm) below the
level of the walking/working surface on which they are working, shall
be protected from falling by a guardrail system, safety net system, or
personal fall arrest system.
Note: Bricklaying operations performed on scaffolds are
regulated by subpart L--Scaffolds of this part.
(10) Roofing work on Low-slope roofs. Except as otherwise provided
in paragraph (b) of this section, each employee engaged in roofing
activities on low-slope roofs, with unprotected sides and edges 6 feet
(1.8 m) or more above lower levels shall be protected from falling by
guardrail systems, safety net systems, personal fall arrest systems, or
a combination of warning line system and guardrail system, warning line
system and safety net system, or warning line system and personal fall
arrest system, or warning line system and safety monitoring system. Or,
on roofs 50-feet (15.25 m) or less in width (see Appendix A to subpart
M of this part), the use of a safety monitoring system alone [i.e.
without the warning line system] is permitted.
(11) Steep roofs. Each employee on a steep roof with unprotected
sides and edges 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above lower levels shall be
protected from falling by guardrail systems with toeboards, safety net
systems, or personal fall arrest 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 (1.8 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 Sec. 1926.502.
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 Sec. 1926.502(k) for a
particular workplace situation, in lieu of implementing any of those
systems.
(13) Residential construction. Each employee engaged in residential
construction activities 6 feet (1.8 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
Sec. 1926.502.
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 Sec. 1926.502(k) for a
particular workplace situation, in lieu of implementing any of those
systems.
(14) Wall openings. Each employee working on, at, above, or near
wall openings (including those with chutes attached) where the outside
bottom edge of the wall opening is 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above lower
levels and the inside bottom edge of the wall opening is less than 39
inches (1.0 m) above the walking/working surface, shall be protected
from falling by the use of a guardrail system, a safety net system, or
a personal fall arrest system.
(15) Walking/working surfaces not otherwise addressed. Except as
provided in Sec. 1926.500(a)(2) or in Sec. 1926.501 (b)(1) through
(b)(14), each employee on a walking/working surface 6 feet (1.8 m) or
more above lower levels shall be protected from falling by a guardrail
system, safety net system, or personal fall arrest system.
(c) Protection from falling objects. When an employee is exposed to
falling objects, the employer shall have each employee wear a hard hat
and shall implement one of the following measures:
(1) Erect toeboards, screens, or guardrail systems to prevent
objects from falling from higher levels; or,
(2) Erect a canopy structure and keep potential fall objects far
enough from the edge of the higher level so that those objects would
not go over the edge if they were accidentally displaced; or,
(3) Barricade the area to which objects could fall, prohibit
employees from entering the barricaded area, and keep objects that may
fall far enough away from the edge of a higher level so that those
objects would not go over the edge if they were accidentally displaced.
Sec. 1926.502 Fall protection systems criteria and practices.
(a) General. (1) Fall protection systems required by this part
shall comply with the applicable provisions of this section.
(2) Employers shall provide and install all fall protection systems
required by this subpart for an employee, and shall comply with all
other pertinent requirements of this subpart before that employee
begins the work that necessitates the fall protection.
(b) 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 (1.1 m) plus or minus 3 inches (8 cm) above
the walking/working level. When conditions warrant, the height of the
top edge may exceed the 45-inch height, provided the guardrail system
meets all other criteria of this paragraph ( ).
Note: When employees are using stilts, the top edge height of
the top rail, or equivalent member, shall be increased an amount
equal to the height of the stilts.
(2) Midrails, screens, mesh, intermediate vertical members, or
equivalent intermediate structural members shall be installed between
the top edge of the guardrail system and the walking/working surface
when there is no wall or parapet wall at least 21 inches (53 cm) high.
(i) Midrails, when used, shall be installed at a height midway
between the top edge of the guardrail system and the walking/working
level.
(ii) Screens and mesh, when used, shall extend from the top rail to
the walking/working level and along the entire opening between top rail
supports.
(iii) Intermediate members (such as balusters), when used between
posts, shall be not more than 19 inches (48 cm) apart.
(iv) Other structural members (such as additional midrails and
architectural panels) shall be installed such that there are no
openings in the guardrail system that are more than 19 inches (.5 m)
wide.
(3) Guardrail systems shall be capable of withstanding, without
failure, a force of at least 200 pounds (890 N) applied within 2 inches
(5.1 cm) of the top edge, in any outward or downward direction, at any
point along the top edge.
(4) When the 200 pound (890 N) test load specified in paragraph
(b)(3) of this section is applied in a downward direction, the top edge
of the guardrail shall not deflect to a height less than 39 inches (1.0
m) above the walking/working level. Guardrail system components
selected and constructed in accordance with the Appendix B to subpart M
of this part will be deemed to meet this requirement.
(5) Midrails, screens, mesh, intermediate vertical members, solid
panels, and equivalent structural members shall be capable of
withstanding, without failure, a force of at least 150 pounds (666 N)
applied in any downward or outward direction at any point along the
midrail or other member.
(6) Guardrail systems shall be so surfaced as to prevent injury to
an employee from punctures or lacerations, and to prevent snagging of
clothing.
(7) The ends of all top rails and midrails shall not overhang the
terminal posts, except where such overhang does not constitute a
projection hazard.
(8) Steel banding and plastic banding shall not be used as top
rails or midrails.
(9) Top rails and midrails shall be at least one-quarter inch (0.6
cm) nominal diameter or thickness to prevent cuts and lacerations. If
wire rope is used for top rails, it shall be flagged at not more than
6-foot intervals with high-visibility material.
(10) When guardrail systems are used at hoisting areas, a chain,
gate or removable guardrail section shall be placed across the access
opening between guardrail sections when hoisting operations are not
taking place.
(11) When guardrail systems are used at holes, they shall be
erected on all unprotected sides or edges of the hole.
(12) When guardrail systems are used around holes used for the
passage of materials, the hole shall have not more than two sides
provided with removable guardrail sections to allow the passage of
materials. When the hole is not in use, it shall be closed over with a
cover, or a guardrail system shall be provided along all unprotected
sides or edges.
(13) When guardrail systems are used around holes which are used as
points of access (such as ladderways), they shall be provided with a
gate, or be so offset that a person cannot walk directly into the hole.
(14) Guardrail systems used on ramps and runways shall be erected
along each unprotected side or edge.
(15) Manila, plastic or synthetic rope being used for top rails or
midrails shall be inspected as frequently as necessary to ensure that
it continues to meet the strength requirements of paragraph (b)(3) of
this section.
(c) Safety net systems. Safety net systems and their use shall
comply with the following provisions:
(1) Safety nets shall be installed as close as practicable under
the walking/working surface on which employees are working, but in no
case more than 30 feet (9.1 m) below such level. When nets are used on
bridges, the potential fall area from the walking/working surface to
the net shall be unobstructed.
(2) Safety nets shall extend outward from the outermost projection
of the work surface as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum required horizontal
Vertical distance from working distance of outer edge of net from
level to horizontal plane of net the edge of the working surface
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 5 feet....................... 8 feet.
More than 5 feet up to 10 feet..... 10 feet.
More than 10 feet.................. 13 feet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Safety nets shall be installed with sufficient clearance under
them to prevent contact with the surface or structures below when
subjected to an impact force equal to the drop test specified in
paragraph (c)(4) of this section.
(4) Safety nets and their installations shall be capable of
absorbing an impact force equal to that produced by the drop test
specified in paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section.
(i) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of this section,
safety nets and safety net installations shall be drop-tested at the
jobsite after initial installation and before being used as a fall
protection system, whenever relocated, after major repair, and at 6-
month intervals if left in one place. The drop-test shall consist of a
400 pound (180 kg) bag of sand 30 2 inches (76
5 cm) in diameter dropped into the net from the highest
walking/working surface at which employees are exposed to fall hazards,
but not from less than 42 inches (1.1 m) above that level.
(ii) When the employer can demonstrate that it is unreasonable to
perform the drop-test required by paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section,
the employer (or a designated competent person) shall certify that the
net and net installation is in compliance with the provisions of
paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4)(i) of this section by preparing a
certification record prior to the net being used as a fall protection
system. The certification record must include an identification of the
net and net installation for which the certification record is being
prepared; the date that it was determined that the identified net and
net installation were in compliance with paragraph (c)(3) of this
section and the signature of the person making the determination and
certification. The most recent certification record for each net and
net installation shall be available at the jobsite for inspection.
(5) Defective nets shall not be used. Safety nets shall be
inspected at least once a week for wear, damage, and other
deterioration. Defective components shall be removed from service.
Safety nets shall also be inspected after any occurrence which could
affect the integrity of the safety net system.
(6) Materials, scrap pieces, equipment, and tools which have fallen
into the safety net shall be removed as soon as possible from the net
and at least before the next work shift.
(7) The maximum size of each safety net mesh opening shall not
exceed 36 square inches (230 cm\2\) nor be longer than 6 inches (15 cm)
on any side, and the opening, measured center-to-center of mesh ropes
or webbing, shall not be longer than 6 inches (15 cm). All mesh
crossings shall be secured to prevent enlargement of the mesh opening.
(8) Each safety net (or section of it) shall have a border rope for
webbing with a minimum breaking strength of 5,000 pounds (22.2 kN).
(9) Connections between safety net panels shall be as strong as
integral net components and shall be spaced not more than 6 inches (15
cm) apart.
(d) Personal fall arrest systems. Personal fall arrest systems and
their use shall comply with the provisions set forth below. Effective
January 1, 1998, body belts are not acceptable as part of a personal
fall arrest system. Note: The use of a body belt in a positioning
device system is acceptable and is regulated under paragraph (e) of
this section.
(1) Connectors shall be drop forged, pressed or formed steel, or
made of equivalent materials.
(2) Connectors shall have a corrosion-resistant finish, and all
surfaces and edges shall be smooth to prevent damage to interfacing
parts of the system.
(3) Dee-rings and snaphooks shall have a minimum tensile strength
of 5,000 pounds (22.2 kN).
(4) Dee-rings and snaphooks shall be proof-tested to a minimum
tensile load of 3,600 pounds (16 kN) without cracking, breaking, or
taking permanent deformation.
(5) Snaphooks shall be sized to be compatible with the member to
which they are connected to prevent unintentional disengagement of the
snaphook by depression of the snaphook keeper by the connected member,
or shall be a locking type snaphook designed and used to prevent
disengagement of the snaphook by the contact of the snaphook keeper by
the connected member. Effective January 1, 1998, only locking type
snaphooks shall be used.
(6) Unless the snaphook is a locking type and designed for the
following connections, snaphooks shall not be engaged:
(i) directly to webbing, rope or wire rope;
(ii) to each other;
(iii) to a dee-ring to which another snaphook or other connector is
attached;
(iv) to a horizontal lifeline; or
(v) to any object which is incompatibly shaped or dimensioned in
relation to the snaphook such that unintentional disengagement could
occur by the connected object being able to depress the snaphook keeper
and release itself.
(7) On suspended scaffolds or similar work platforms with
horizontal lifelines which may become vertical lifelines, the devices
used to connect to a horizontal lifeline shall be capable of locking in
both directions on the lifeline.
(8) Horizontal lifelines shall be designed, installed, and used,
under the supervision of a qualified person, as part of a complete
personal fall arrest system, which maintains a safety factor of at
least two.
(9) Lanyards and vertical lifelines shall have a minimum breaking
strength of 5,000 pounds (22.2 kN).
(10) (i) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(10)(ii) of this
section, when vertical lifelines are used, each employee shall be
attached to a separate lifeline.
(ii) During the construction of elevator shafts, two employees may
be attached to the same lifeline in the hoistway, provided both
employees are working atop a false car that is equipped with
guardrails; the strength of the lifeline is 10,000 pounds [5,000 pounds
per employee attached] (44.4 kN); and all other criteria specified in
this paragraph for lifelines have been met.
(11) Lifelines shall be protected against being cut or abraded.
(12) Self-retracting lifelines and lanyards which automatically
limit free fall distance to 2 feet (0.61 m) or less shall be capable of
sustaining a minimum tensile load of 3,000 pounds (13.3 kN) applied to
the device with the lifeline or lanyard in the fully extended position.
(13) Self-retracting lifelines and lanyards which do not limit free
fall distance to 2 feet (0.61 m) or less, ripstitch lanyards, and
tearing and deforming lanyards shall be capable of sustaining a minimum
tensile load of 5,000 pounds (22.2 kN) applied to the device with the
lifeline or lanyard in the fully extended position.
(14) Ropes and straps (webbing) used in lanyards, lifelines, and
strength components of body belts and body harnesses shall be made from
synthetic fibers.
(15) Anchorages used for attachment of personal fall arrest
equipment shall be independent of any anchorage being used to support
or suspend platforms and capable of supporting at least 5,000 pounds
(22.2 kN) per employee attached, or shall be designed, installed, and
used as follows:
(i) as part of a complete personal fall arrest system which
maintains a safety factor of at least two; and
(ii) under the supervision of a qualified person.
(16) Personal fall arrest systems, when stopping a fall, shall:
(i) limit maximum arresting force on an employee to 900 pounds (4
kN) when used with a body belt;
(ii) limit maximum arresting force on an employee to 1,800 pounds
(8 kN) when used with a body harness;
(iii) be rigged such that an employee can neither free fall more
than 6 feet (1.8 m), nor contact any lower level;
(iv) bring an employee to a complete stop and limit maximum
deceleration distance an employee travels to 3.5 feet (1.07 m); and,
(v) have sufficient strength to withstand twice the potential
impact energy of an employee free falling a distance of 6 feet (1.8 m),
or the free fall distance permitted by the system, whichever is less.
Note: If the personal fall arrest system meets the criteria and
protocols contained in Appendix C to subpart M, and if the system is
being used by an employee having a combined person and tool weight
of less than 310 pounds (140 kg), the system will be considered to
be in compliance with the provisions of paragraph (d)(16) of this
section. If the system is used by an employee having a combined tool
and body weight of 310 pounds (140 kg) or more, then the employer
must appropriately modify the criteria and protocols of the Appendix
to provide proper protection for such heavier weights, or the system
will not be deemed to be in compliance with the requirements of
paragraph (d)(16) of this section.
(17) The attachment point of the body belt shall be located in the
center of the wearer's back. The attachment point of the body harness
shall be located in the center of the wearer's back near shoulder
level, or above the wearer's head.
(18) Body belts, harnesses, and components shall be used only for
employee protection (as part of a personal fall arrest system or
positioning device system) and not to hoist materials.
(19) 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.
(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.
(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.
(22) Body belts shall be at least one and five-eighths (1\5/8\)
inches (4.1 cm) wide.
(23) Personal fall arrest systems shall not be attached to
guardrail systems, nor shall they be attached to hoists except as
specified in other subparts of this Part.
(24) 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 walking/working surface.
(e) Positioning device systems. Positioning device systems and
their use shall conform to the following provisions:
(1) Positioning devices shall be rigged such that an employee
cannot free fall more than 2 feet (.9 m).
(2) Positioning devices shall be secured to an anchorage capable of
supporting at least twice the potential impact load of an employee's
fall or 3,000 pounds (13.3 kN), whichever is greater.
(3) Connectors shall be drop forged, pressed or formed steel, or
made of equivalent materials.
(4) Connectors shall have a corrosion-resistant finish, and all
surfaces and edges shall be smooth to prevent damage to interfacing
parts of this system.
(5) Connecting assemblies shall have a minimum tensile strength of
5,000 pounds (22.2 kN)
(6) Dee-rings and snaphooks shall be proof-tested to a minimum
tensile load of 3,600 pounds (16 kN) without cracking, breaking, or
taking permanent deformation.
(7) Snaphooks shall be sized to be compatible with the member to
which they are connected to prevent unintentional disengagement of the
snaphook by depression of the snaphook keeper by the connected member,
or shall be a locking type snaphook designed and used to prevent
disengagement of the snaphook by the contact of the snaphook keeper by
the connected member. As of January 1, 1998, only locking type
snaphooks shall be used.
(8) Unless the snaphook is a locking type and designed for the
following connections, snaphooks shall not be engaged:
(i) directly to webbing, rope or wire rope;
(ii) to each other;
(iii) to a dee-ring to which another snaphook or other connector is
attached;
(iv) to a horizontal lifeline; or
(v) to any object which is incompatibly shaped or dimensioned in
relation to the snaphook such that unintentional disengagement could
occur by the connected object being able to depress the snaphook keeper
and release itself.
(9) Positioning device systems shall be inspected prior to each use
for wear, damage, and other deterioration, and defective components
shall be removed from service.
(10) Body belts, harnesses, and components shall be used only for
employee protection (as part of a personal fall arrest system or
positioning device system) and not to hoist materials.
(f) Warning line systems. Warning line systems [See
Sec. 1926.501(b)(10)] and their use shall comply with the following
provisions:
(1) The warning line shall be erected around all sides of the roof
work area.
(i) When mechanical equipment is not being used, the warning line
shall be erected not less than 6 feet (1.8 m) from the roof edge.
(ii) When mechanical equipment is being used, the warning line
shall be erected not less than 6 feet (1.8 m) from the roof edge which
is parallel to the direction of mechanical equipment operation, and not
less than 10 feet (3.1 m) from the roof edge which is perpendicular to
the direction of mechanical equipment operation.
(iii) Points of access, materials handling areas, storage areas,
and hoisting areas shall be connected to the work area by an access
path formed by two warning lines.
(iv) When the path to a point of access is not in use, a rope,
wire, chain, or other barricade, equivalent in strength and height to
the warning line, shall be placed across the path at the point where
the path intersects the warning line erected around the work area, or
the path shall be offset such that a person cannot walk directly into
the work area.
(2) Warning lines shall consist of ropes, wires, or chains, and
supporting stanchions erected as follows:
(i) The rope, wire, or chain shall be flagged at not more than 6-
foot (1.8 m) intervals with high-visibility material;
(ii) The rope, wire, or chain shall be rigged and supported in such
a way that its lowest point (including sag) is no less than 34 inches
(.9 m) from the walking/working surface and its highest point is no
more than 39 inches (1.0 m) from the walking/working surface;
(iii) After being erected, with the rope, wire, or chain attached,
stanchions shall be capable of resisting, without tipping over, a force
of at least 16 pounds (71 N) applied horizontally against the
stanchion, 30 inches (.8 m) above the walking/working surface,
perpendicular to the warning line, and in the direction of the floor,
roof, or platform edge;
(iv) The rope, wire, or chain shall have a minimum tensile strength
of 500 pounds (2.22 kN), and after being attached to the stanchions,
shall be capable of supporting, without breaking, the loads applied to
the stanchions as prescribed in paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of this section;
and
(v) The line shall be attached at each stanchion in such a way that
pulling on one section of the line between stanchions will not result
in slack being taken up in adjacent sections before the stanchion tips
over.
(3) No employee shall be allowed in the area between a roof edge
and a warning line unless the employee is performing roofing work in
that area.
(4) Mechanical equipment on roofs shall be used or stored only in
areas where employees are protected by a warning line system, guardrail
system, or personal fall arrest system.
(g) Controlled access zones. Controlled access zones [See
Sec. 1926.501(b)(9) and Sec. 1926.502(k)] and their use shall conform
to the following provisions.
(1) When used to control access to areas where leading edge and
other operations are taking place the controlled access zone shall be
defined by a control line or by any other means that restricts access.
(i) When control lines are used, they shall be erected not less
than 6 feet (1.8 m) nor more than 25 feet (7.7 m) from the unprotected
or leading edge, except when erecting precast concrete members.
(ii) When erecting precast concrete members, the control line shall
be erected not less than 6 feet (1.8 m) nor more than 60 feet (18 m) or
half the length of the member being erected, whichever is less, from
the leading edge.
(iii) The control line shall extend along the entire length of the
unprotected or leading edge and shall be approximately parallel to the
unprotected or leading edge.
(iv) The control line shall be connected on each side to a
guardrail system or wall.
(2) When used to control access to areas where overhand bricklaying
and related work are taking place:
(i) The controlled access zone shall be defined by a control line
erected not less than 10 feet (3.1 m) nor more than 15 feet (4.5 m)
from the working edge.
(ii) The control line shall extend for a distance sufficient for
the controlled access zone to enclose all employees performing overhand
bricklaying and related work at the working edge and shall be
approximately parallel to the working edge.
(iii) Additional control lines shall be erected at each end to
enclose the controlled access zone.
(iv) Only employees engaged in overhand bricklaying or related work
shall be permitted in the controlled access zone.
(3) Control lines shall consist of ropes, wires, tapes, or
equivalent materials, and supporting stanchions as follows:
(i) Each line shall be flagged or otherwise clearly marked at not
more than 6-foot (1.8 m) intervals with high-visibility material.
(ii) Each line shall be rigged and supported in such a way that its
lowest point (including sag) is not less than 39 inches (1 m) from the
walking/working surface and its highest point is not more than 45
inches (1.3 m) [50 inches (1.3 m) when overhand bricklaying operations
are being performed] from the walking/working surface.
(iii) Each line shall have a minimum breaking strength of 200
pounds (.88 kN).
(4) On floors and roofs where guardrail systems are not in place
prior to the beginning of overhand bricklaying operations, controlled
access zones shall be enlarged, as necessary, to enclose all points of
access, material handling areas, and storage areas.
(5) On floors and roofs where guardrail systems are in place, but
need to be removed to allow overhand bricklaying work or leading edge
work to take place, only that portion of the guardrail necessary to
accomplish that day's work shall be removed.
(h) Safety monitoring systems. Safety monitoring systems [See
Sec. 1926.501(b)(10) and Sec. 1926.502(k)] and their use shall comply
with the following provisions:
(1) The employer shall designate a competent person to monitor the
safety of other employees and the employer shall ensure that the safety
monitor complies with the following requirements:
(i) The safety monitor shall be competent to recognize fall
hazards;
(ii) The safety monitor shall warn the employee when it appears
that the employee is unaware of a fall hazard or is acting in an unsafe
manner;
(iii) The safety monitor shall be on the same walking/working
surface and within visual sighting distance of the employee being
monitored;
(iv) The safety monitor shall be close enough to communicate orally
with the employee; and
(v) The safety monitor shall not have other responsibilities which
could take the monitor's attention from the monitoring function.
(2) Mechanical equipment shall not be used or stored in areas where
safety monitoring systems are being used to monitor employees engaged
in roofing operations on low-slope roofs.
(3) No employee, other than an employee engaged in roofing work [on
low-sloped roofs] or an employee covered by a fall protection plan,
shall be allowed in an area where an employee is being protected by a
safety monitoring system.
(4) Each employee working in a controlled access zone shall be
directed to comply promptly with fall hazard warnings from safety
monitors.
(i) Covers. Covers for holes in floors, roofs, and other walking/
working surfaces shall meet the following requirements:
(1) Covers located in roadways and vehicular aisles shall be
capable of supporting, without failure, at least twice the maximum axle
load of the largest vehicle expected to cross over the cover.
(2) All other covers shall be capable of supporting, without
failure, at least twice the weight of employees, equipment, and
materials that may be imposed on the cover at any one time.
(3) All covers shall be secured when installed so as to prevent
accidental displacement by the wind, equipment, or employees.
(4) All covers shall be color coded or they shall be marked with
the word ``HOLE'' or ``COVER'' to provide warning of the hazard.
Note: This provision does not apply to cast iron manhole covers
or steel grates used on streets or roadways.
(j) Protection from falling objects. Falling object protection
shall comply with the following provisions:
(1) Toeboards, when used as falling object protection, shall be
erected along the edge of the overhead walking/working surface for a
distance sufficient to protect employees below.
(2) Toeboards shall be capable of withstanding, without failure, a
force of at least 50 pounds (222 N) applied in any downward or outward
direction at any point along the toeboard.
(3) Toeboards shall be a minimum of 3 1/2 inches (9 cm) in vertical
height from their top edge to the level of the walking/working surface.
They shall have not more than 1/4 inch (0.6 cm) clearance above the
walking/working surface. They shall be solid or have openings not over
1 inch (2.5 cm) in greatest dimension.
(4) Where tools, equipment, or materials are piled higher than the
top edge of a toeboard, paneling or screening shall be erected from the
walking/working surface or toeboard to the top of a guardrail system's
top rail or midrail, for a distance sufficient to protect employees
below.
(5) Guardrail systems, when used as falling object protection,
shall have all openings small enough to prevent passage of potential
falling objects.
(6) During the performance of overhand bricklaying and related
work:
(i) No materials or equipment except masonry and mortar shall be
stored within 4 feet (1.2 m) of the working edge.
(ii) Excess mortar, broken or scattered masonry units, and all
other materials and debris shall be kept clear from the work area by
removal at regular intervals.
(7) During the performance of roofing work:
(i) Materials and equipment shall not be stored within 6 feet (1.8
m) of a roof edge unless guardrails are erected at the edge.
(ii) Materials which are piled, grouped, or stacked near a roof
edge shall be stable and self-supporting.
(8) Canopies, when used as falling object protection, shall be
strong enough to prevent collapse and to prevent penetration by any
objects which may fall onto the canopy.
(k) Fall protection plan. This option is available only to
employees engaged in leading edge work, precast concrete erection work,
or residential construction work (See Sec. 1926.501(b)(2), (b)(12), and
(b)(13)) who can demonstrate that it is infeasible or it creates a
greater hazard to use conventional fall protection equipment. The fall
protection plan must conform to the following provisions.
(1) The fall protection plan shall be prepared by a qualified
person and developed specifically for the site where the leading edge
work, precast concrete work, or residential construction work is being
performed and the plan must be maintained up to date.
(2) Any changes to the fall protection plan shall be approved by a
qualified person.
(3) A copy of the fall protection plan with all approved changes
shall be maintained at the job site.
(4) The implementation of the fall protection plan shall be under
the supervision of a competent person.
(5) The fall protection plan shall document the reasons why the use
of conventional fall protection systems (guardrail systems, personal
fall arrest systems, or safety nets systems) are infeasible or why
their use would create a greater hazard.
(6) The fall protection plan shall include a written discussion of
other measures that will be taken to reduce or eliminate the fall
hazard for workers who cannot be provided with protection from the
conventional fall protection systems. For example, the employer shall
discuss the extent to which scaffolds, ladders, or vehicle mounted work
platforms can be used to provide a safer working surface and thereby
reduce the hazard of falling.
(7) The fall protection plan shall identify each location where
conventional fall protection methods cannot be used. These locations
shall then be classified as controlled access zones and the employer
must comply with the criteria in paragraph (g) of this section.
(8) Where no other alternative measure has been implemented, the
employer shall implement a safety monitoring system in conformance with
Sec. 1926.502(h).
(9) The fall protection plan must include a statement which
provides the name or other method of identification for each employee
who is designated to work in controlled access zones. No other
employees may enter controlled access zones.
(10) In the event an employee falls, or some other related, serious
incident occurs, (e.g., a near miss) the employer shall investigate the
circumstances of the fall or other incident to determine if the fall
protection plan needs to be changed (e.g. new practices, procedures, or
training) and shall implement those changes to prevent similar types of
falls or incidents.
Sec. 1926.503 Training requirements.
The following training provisions supplement and clarify the
requirements of Sec. 1926.21 regarding the hazards addressed in subpart
M of this part.
(a) Training Program. (1) The employer shall provide a training
program for each employee who might be exposed to fall hazards. The
program shall enable each employee to recognize the hazards of falling
and shall train each employee in the procedures to be followed in order
to minimize these hazards.
(2) The employer shall assure that each employee has been trained,
as necessary, by a competent person qualified in the following areas:
(i) The nature of fall hazards in the work area;
(ii) The correct procedures for erecting, maintaining,
disassembling, and inspecting the fall protection systems to be used;
(iii) The use and operation of guardrail systems, personal fall
arrest systems, safety net systems, warning line systems, safety
monitoring systems, controlled access zones, and other protection to be
used;
(iv) The role of each employee in the safety monitoring system when
this system is used;
(v) The limitations on the use of mechanical equipment during the
performance of roofing work on low-sloped roofs;
(vi) The correct procedures for the handling and storage of
equipment and materials and the erection of overhead protection; and
(vii) The role of employees in fall protection plans;
(viii) The standards contained in this subpart.
(b) Certification of training. (1) The employer shall verify
compliance with paragraph (a) of this section by preparing a written
certification record. The written certification record shall contain
the name or other identity of the employee trained, the date(s) of the
training, and the signature of the person who conducted the training or
the signature of the employer. If the employer relies on training
conducted by another employer or completed prior to the effective date
of this section, the certification record shall indicate the date the
employer determined the prior training was adequate rather than the
date of actual training.
(2) The latest training certification shall be maintained.
(c) Retraining. When the employer has reason to believe that any
affected employee who has already been trained does not have the
understanding and skill required by paragraph (a) of this section, the
employer shall retrain each such employee. Circumstances where
retraining is required include, but are not limited to, situations
where:
(1) Changes in the workplace render previous training obsolete; or
(2) Changes in the types of fall protection systems or equipment to
be used render previous training obsolete; or
(3) Inadequacies in an affected employee's knowledge or use of fall
protection systems or equipment indicate that the employee has not
retained the requisite understanding or skill.
Note: The following appendices to subpart M of this part serve
as non-mandatory guidelines to assist employers in complying with
the appropriate requirements of subpart M of this part.
Appendix A to Subpart M--Determining Roof Widths Non-mandatory
Guidelines for Complying With Sec. 1926.501(b)(10)
(1) This Appendix serves as a guideline to assist employers
complying with the requirements of Sec. 1926.501(b)(10). Section
1910.501(b)(10) allows the use of a safety monitoring system alone
as a means of providing fall protection during the performance of
roofing operations on low-sloped roofs 50 feet (15.25 m) or less in
width. Each example in the appendix shows a roof plan or plans and
indicates where each roof or roof area is to be measured to
determine its width. Section views or elevation views are shown
where appropriate. Some examples show ``correct'' and ``incorrect''
subdivisions of irregularly shaped roofs divided into smaller,
regularly shaped areas. In all examples, the dimension selected to
be the width of an area is the lesser of the two primary dimensions
of the area, as viewed from above. Example A shows that on a simple
rectangular roof, width is the lesser of the two primary overall
dimensions. This is also the case with roofs which are sloped toward
or away from the roof center, as shown in Example B.
(2) Many roofs are not simple rectangles. Such roofs may be
broken down into subareas as shown in Example C. The process of
dividing a roof area can produce many different configurations.
Example C gives the general rule of using dividing lines of minimum
length to minimize the size and number of the areas which are
potentially less than 50 feet (15.25 m) wide. The intent is to
minimize the number of roof areas where safety monitoring systems
alone are sufficient protection.
(3) Roofs which are comprised of several separate, non-
contiguous roof areas, as in Example D, may be considered as a
series of individual roofs. Some roofs have penthouses, additional
floors, courtyard openings, or similar architectural features;
Example E shows how the rule for dividing roofs into subareas is
applied to such configurations. Irregular, non-rectangular roofs
must be considered on an individual basis, as shown in Example F.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
Example A
Rectangular Shaped Roofs
TR09AU94.000
BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
Example B
Sloped Rectangular Shaped Roofs
TR09AU94.001
BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
Example C
Irregularly Shaped Roofs With Rectangular Shaped Sections
Such roofs are to be divided into sub-areas by using dividing
lines of minimum length to minimize the size and number of the areas
which are potentially less than or equal to 50 feet (15.25 meters)
in width, in order to limit the size of roof areas where the safety
monitoring system alone can be used [1926.502(b)(10)]. Dotted lines
are used in the examples to show the location of dividing lines. W
denotes incorrect measurements of width.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
TR09AU94.002
BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
Example D
Separate, Non-Contiguous Roof Areas
TR09AU94.003
BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
Example E
Roofs With Penthouses, Open Courtyards, Additional Floors, etc.
Such roofs are to be divided into sub-areas by using dividing
lines of minimum length to minimize the size and number of the areas
which are potentially less than or equal to 50 feet (15.25 meters)
in width, in order to limit the size of roof areas where the safety
monitoring system alone can be used [1926.502(b)(10)]. Dotted lines
are used in the examples to show the location of dividing lines. W
denotes incorrect measurements of width.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
TR09AU94.004
BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
Example F
Irregular, Non-Rectangular Shaped Roofs
TR09AU94.005
BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
Appendix B to Subpart M--Guardrail Systems Non-Mandatory Guidelines
for Complying with Sec. 1926.502(b)
The standard requires guardrail systems and components to be
designed and built to meet the requirements of Sec. 1926.502 (b)
(3), (4), and (5). This Appendix serves as a non-mandatory guideline
to assist employers in complying with these requirements. An
employer may use these guidelines as a starting point for designing
guardrail systems. However, the guidelines do not provide all the
information necessary to build a complete system, and the employer
is still responsible for designing and assembling these components
in such a way that the completed system will meet the requirements
of Sec. 1926.502(b) (3), (4), and (5). Components for which no
specific guidelines are given in this Appendix (e.g., joints, base
connections, components made with other materials, and components
with other dimensions) must also be designed and constructed in such
a way that the completed system meets the requirements of
Sec. 1926.502.
(1) For wood railings: Wood components shall be minimum 1500 lb-
ft/in2 fiber (stress grade) construction grade lumber; the
posts shall be at least 2-inch by 4-inch (5 cm x 10 cm) lumber
spaced not more than 8 feet (2.4 m) apart on centers; the top rail
shall be at least 2-inch by 4-inch (5 cm x 10 cm) lumber, the
intermediate rail shall be at least 1-inch by 6-inch (2.5 cm x 15
cm) lumber. All lumber dimensions are nominal sizes as provided by
the American Softwood Lumber Standards, dated January 1970.
(2) For pipe railings: posts, top rails, and intermediate
railings shall be at least one and one-half inches nominal diameter
(schedule 40 pipe) with posts spaced not more than 8 feet (2.4 m)
apart on centers.
(3) For structural steel railings: posts, top rails, and
intermediate rails shall be at least 2-inch by 2-inch (5 cm x 10 cm)
by \3/8\-inch (1.1 cm) angles, with posts spaced not more than 8
feet (2.4 m) apart on centers.
Appendix C to Subpart M--Personal Fall Arrest Systems Non-Mandatory
Guidelines for Complying With Sec. 1926.502(d)
I. Test methods for personal fall arrest systems and positioning
device systems--(a) General. This appendix serves as a non-mandatory
guideline to assist employers comply with the requirements in
Sec. 1926.502(d). Paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e) of this Appendix
describe test procedures which may be used to determine compliance
with the requirements in Sec. 1926.502 (d)(16). As noted in Appendix
D of this subpart, the test methods listed here in Appendix C can
also be used to assist employers comply with the requirements in
Sec. 1926.502(e) (3) and (4) for positioning device systems.
(b) General conditions for all tests in the Appendix to
Sec. 1926.502(d). (1) Lifelines, lanyards and deceleration devices
should be attached to an anchorage and connected to the body-belt or
body harness in the same manner as they would be when used to
protect employees.
(2) The anchorage should be rigid, and should not have a
deflection greater than 0.04 inches (1 mm) when a force of 2,250
pounds (10 kN) is applied.
(3) The frequency response of the load measuring instrumentation
should be 500 Hz.
(4) The test weight used in the strength and force tests should
be a rigid, metal, cylindrical or torso-shaped object with a girth
of 38 inches plus or minus 4 inches (96 cm plus or minus 10 cm).
(5) The lanyard or lifeline used to create the free fall
distance should be supplied with the system, or in its absence, the
least elastic lanyard or lifeline available to be used with the
system.
(6) The test weight for each test should be hoisted to the
required level and should be quickly released without having any
appreciable motion imparted to it.
(7) The system's performance should be evaluated taking into
account the range of environmental conditions for which it is
designed to be used.
(8) Following the test, the system need not be capable of
further operation.
(c) Strength test. (1) During the testing of all systems, a test
weight of 300 pounds plus or minus 5 pounds (135 kg plus or minus
2.5 kg) should be used. (See paragraph (b)(4) of this section.)
(2) The test consists of dropping the test weight once. A new
unused system should be used for each test.
(3) For lanyard systems, the lanyard length should be 6 feet
plus or minus 2 inches (1.83 m plus or minus 5 cm) as measured from
the fixed anchorage to the attachment on the body belt or body
harness.
(4) For rope-grab-type deceleration systems, the length of the
lifeline above the centerline of the grabbing mechanism to the
lifeline's anchorage point should not exceed 2 feet (0.61 m).
(5) For lanyard systems, for systems with deceleration devices
which do not automatically limit free fall distance to 2 feet (0.61
m ) or less, and for systems with deceleration devices which have a
connection distance in excess of 1 foot (0.3 m) (measured between
the centerline of the lifeline and the attachment point to the body
belt or harness), the test weight should be rigged to free fall a
distance of 7.5 feet (2.3 m) from a point that is 1.5 feet (.46 m)
above the anchorage point, to its hanging location (6 feet below the
anchorage). The test weight should fall without interference,
obstruction, or hitting the floor or ground during the test. In some
cases a non-elastic wire lanyard of sufficient length may need to be
added to the system (for test purposes) to create the necessary free
fall distance.
(6) For deceleration device systems with integral lifelines or
lanyards which automatically limit free fall distance to 2 feet
(0.61 m) or less, the test weight should be rigged to free fall a
distance of 4 feet (1.22 m).
(7) Any weight which detaches from the belt or harness has
failed the strength test.
(d) Force test--(1) General. The test consists of dropping the
respective test weight once as specified in paragraph (d)(2)(i) or
(d)(3)(i) of this section. A new, unused system should be used for
each test.
(2) For lanyard systems. (i) A test weight of 220 pounds plus or
minus 3 pounds (100 kg plus or minus 1.6 kg) should be used. (See
paragraph (b)(4) of this appendix).
(ii) Lanyard length should be 6 feet plus or minus two inches
(1.83 m plus or minus 5 cm) as measured from the fixed anchorage to
the attachment on the body belt or body harness.
(iii) The test weight should fall free from the anchorage level
to its hanging location (a total of 6 feet (1.83 m) free fall
distance) without interference, obstruction, or hitting the floor or
ground during the test.
(3) For all other systems. (i) A test weight of 220 pounds plus
or minus 3 pounds (100 kg plus or minus 1.6 kg) should be used. (See
paragraph (b)(4) of this appendix)
(ii) The free fall distance to be used in the test should be the
maximum fall distance physically permitted by the system during
normal use conditions, up to a maximum free fall distance for the
test weight of 6 feet (1.83 m), except as follows:
(A) For deceleration systems which have a connection link or
lanyard, the test weight should free fall a distance equal to the
connection distance (measured between the centerline of the lifeline
and the attachment point to the body belt or harness).
(B) For deceleration device systems with integral lifelines or
lanyards which automatically limit free fall distance to 2 feet
(0.61 m) or less, the test weight should free fall a distance equal
to that permitted by the system in normal use. (For example, to test
a system with a self-retracting lifeline or lanyard, the test weight
should be supported and the system allowed to retract the lifeline
or lanyard as it would in normal use. The test weight would then be
released and the force and deceleration distance measured).
(4) A system fails the force test if the recorded maximum
arresting force exceeds 1,260 pounds (5.6 kN) when using a body
belt, and/or exceeds 2,520 pounds (11.2 kN) when using a body
harness.
(5) The maximum elongation and deceleration distance should be
recorded during the force test.
(e) Deceleration device tests. (1) General. The device should be
evaluated or tested under the environmental conditions, (such as
rain, ice, grease, dirt, type of lifeline, etc.), for which the
device is designed.
(2) Rope-grab-type deceleration devices. (i) Devices should be
moved on a lifeline 1,000 times over the same length of line a
distance of not less than 1 foot (30.5 cm), and the mechanism should
lock each time.
(ii) Unless the device is permanently marked to indicate the
type(s) of lifeline which must be used, several types (different
diameters and different materials), of lifelines should be used to
test the device.
(3) Other self-activating-type deceleration devices. The locking
mechanisms of other self-activating-type deceleration devices
designed for more than one arrest should lock each of 1,000 times as
they would in normal service.
II. Additional non-mandatory guidelines for personal fall arrest
systems. The following information constitutes additional guidelines
for use in complying with requirements for a personal fall arrest
system.
(a) Selection and use considerations. (1) The kind of personal
fall arrest system selected should match the particular work
situation, and any possible free fall distance should be kept to a
minimum. Consideration should be given to the particular work
environment. For example, the presence of acids, dirt, moisture,
oil, grease, etc., and their effect on the system, should be
evaluated. Hot or cold environments may also have an adverse effect
on the system. Wire rope should not be used where an electrical
hazard is anticipated. As required by the standard, the employer
must plan to have means available to promptly rescue an employee
should a fall occur, since the suspended employee may not be able to
reach a work level independently.
(2) Where lanyards, connectors, and lifelines are subject to
damage by work operations such as welding, chemical cleaning, and
sandblasting, the component should be protected, or other securing
systems should be used. The employer should fully evaluate the work
conditions and environment (including seasonal weather changes)
before selecting the appropriate personal fall protection system.
Once in use, the system's effectiveness should be monitored. In some
cases, a program for cleaning and maintenance of the system may be
necessary.
(b) Testing considerations. Before purchasing or putting into
use a personal fall arrest system, an employer should obtain from
the supplier information about the system based on its performance
during testing so that the employer can know if the system meets
this standard. Testing should be done using recognized test methods.
This Appendix contains test methods recognized for evaluating the
performance of fall arrest systems. Not all systems may need to be
individually tested; the performance of some systems may be based on
data and calculations derived from testing of similar systems,
provided that enough information is available to demonstrate
similarity of function and design.
(c) Component compatibility considerations. Ideally, a personal
fall arrest system is designed, tested, and supplied as a complete
system. However, it is common practice for lanyards, connectors,
lifelines, deceleration devices, body belts and body harnesses to be
interchanged since some components wear out before others. The
employer and employee should realize that not all components are
interchangeable. For instance, a lanyard should not be connected
between a body belt (or harness) and a deceleration device of the
self-retracting type since this can result in additional free fall
for which the system was not designed. Any substitution or change to
a personal fall arrest system should be fully evaluated or tested by
a competent person to determine that it meets the standard, before
the modified system is put in use.
(d) Employee training considerations. Thorough employee training
in the selection and use of personal fall arrest systems is
imperative. Employees must be trained in the safe use of the system.
This should include the following: application limits; proper
anchoring and tie-off techniques; estimation of free fall distance,
including determination of deceleration distance, and total fall
distance to prevent striking a lower level; methods of use; and
inspection and storage of the system. Careless or improper use of
the equipment can result in serious injury or death. Employers and
employees should become familiar with the material in this Appendix,
as well as manufacturer's recommendations, before a system is used.
Of uppermost importance is the reduction in strength caused by
certain tie-offs (such as using knots, tying around sharp edges,
etc.) and maximum permitted free fall distance. Also, to be stressed
are the importance of inspections prior to use, the limitations of
the equipment, and unique conditions at the worksite which may be
important in determining the type of system to use.
(e) Instruction considerations. Employers should obtain
comprehensive instructions from the supplier as to the system's
proper use and application, including, where applicable:
(1) The force measured during the sample force test;
(2) The maximum elongation measured for lanyards during the
force test;
(3) The deceleration distance measured for deceleration devices
during the force test;
(4) Caution statements on critical use limitations;
(5) Application limits;
(6) Proper hook-up, anchoring and tie-off techniques, including
the proper dee-ring or other attachment point to use on the body
belt and harness for fall arrest;
(7) Proper climbing techniques;
(8) Methods of inspection, use, cleaning, and storage; and
(9) Specific lifelines which may be used. This information
should be provided to employees during training.
(f) Rescue considerations. As required by Sec. 1926.502(d)(20),
when personal fall arrest systems are used, the employer must assure
that employees can be promptly rescued or can rescue themselves
should a fall occur. The availability of rescue personnel, ladders
or other rescue equipment should be evaluated. In some situations,
equipment which allows employees to rescue themselves after the fall
has been arrested may be desirable, such as devices which have
descent capability.
(g) Inspection considerations. As required by
Sec. 1926.502(d)(21), personal fall arrest systems must be regularly
inspected. Any component with any significant defect, such as cuts,
tears, abrasions, mold, or undue stretching; alterations or
additions which might affect its efficiency; damage due to
deterioration; contact with fire, acids, or other corrosives;
distorted hooks or faulty hook springs; tongues unfitted to the
shoulder of buckles; loose or damaged mountings; non-functioning
parts; or wearing or internal deterioration in the ropes must be
withdrawn from service immediately, and should be tagged or marked
as unusable, or destroyed.
(h) Tie-off considerations. (1) One of the most important
aspects of personal fall protection systems is fully planning the
system before it is put into use. Probably the most overlooked
component is planning for suitable anchorage points. Such planning
should ideally be done before the structure or building is
constructed so that anchorage points can be incorporated during
construction for use later for window cleaning or other building
maintenance. If properly planned, these anchorage points may be used
during construction, as well as afterwards.
(i) Properly planned anchorages should be used if they are
available. In some cases, anchorages must be installed immediately
prior to use. In such cases, a registered professional engineer with
experience in designing fall protection systems, or another
qualified person with appropriate education and experience should
design an anchor point to be installed.
(ii) In other cases, the Agency recognizes that there will be a
need to devise an anchor point from existing structures. Examples of
what might be appropriate anchor points are steel members or I-beams
if an acceptable strap is available for the connection (do not use a
lanyard with a snaphook clipped onto itself); large eye-bolts made
of an appropriate grade steel; guardrails or railings if they have
been designed for use as an anchor point; or masonry or wood members
only if the attachment point is substantial and precautions have
been taken to assure that bolts or other connectors will not pull
through. A qualified person should be used to evaluate the suitable
of these ``make shift'' anchorages with a focus on proper strength.
(2) Employers and employees should at all times be aware that
the strength of a personal fall arrest system is based on its being
attached to an anchoring system which does not reduce the strength
of the system (such as a properly dimensioned eye-bolt/snap-hook
anchorage). Therefore, if a means of attachment is used that will
reduce the strength of the system, that component should be replaced
by a stronger one, but one that will also maintain the appropriate
maximum arrest force characteristics.
(3) Tie-off using a knot in a rope lanyard or lifeline (at any
location) can reduce the lifeline or lanyard strength by 50 percent
or more. Therefore, a stronger lanyard or lifeline should be used to
compensate for the weakening effect of the knot, or the lanyard
length should be reduced (or the tie-off location raised) to
minimize free fall distance, or the lanyard or lifeline should be
replaced by one which has an appropriately incorporated connector to
eliminate the need for a knot.
(4) Tie-off of a rope lanyard or lifeline around an ``H'' or
``I'' beam or similar support can reduce its strength as much as 70
percent due to the cutting action of the beam edges. Therefore, use
should be made of a webbing lanyard or wire core lifeline around the
beam; or the lanyard or lifeline should be protected from the edge;
or free fall distance should be greatly minimized.
(5) Tie-off where the line passes over or around rough or sharp
surfaces reduces strength drastically. Such a tie-off should be
avoided or an alternative tie-off rigging should be used. Such
alternatives may include use of a snap-hook/dee ring connection,
wire rope tie-off, an effective padding of the surfaces, or an
abrasion-resistance strap around or over the problem surface.
(6) Horizontal lifelines may, depending on their geometry and
angle of sag, be subjected to greater loads than the impact load
imposed by an attached component. When the angle of horizontal
lifeline sag is less than 30 degrees, the impact force imparted to
the lifeline by an attached lanyard is greatly amplified. For
example, with a sag angle of 15 degrees, the force amplification is
about 2:1 and at 5 degrees sag, it is about 6:1. Depending on the
angle of sag, and the line's elasticity, the strength of the
horizontal lifeline and the anchorages to which it is attached
should be increased a number of times over that of the lanyard.
Extreme care should be taken in considering a horizontal lifeline
for multiple tie-offs. The reason for this is that in multiple tie-
offs to a horizontal lifeline, if one employee falls, the movement
of the falling employee and the horizontal lifeline during arrest of
the fall may cause other employees to fall also. Horizontal lifeline
and anchorage strength should be increased for each additional
employee to be tied off. For these and other reasons, the design of
systems using horizontal lifelines must only be done by qualified
persons. Testing of installed lifelines and anchors prior to use is
recommended.
(7) The strength of an eye-bolt is rated along the axis of the
bolt and its strength is greatly reduced if the force is applied at
an angle to this axis (in the direction of shear). Also, care should
be exercised in selecting the proper diameter of the eye to avoid
accidental disengagement of snap-hooks not designed to be compatible
for the connection.
(8) Due to the significant reduction in the strength of the
lifeline/lanyard (in some cases, as much as a 70 percent reduction),
the sliding hitch knot (prusik) should not be used for lifeline/
lanyard connections except in emergency situations where no other
available system is practical. The ``one-and-one'' sliding hitch
knot should never be used because it is unreliable in stopping a
fall. The ``two-and-two,'' or ``three-and-three'' knot (preferable)
may be used in emergency situations; however, care should be taken
to limit free fall distance to a minimum because of reduced
lifeline/lanyard strength.
(i) Vertical lifeline considerations. As required by the
standard, each employee must have a separate lifeline [except
employees engaged in constructing elevator shafts who are permitted
to have two employees on one lifeline] when the lifeline is
vertical. The reason for this is that in multiple tie-offs to a
single lifeline, if one employee falls, the movement of the lifeline
during the arrest of the fall may pull other employees' lanyards,
causing them to fall as well.
(j) Snap-hook considerations. (1) Although not required by this
standard for all connections until January 1, 1998, locking
snaphooks designed for connection to suitable objects (of sufficient
strength) are highly recommended in lieu of the nonlocking type.
Locking snaphooks incorporate a positive locking mechanism in
addition to the spring loaded keeper, which will not allow the
keeper to open under moderate pressure without someone first
releasing the mechanism. Such a feature, properly designed,
effectively prevents roll-out from occurring.
(2) As required by Sec. 1926.502(d)(6), the following
connections must be avoided (unless properly designed locking
snaphooks are used) because they are conditions which can result in
roll-out when a nonlocking snaphook is used:
(i) Direct connection of a snaphook to a horizontal lifeline.
(ii) Two (or more) snaphooks connected to one dee-ring.
(iii) Two snaphooks connected to each other.
(iv) A snaphook connected back on its integral lanyard.
(v) A snaphook connected to a webbing loop or webbing lanyard.
(vi) Improper dimensions of the dee-ring, rebar, or other
connection point in relation to the snaphook dimensions which would
allow the snaphook keeper to be depressed by a turning motion of the
snaphook.
(k) Free fall considerations. The employer and employee should
at all times be aware that a system's maximum arresting force is
evaluated under normal use conditions established by the
manufacturer, and in no case using a free fall distance in excess of
6 feet (1.8 m). A few extra feet of free fall can significantly
increase the arresting force on the employee, possibly to the point
of causing injury. Because of this, the free fall distance should be
kept at a minimum, and, as required by the standard, in no case
greater than 6 feet (1.8 m). To help assure this, the tie-off
attachment point to the lifeline or anchor should be located at or
above the connection point of the fall arrest equipment to belt or
harness. (Since otherwise additional free fall distance is added to
the length of the connecting means (i.e. lanyard)). Attaching to the
working surface will often result in a free fall greater than 6 feet
(1.8 m). For instance, if a 6 foot (1.8 m) lanyard is used, the
total free fall distance will be the distance from the working level
to the body belt (or harness) attachment point plus the 6 feet (1.8
m) of lanyard length. Another important consideration is that the
arresting force which the fall system must withstand also goes up
with greater distances of free fall, possibly exceeding the strength
of the system.
(l) Elongation and deceleration distance considerations. Other
factors involved in a proper tie-off are elongation and deceleration
distance. During the arresting of a fall, a lanyard will experience
a length of stretching or elongation, whereas activation of a
deceleration device will result in a certain stopping distance.
These distances should be available with the lanyard or device's
instructions and must be added to the free fall distance to arrive
at the total fall distance before an employee is fully stopped. The
additional stopping distance may be very significant if the lanyard
or deceleration device is attached near or at the end of a long
lifeline, which may itself add considerable distance due to its own
elongation. As required by the standard, sufficient distance to
allow for all of these factors must also be maintained between the
employee and obstructions below, to prevent an injury due to impact
before the system fully arrests the fall. In addition, a minimum of
12 feet (3.7 m) of lifeline should be allowed below the securing
point of a rope grab type deceleration device, and the end
terminated to prevent the device from sliding off the lifeline.
Alternatively, the lifeline should extend to the ground or the next
working level below. These measures are suggested to prevent the
worker from inadvertently moving past the end of the lifeline and
having the rope grab become disengaged from the lifeline.
(m) Obstruction considerations. The location of the tie-off
should also consider the hazard of obstructions in the potential
fall path of the employee. Tie-offs which minimize the possibilities
of exaggerated swinging should be considered. In addition, when a
body belt is used, the employee's body will go through a horizontal
position to a jack-knifed position during the arrest of all falls.
Thus, obstructions which might interfere with this motion should be
avoided or a severe injury could occur.
(n) Other considerations. Because of the design of some personal
fall arrest systems, additional considerations may be required for
proper tie-off. For example, heavy deceleration devices of the self-
retracting type should be secured overhead in order to avoid the
weight of the device having to be supported by the employee. Also,
if self- retracting equipment is connected to a horizontal lifeline,
the sag in the lifeline should be minimized to prevent the device
from sliding down the lifeline to a position which creates a swing
hazard during fall arrest. In all cases, manufacturer's instructions
should be followed.
Appendix D to Subpart M--Positioning Device Systems
Non-Mandatory Guidelines for Complying With Sec. 1926.502(e)
I. Testing Methods For Positioning Device Systems. This appendix
serves as a non-mandatory guideline to assist employers comply with
the requirements for positioning device systems in Sec. 1926.502(e).
Paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Appendix C of subpart M relating
to Sec. 1926.502(d)--Personal Fall Arrest Systems--set forth test
procedures which may be used, along with the procedures listed
below, to determine compliance with the requirements for positioning
device systems in Sec. 1926.502(e) (3) and (4) of Subpart M.
(a) General. (1) Single strap positioning devices shall have one
end attached to a fixed anchorage and the other end connected to a
body belt or harness in the same manner as they would be used to
protect employees. Double strap positioning devices, similar to
window cleaner's belts, shall have one end of the strap attached to
a fixed anchorage and the other end shall hang free. The body belt
or harness shall be attached to the strap in the same manner as it
would be used to protect employees. The two strap ends shall be
adjusted to their maximum span.
(2) The fixed anchorage shall be rigid, and shall not have a
deflection greater than .04 inches (1 mm) when a force of 2,250
pounds (10 kN) is applied.
(3) During the testing of all systems, a test weight of 250
pounds plus or minus 3 pounds (113 kg plus or minus 1.6 kg) shall be
used. The weight shall be a rigid object with a girth of 38 inches
plus or minus 4 inches (96 cm plus or minus 10 cm).
(4) Each test shall consist of dropping the specified weight one
time without failure of the system being tested. A new system shall
be used for each test.
(5) The test weight for each test shall be hoisted exactly 4
feet (1.2 m above its ``at rest'' position), and shall be dropped so
as to permit a vertical free fall of 4 feet (1.2 m).
(6) The test is failed whenever any breakage or slippage occurs
which permits the weight to fall free of the system.
(7) Following the test, the system need not be capable of
further operation; however, all such incapacities shall be readily
apparent.
II. Inspection Considerations. As required in Sec. 1926.502
(e)(5), positioning device systems must be regularly inspected. Any
component with any significant defect, such as cuts, tears,
abrasions, mold, or undue stretching; alterations or additions which
might affect its efficiency; damage due to deterioration; contact
with fire, acids, or other corrosives; distorted hooks or faulty
hook springs; tongues unfitted to the shoulder of buckles; loose or
damaged mountings; non-functioning parts; or wearing or internal
deterioration in the ropes must be withdrawn from service
immediately, and should be tagged or marked as unusable, or
destroyed.
Appendix E to Subpart M--Sample Fall Protection Plan
Non-Mandatory Guidelines for Complying With Sec. 1926.502(k)
Employers engaged in leading edge work, precast concrete
construction work and residential construction work who can
demonstrate that it is infeasible or creates a greater hazard to use
conventional fall protection systems must develop and follow a fall
protection plan. Below are sample fall protection plans developed
for precast concrete construction and residential work that could be
tailored to be site specific for other precast concrete or
residential jobsite. This sample plan can be modified to be used for
other work involving leading edge work. The sample plan outlines the
elements that must be addressed in any fall protection plan. The
reasons outlined in this sample fall protection plan are for
illustrative purposes only and are not necessarily a valid,
acceptable rationale (unless the conditions at the job site are the
same as those covered by these sample plans) for not using
conventional fall protection systems for a particular precast
concrete or residential construction worksite. However, the sample
plans provide guidance to employers on the type of information that
is required to be discussed in fall protection plans.
Sample Fall Protection Plans
Fall Protection Plan For Precast/Prestress Concrete Structures
This Fall Protection Plan is specific for the following project:
Location of Job--------------------------------------------------------
Erecting Company-------------------------------------------------------
Date Plan Prepared or Modified-----------------------------------------
Plan Prepared By-------------------------------------------------------
Plan Approved By-------------------------------------------------------
Plan Supervised By-----------------------------------------------------
The following Fall Protection Plan is a sample program prepared
for the prevention of injuries associated with falls. A Fall
Protection Plan must be developed and evaluated on a site by site
basis. It is recommended that erectors discuss the written Fall
Protection Plan with their OSHA Area Office prior to going on a
jobsite.
I. Statement of Company Policy
(Company Name) is dedicated to the protection of its employees
from on-the-job injuries. All employees of (Company Name) have the
responsibility to work safely on the job. The purpose of this plan
is: (a) To supplement our standard safety policy by providing safety
standards specifically designed to cover fall protection on this job
and; (b) to ensure that each employee is trained and made aware of
the safety provisions which are to be implemented by this plan prior
to the start of erection.
This Fall Protection Plan addresses the use of other than
conventional fall protection at a number of areas on the project, as
well as identifying specific activities that require non-
conventional means of fall protection. These areas include:
a. Connecting activity (point of erection).
b. Leading edge work.
c. Unprotected sides or edge.
d. Grouting.
This plan is designed to enable employers and employees to
recognize the fall hazards on this job and to establish the
procedures that are to be followed in order to prevent falls to
lower levels or through holes and openings in walking/working
surfaces. Each employee will be trained in these procedures and
strictly adhere to them except when doing so would expose the
employee to a greater hazard. If, in the employees opinion, this is
the case, the employee is to notify the foreman of the concern and
the concern addressed before proceeding.
Safety policy and procedure on any one project cannot be
administered, implemented, monitored and enforced by any one
individual. The total objective of a safe, accident free work
environment can only be accomplished by a dedicated, concerted
effort by every individual involved with the project from management
down to the last employee. Each employee must understand their value
to the company; the costs of accidents, both monetary, physical, and
emotional; the objective of the safety policy and procedures; the
safety rules that apply to the safety policy and procedures; and
what their individual role is in administering, implementing,
monitoring, and compliance of their safety policy and procedures.
This allows for a more personal approach to compliance through
planning, training, understanding and cooperative effort, rather
than by strict enforcement. If for any reason an unsafe act
persists, strict enforcement will be implemented.
It is the responsibility of (name of competent person) to
implement this Fall Protection Plan. (Name of Competent Person) is
responsible for continual observational safety checks of their work
operations and to enforce the safety policy and procedures. The
foreman also is responsible to correct any unsafe acts or conditions
immediately. It is the responsibility of the employee to understand
and adhere to the procedures of this plan and to follow the
instructions of the foreman. It is also the responsibility of the
employee to bring to managements attention any unsafe or hazardous
conditions or acts that may cause injury to either themselves or any
other employees. Any changes to this Fall Protection Plan must be
approved by (name of Qualified Person).
II. Fall Protection Systems to Be Used on This Project
Where conventional fall protection is infeasible or creates a
greater hazard at the leading edge and during initial connecting
activity, we plan to do this work using a safety monitoring system
and expose only a minimum number of employees for the time necessary
to actually accomplish the job. The maximum number of workers to be
monitored by one safety monitor is six (6). We are designating the
following trained employees as designated erectors and they are
permitted to enter the controlled access zones and work without the
use of conventional fall protection.
Safety monitor:
Designated erector:
Designated erector:
Designated erector:
Designated erector:
Designated erector:
Designated erector:
The safety monitor shall be identified by wearing an orange hard
hat. The designated erectors will be identified by one of the
following methods:
1. They will wear a blue colored arm band, or
2. They will wear a blue colored hard hat, or
3. They will wear a blue colored vest.
Only individuals with the appropriate experience, skills, and
training will be authorized as designated erectors. All employees
that will be working as designated erectors under the safety
monitoring system shall have been trained and instructed in the
following areas:
1. Recognition of the fall hazards in the work area (at the
leading edge and when making initial connections--point of
erection).
2. Avoidance of fall hazards using established work practices
which have been made known to the employees.
3. Recognition of unsafe practices or working conditions that
could lead to a fall, such as windy conditions.
4. The function, use, and operation of safety monitoring
systems, guardrail systems, body belt/harness systems, control zones
and other protection to be used.
5. The correct procedure for erecting, maintaining,
disassembling and inspecting the system(s) to be used.
6. Knowledge of construction sequence or the erection plan.
A conference will take place prior to starting work involving
all members of the erection crew, crane crew and supervisors of any
other concerned contractors. This conference will be conducted by
the precast concrete erection supervisor in charge of the project.
During the pre-work conference, erection procedures and sequences
pertinent to this job will be thoroughly discussed and safety
practices to be used throughout the project will be specified.
Further, all personnel will be informed that the controlled access
zones are off limits to all personnel other than those designated
erectors specifically trained to work in that area.
Safety Monitoring System
A safety monitoring system means a fall protection system in
which a competent person is responsible for recognizing and warning
employees of fall hazards. The duties of the safety monitor are to:
1. Warn by voice when approaching the open edge in an unsafe
manner.
2. Warn by voice if there is a dangerous situation developing
which cannot be seen by another person involved with product
placement, such as a member getting out of control.
3. Make the designated erectors aware they are in a dangerous
area.
4. Be competent in recognizing fall hazards.
5. Warn employees when they appear to be unaware of a fall
hazard or are acting in an unsafe manner.
6. Be on the same walking/working surface as the monitored
employees and within visual sighting distance of the monitored
employees.
7. Be close enough to communicate orally with the employees.
8. Not allow other responsibilities to encumber monitoring. If
the safety monitor becomes too encumbered with other
responsibilities, the monitor shall (1) stop the erection process;
and (2) turn over other responsibilities to a designated erector; or
(3) turn over the safety monitoring function to another designated,
competent person. The safety monitoring system shall not be used
when the wind is strong enough to cause loads with large surface
areas to swing out of radius, or result in loss of control of the
load, or when weather conditions cause the walking-working surfaces
to become icy or slippery.
Control Zone System
A controlled access zone means an area designated and clearly
marked, in which leading edge work may take place without the use of
guardrail, safety net or personal fall arrest systems to protect the
employees in the area. Control zone systems shall comply with the
following provisions:
1. When used to control access to areas where leading edge and
other operations are taking place the controlled access zone shall
be defined by a control line or by any other means that restricts
access.
When control lines are used, they shall be erected not less than
6 feet (l.8 m) nor more than 60 feet (18 m) or half the length of
the member being erected, whichever is less, from the leading edge.
2. The control line shall extend along the entire length of the
unprotected or leading edge and shall be approximately parallel to
the unprotected or leading edge.
3. The control line shall be connected on each side to a
guardrail system or wall.
4. Control lines shall consist of ropes, wires, tapes, or
equivalent materials, and supporting stanchions as follows:
5. Each line shall be flagged or otherwise clearly marked at not
more than 6-foot (1.8 m) intervals with high- visibility material.
6. Each line shall be rigged and supported in such a way that
its lowest point (including sag) is not less than 39 inches (1 m)
from the walking/working surface and its highest point is not more
than 45 inches (1.3 m) from the walking/working surface.
7. Each line shall have a minimum breaking strength of 200
pounds (.88 kN).
Holes
All openings greater than 12 in. x 12 in. will have perimeter
guarding or covering. All predetermined holes will have the plywood
covers made in the precasters' yard and shipped with the member to
the jobsite. Prior to cutting holes on the job, proper protection
for the hole must be provided to protect the workers. Perimeter
guarding or covers will not be removed without the approval of the
erection foreman.
Precast concrete column erection through the existing deck
requires that many holes be provided through this deck. These are to
be covered and protected. Except for the opening being currently
used to erect a column, all opening protection is to be left
undisturbed. The opening being uncovered to erect a column will
become part of the point of erection and will be addressed as part
of this Fall Protection Plan. This uncovering is to be done at the
erection foreman's direction and will only occur immediately prior
to ``feeding'' the column through the opening. Once the end of the
column is through the slab opening, there will no longer exist a
fall hazard at this location.
III. Implementation of Fall Protection Plan
The structure being erected is a multistory total precast
concrete building consisting of columns, beams, wall panels and
hollow core slabs and double tee floor and roof members.
The following is a list of the products and erection situations
on this job:
Columns
For columns 10 ft to 36 ft long, employees disconnecting crane
hooks from columns will work from a ladder and wear a body belt/
harness with lanyard and be tied off when both hands are needed to
disconnect. For tying off, a vertical lifeline will be connected to
the lifting eye at the top of the column, prior to lifting, to be
used with a manually operated or mobile rope grab. For columns too
high for the use of a ladder, 36 ft and higher, an added cable will
be used to reduce the height of the disconnecting point so that a
ladder can be used. This cable will be left in place until a point
in erection that it can be removed safely. In some cases, columns
will be unhooked from the crane by using an erection tube or shackle
with a pull pin which is released from the ground after the column
is stabilized.
The column will be adequately connected and/or braced to safely
support the weight of a ladder with an employee on it.
Inverted Tee Beams
Employees erecting inverted tee beams, at a height of 6 to 40
ft, will erect the beam, make initial connections, and final
alignment from a ladder. If the employee needs to reach over the
side of the beam to bar or make an adjustment to the alignment of
the beam, they will mount the beam and be tied off to the lifting
device in the beam after ensuring the load has been stabilized on
its bearing. To disconnect the crane from the beam an employee will
stand a ladder against the beam. Because the use of ladders is not
practical at heights above 40 ft, beams will be initially placed
with the use of tag lines and their final alignment made by a person
on a manlift or similar employee positioning systems.
Spandrel Beams
Spandrel beams at the exterior of the building will be aligned
as closely as possible with the use of tag lines with the final
placement of the spandrel beam made from a ladder at the open end of
the structure. A ladder will be used to make the initial connections
and a ladder will be used to disconnect the crane. The other end of
the beam will be placed by the designated erector from the double
tee deck under the observation of the safety monitor.
The beams will be adequately connected and/or braced to safely
support the weight of a ladder with an employee on it.
Floor and Roof Members
During installation of the precast concrete floor and/or roof
members, the work deck continuously increases in area as more and
more units are being erected and positioned. Thus, the unprotected
floor/roof perimeter is constantly modified with the leading edge
changing location as each member is installed. The fall protection
for workers at the leading edge shall be assured by properly
constructed and maintained control zone lines not more than 60 ft
away from the leading edge supplemented by a safety monitoring
system to ensure the safety of all designated erectors working
within the area defined by the control zone lines.
The hollow core slabs erected on the masonry portion of the
building will be erected and grouted using the safety monitoring
system. Grout will be placed in the space between the end of the
slab and face shell of the concrete masonry by dumping from a
wheelbarrow. The grout in the keyways between the slabs will be
dumped from a wheelbarrow and then spread with long handled tools,
allowing the worker to stand erect facing toward the unprotected
edge and back from any work deck edge.
Whenever possible, the designated erectors will approach the
incoming member at the leading edge only after it is below waist
height so that the member itself provides protection against falls.
Except for the situations described below, when the arriving
floor or roof member is within 2 to 3 inches of its final position,
the designated erectors can then proceed to their position of
erection at each end of the member under the control of the safety
monitor. Crane hooks will be unhooked from double tee members by
designated erectors under the direction and supervision of the
safety monitor.
Designated erectors, while waiting for the next floor or roof
member, will be constantly under the control of the safety monitor
for fall protection and are directed to stay a minimum of six (6) ft
from the edge. In the event a designated erector must move from one
end of a member, which has just been placed at the leading edge,
they must first move away from the leading edge a minimum of six (6)
ft and then progress to the other end while maintaining the minimum
distance of six (6) ft at all times.
Erection of double tees, where conditions require bearing of one
end into a closed pocket and the other end on a beam ledge,
restricting the tee legs from going directly into the pockets,
require special considerations. The tee legs that are to bear in the
closed pocket must hang lower than those at the beam bearing. The
double tee will be ``two-lined'' in order to elevate one end higher
than the other to allow for the low end to be ducked into the closed
pocket using the following procedure.
The double tee will be rigged with a standard four-way spreader
off of the main load line. An additional choker will be attached to
the married point of the two-legged spreader at the end of the tee
that is to be elevated. The double tee will be hoisted with the main
load line and swung into a position as close as possible to the
tee's final bearing elevation. When the tee is in this position and
stabilized, the whip line load block will be lowered to just above
the tee deck. At this time, two erectors will walk out on the
suspended tee deck at midspan of the tee member and pull the load
block to the end of the tee to be elevated and attach the additional
choker to the load block. The possibility of entanglement with the
crane lines and other obstacles during this two lining process while
raising and lowering the crane block on that second line could be
hazardous to an encumbered employee. Therefore, the designated
erectors will not tie off during any part of this process. While the
designated erectors are on the double tee, the safety monitoring
system will be used. After attaching the choker, the two erectors
then step back on the previously erected tee deck and signal the
crane operator to hoist the load with the whip line to the elevation
that will allow for enough clearance to let the low end tee legs
slide into the pockets when the main load line is lowered. The
erector, who is handling the lowered end of the tee at the closed
pocket bearing, will step out on the suspended tee. An erection bar
will then be placed between the end of the tee leg and the inside
face of the pocketed spandrel member. The tee is barred away from
the pocketed member to reduce the friction and lateral force against
the pocketed member. As the tee is being lowered, the other erector
remains on the tee which was previously erected to handle the other
end. At this point the tee is slowly lowered by the crane to a point
where the tee legs can freely slide into the pockets. The erector
working the lowered end of the tee must keep pressure on the bar
between the tee and the face of the pocketed spandrel member to very
gradually let the tee legs slide into the pocket to its proper
bearing dimension. The tee is then slowly lowered into its final
erected position.
The designated erector should be allowed onto the suspended
double tee, otherwise there is no control over the horizontal
movement of the double tee and this movement could knock the
spandrel off of its bearing or the column out of plumb. The control
necessary to prevent hitting the spandrel can only be done safely
from the top of the double tee being erected.
Loadbearing Wall Panels: The erection of the loadbearing wall
panels on the elevated decks requires the use of a safety monitor
and a controlled access zone that is a minimum of 25 ft and a
maximum of \1/2\ the length of the wall panels away from the
unprotected edge, so that designated erectors can move freely and
unencumbered when receiving the panels. Bracing, if required for
stability, will be installed by ladder. After the braces are
secured, the crane will be disconnected from the wall by using a
ladder. The wall to wall connections will also be performed from a
ladder.
Non-Loadbearing Panels (Cladding): The locating of survey lines,
panel layout and other installation prerequisites (prewelding, etc.)
for non-loadbearing panels (cladding) will not commence until floor
perimeter and floor openings have been protected. In some areas, it
is necessary because of panel configuration to remove the perimeter
protection as the cladding is being installed. Removal of perimeter
protection will be performed on a bay to bay basis, just ahead of
cladding erection to minimize temporarily unprotected floor edges.
Those workers within 6 ft of the edge, receiving and positioning the
cladding when the perimeter protection is removed shall be tied off.
Detailing
Employees exposed to falls of six (6) feet or more to lower
levels, who are not actively engaged in leading edge work or
connecting activity, such as welding, bolting, cutting, bracing,
guying, patching, painting or other operations, and who are working
less than six (6) ft from an unprotected edge will be tied off at
all times or guardrails will be installed. Employees engaged in
these activities but who are more than six (6) ft from an
unprotected edge as defined by the control zone lines, do not
require fall protection but a warning line or control lines must be
erected to remind employees they are approaching an area where fall
protection is required.
IV. Conventional Fall Protection Considered for the Point of Erection
or Leading Edge Erection Operations
A. Personal Fall Arrest Systems
In this particular erection sequence and procedure, personal
fall arrest systems requiring body belt/harness systems, lifelines
and lanyards will not reduce possible hazards to workers and will
create offsetting hazards during their usage at the leading edge of
precast/prestressed concrete construction.
Leading edge erection and initial connections are conducted by
employees who are specifically trained to do this type of work and
are trained to recognize the fall hazards. The nature of such work
normally exposes the employee to the fall hazard for a short period
of time and installation of fall protection systems for a short
duration is not feasible because it exposes the installers of the
system to the same fall hazard, but for a longer period of time.
1. It is necessary that the employee be able to move freely
without encumbrance in order to guide the sections of precast
concrete into their final position without having lifelines attached
which will restrict the employees ability to move about at the point
of erection.
2. A typical procedure requires 2 or more workers to maneuver
around each other as a concrete member is positioned to fit into the
structure. If they are each attached to a lifeline, part of their
attention must be diverted from their main task of positioning a
member weighing several tons to the task of avoiding entanglements
of their lifelines or avoiding tripping over lanyards. Therefore, if
these workers are attached to lanyards, more fall potential would
result than from not using such a device.
In this specific erection sequence and procedure, retractable
lifelines do not solve the problem of two workers becoming tangled.
In fact, such a tangle could prevent the lifeline from retracting as
the worker moved, thus potentially exposing the worker to a fall
greater than 6 ft. Also, a worker crossing over the lifeline of
another worker can create a hazard because the movement of one
person can unbalance the other. In the event of a fall by one person
there is a likelihood that the other person will be caused to fall
as well. In addition, if contamination such as grout (during hollow
core grouting) enters the retractable housing it can cause excessive
wear and damage to the device and could clog the retracting
mechanism as the lanyard is dragged across the deck. Obstructing the
cable orifice can defeat the devices shock absorbing function,
produce cable slack and damage, and adversely affect cable
extraction and retraction.
3. Employees tied to a lifeline can be trapped and crushed by
moving structural members if the employee becomes restrained by the
lanyard or retractable lifeline and cannot get out of the path of
the moving load.
The sudden movement of a precast concrete member being raised by
a crane can be caused by a number of factors. When this happens, a
connector may immediately have to move a considerable distance to
avoid injury. If a tied off body belt/harness is being used, the
connector could be trapped. Therefore, there is a greater risk of
injury if the connector is tied to the structure for this specific
erection sequence and procedure.
When necessary to move away from a retractable device, the
worker cannot move at a rate greater than the device locking speed
typically 3.5 to 4.5 ft/sec. When moving toward the device it is
necessary to move at a rate which does not permit cable slack to
build up. This slack may cause cable retraction acceleration and
cause a worker to lose their balance by applying a higher than
normal jerking force on the body when the cable suddenly becomes
taut after building up momentum. This slack can also cause damage to
the internal spring-loaded drum, uneven coiling of cable on the
drum, and possible cable damage.
The factors causing sudden movements for this location include:
(a) Cranes
(1) Operator error.
(2) Site conditions (soft or unstable ground).
(3) Mechanical failure.
(4) Structural failure.
(5) Rigging failure.
(6) Crane signal/radio communication failure.
(b) Weather Conditions
(1) Wind (strong wind/sudden gusting)--particularly a problem
with the large surface areas of precast concrete members.
(2) Snow/rain (visibility).
(3) Fog (visibility).
(4) Cold--causing slowed reactions or mechanical problems.
(c) Structure/Product Conditions.
(1) Lifting Eye failure.
(2) Bearing failure or slippage.
(3) Structure shifting.
(4) Bracing failure.
(5) Product failure.
(d) Human Error.
(1) Incorrect tag line procedure.
(2) Tag line hang-up.
(3) Incorrect or misunderstood crane signals.
(4) Misjudged elevation of member.
(5) Misjudged speed of member.
(6) Misjudged angle of member.
4. Anchorages or special attachment points could be cast into
the precast concrete members if sufficient preplanning and
consideration of erectors position is done before the members are
cast. Any hole or other attachment must be approved by the engineer
who designed the member. It is possible that some design
restrictions will not allow a member to be weakened by an additional
hole; however, it is anticipated that such situations would be the
exception, not the rule. Attachment points, other than on the deck
surface, will require removal and/or patching. In order to remove
and/or patch these points, requires the employee to be exposed to an
additional fall hazard at an unprotected perimeter. The fact that
attachment points could be available anywhere on the structure does
not eliminate the hazards of using these points for tying off as
discussed above. A logical point for tying off on double tees would
be using the lifting loops, except that they must be cut off to
eliminate a tripping hazard at an appropriate time.
5. Providing attachment at a point above the walking/working
surface would also create fall exposures for employees installing
their devices. Final positioning of a precast concrete member
requires it to be moved in such a way that it must pass through the
area that would be occupied by the lifeline and the lanyards
attached to the point above. Resulting entanglements of lifelines
and lanyards on a moving member could pull employees from the work
surface. Also, the structure is being created and, in most cases,
there is no structure above the members being placed.
(a) Temporary structural supports, installed to provide
attaching points for lifelines limit the space which is essential
for orderly positioning, alignment and placement of the precast
concrete members. To keep the lanyards a reasonable and manageable
length, lifeline supports would necessarily need to be in proximity
to the positioning process. A sudden shift of the precast concrete
member being positioned because of wind pressure or crane movement
could make it strike the temporary supporting structure, moving it
suddenly and causing tied off employees to fall.
(b) The time in manhours which would be expended in placing and
maintaining temporary structural supports for lifeline attaching
points could exceed the expended manhours involved in placing the
precast concrete members. No protection could be provided for the
employees erecting the temporary structural supports and these
supports would have to be moved for each successive step in the
construction process, thus greatly increasing the employees exposure
to the fall hazard.
(c) The use of a cable strung horizontally between two columns
to provide tie off lines for erecting or walking a beam for
connecting work is not feasible and creates a greater hazard on this
multi-story building for the following reasons:
(1) If a connector is to use such a line, it must be installed
between the two columns. To perform this installation requires an
erector to have more fall exposure time attaching the cable to the
columns than would be spent to make the beam to column connection
itself.
(2) If such a line is to be installed so that an erector can
walk along a beam, it must be overhead or below him. For example, if
a connector must walk along a 24 in. wide beam, the presence of a
line next to the connector at waist level, attached directly to the
columns, would prevent the connector from centering their weight
over the beam and balancing themselves. Installing the line above
the connector might be possible on the first level of a two-story
column; however, the column may extend only a few feet above the
floor level at the second level or be flush with the floor level.
Attaching the line to the side of the beam could be a solution;
however, it would require the connector to attach the lanyard below
foot level which would most likely extend a fall farther than 6 ft.
(3) When lines are strung over every beam, it becomes more and
more difficult for the crane operator to lower a precast concrete
member into position without the member becoming fouled. Should the
member become entangled, it could easily dislodge the line from a
column. If a worker is tied to it at the time, a fall could be
caused.
6. The ANSI A10.14-1991 American National Standard for
Construction and Demolition Operations--Requirements for Safety
Belts, Harnesses, Lanyards and Lifelines for Construction and
Demolition Use, states that the anchor point of a lanyard or
deceleration device should, if possible, be located above the
wearer's belt or harness attachment. ANSI A10.14 also states that a
suitable anchorage point is one which is located as high as possible
to prevent contact with an obstruction below should the worker fall.
Most manufacturers also warn in the user's handbook that the safety
block/retractable lifeline must be positioned above the D-ring
(above the work space of the intended user) and OSHA recommends that
fall arrest and restraint equipment be used in accordance with the
manufacturer's instructions.
Attachment of a retractable device to a horizontal cable near
floor level or using the inserts in the floor or roof members may
result in increased free fall due to the dorsal D-ring of the full-
body harness riding higher than the attachment point of the snaphook
to the cable or insert (e.g., 6 foot tall worker with a dorsal D-
ring at 5 feet above the floor or surface, reduces the working
length to only one foot, by placing the anchorage five feet away
from the fall hazard). In addition, impact loads may exceed maximum
fall arrest forces (MAF) because the fall arrest D-ring would be 4
to 5 feet higher than the safety block/retractable lifeline anchored
to the walking-working surface; and the potential for swing hazards
is increased.
Manufacturers also require that workers not work at a level
where the point of snaphook attachment to the body harness is above
the device because this will increase the free fall distance and the
deceleration distance and will cause higher forces on the body in
the event of an accidental fall.
Manufacturers recommend an anchorage for the retractable
lifeline which is immovably fixed in space and is independent of the
user's support systems. A moveable anchorage is one which can be
moved around (such as equipment or wheeled vehicles) or which can
deflect substantially under shock loading (such as a horizontal
cable or very flexible beam). In the case of a very flexible
anchorage, a shock load applied to the anchorage during fall arrest
can cause oscillation of the flexible anchorage such that the
retractable brake mechanism may undergo one or more cycles of
locking/unlocking/locking (ratchet effect) until the anchorage
deflection is dampened. Therefore, use of a moveable anchorage
involves critical engineering and safety factors and should only be
considered after fixed anchorage has been determined to be not
feasible.
Horizontal cables used as an anchorage present an additional
hazard due to amplification of the horizontal component of maximum
arrest force (of a fall) transmitted to the points where the
horizontal cable is attached to the structure. This amplification is
due to the angle of sag of a horizontal cable and is most severe for
small angles of sag. For a cable sag angle of 2 degrees the
horizontal force on the points of cable attachment can be amplified
by a factor of 15.
It is also necessary to install the retractable device
vertically overhead to minimize swing falls. If an object is in the
worker's swing path (or that of the cable) hazardous situations
exist: (1) due to the swing, horizontal speed of the user may be
high enough to cause injury when an obstacle in the swing fall path
is struck by either the user or the cable; (2) the total vertical
fall distance of the user may be much greater than if the user had
fallen only vertically without a swing fall path.
With retractable lines, overconfidence may cause the worker to
engage in inappropriate behavior, such as approaching the perimeter
of a floor or roof at a distance appreciably greater than the
shortest distance between the anchorage point and the leading edge.
Though the retractable lifeline may arrest a worker's fall before he
or she has fallen a few feet, the lifeline may drag along the edge
of the floor or beam and swing the worker like a pendulum until the
line has moved to a position where the distance between the
anchorage point and floor edge is the shortest distance between
those two points. Accompanying this pendulum swing is a lowering of
the worker, with the attendant danger that he or she may violently
impact the floor or some obstruction below.
The risk of a cable breaking is increased if a lifeline is
dragged sideways across the rough surface or edge of a concrete
member at the same moment that the lifeline is being subjected to a
maximum impact loading during a fall. The typical \3/16\ in. cable
in a retractable lifeline has a breaking strength of from 3000 to
3700 lbs.
7. The competent person, who can take into account the
specialized operations being performed on this project, should
determine when and where a designated erector cannot use a personal
fall arrest system.
B. Safety Net Systems
The nature of this particular precast concrete erection worksite
precludes the safe use of safety nets where point of erection or
leading edge work must take place.
1. To install safety nets in the interior high bay of the single
story portion of the building poses rigging attachment problems.
Structural members do not exist to which supporting devices for nets
can be attached in the area where protection is required. As the
erection operation advances, the location of point of erection or
leading edge work changes constantly as each member is attached to
the structure. Due to this constant change it is not feasible to set
net sections and build separate structures to support the nets.
2. The nature of the erection process for the precast concrete
members is such that an installed net would protect workers as they
position and secure only one structural member. After each member is
stabilized the net would have to be moved to a new location (this
could mean a move of 8 to 10 ft or the possibility of a move to a
different level or area of the structure) to protect workers placing
the next piece in the construction sequence. The result would be the
installation and dismantling of safety nets repeatedly throughout
the normal work day. As the time necessary to install a net, test,
and remove it is significantly greater than the time necessary to
position and secure a precast concrete member, the exposure time for
the worker installing the safety net would be far longer than for
the workers whom the net is intended to protect. The time exposure
repeats itself each time the nets and supporting hardware must be
moved laterally or upward to provide protection at the point of
erection or leading edge.
3. Strict interpretation of Sec. 1926.502(c) requires that
operations shall not be undertaken until the net is in place and has
been tested. With the point of erection constantly changing, the
time necessary to install and test a safety net significantly
exceeds the time necessary to position and secure the concrete
member.
4. Use of safety nets on exposed perimeter wall openings and
opensided floors, causes attachment points to be left in
architectural concrete which must be patched and filled with
matching material after the net supporting hardware is removed. In
order to patch these openings, additional numbers of employees must
be suspended by swing stages, boatswain chairs or other devices,
thereby increasing the amount of fall exposure time to employees.
5. Installed safety nets pose an additional hazard at the
perimeter of the erected structure where limited space is available
in which members can be turned after being lifted from the ground by
the crane. There would be a high probability that the member being
lifted could become entangled in net hardware, cables, etc.
6. The use of safety nets where structural wall panels are being
erected would prevent movement of panels to point of installation.
To be effective, nets would necessarily have to provide protection
across the area where structural supporting wall panels would be set
and plumbed before roof units could be placed.
7. Use of a tower crane for the erection of the high rise
portion of the structure poses a particular hazard in that the crane
operator cannot see or judge the proximity of the load in relation
to the structure or nets. If the signaler is looking through nets
and supporting structural devices while giving instructions to the
crane operator, it is not possible to judge precise relationships
between the load and the structure itself or to nets and supporting
structural devices. This could cause the load to become entangled in
the net or hit the structure causing potential damage.
C. Guardrail Systems
On this particular worksite, guardrails, barricades, ropes,
cables or other perimeter guarding devices or methods on the
erection floor will pose problems to safe erection procedures.
Typically, a floor or roof is erected by placing 4 to 10 ft wide
structural members next to one another and welding or grouting them
together. The perimeter of a floor and roof changes each time a new
member is placed into position. It is unreasonable and virtually
impossible to erect guardrails and toe boards at the ever changing
leading edge of a floor or roof.
1. To position a member safely it is necessary to remove all
obstructions extending above the floor level near the point of
erection. Such a procedure allows workers to swing a new member
across the erected surface as necessary to position it properly
without worrying about knocking material off of this surface.
Hollow core slab erection on the masonry wall requires
installation of the perimeter protection where the masonry wall has
to be constructed. This means the guardrail is installed then
subsequently removed to continue the masonry construction. The
erector will be exposed to a fall hazard for a longer period of time
while installing and removing perimeter protection than while
erecting the slabs.
In hollow core work, as in other precast concrete erection,
others are not typically on the work deck until the precast concrete
erection is complete. The deck is not complete until the leveling,
aligning, and grouting of the joints is done. It is normal practice
to keep others off the deck until at least the next day after the
installation is complete to allow the grout to harden.
2. There is no permanent boundary until all structural members
have been placed in the floor or roof. At the leading edge, workers
are operating at the temporary edge of the structure as they work to
position the next member in the sequence. Compliance with the
standard would require a guardrail and toe board be installed along
this edge. However, the presence of such a device would prevent a
new member from being swung over the erected surface low enough to
allow workers to control it safely during the positioning process.
Further, these employees would have to work through the guardrail to
align the new member and connect it to the structure. The guardrail
would not protect an employee who must lean through it to do the
necessary work, rather it would hinder the employee to such a degree
that a greater hazard is created than if the guardrail were absent.
3. Guardrail requirements pose a hazard at the leading edge of
installed floor or roof sections by creating the possibility of
employees being caught between guardrails and suspended loads. The
lack of a clear work area in which to guide the suspended load into
position for placement and welding of members into the existing
structure creates still further hazards.
4. Where erection processes require precast concrete stairways
or openings to be installed as an integral part of the overall
erection process, it must also be recognized that guardrails or
handrails must not project above the surface of the erection floor.
Such guardrails should be terminated at the level of the erection
floor to avoid placing hazardous obstacles in the path of a member
being positioned.
V. Other Fall Protection Measures Considered for This Job
The following is a list and explanation of other fall protection
measures available and an explanation of limitations for use on this
particular jobsite. If during the course of erecting the building
the employee sees an area that could be erected more safely by the
use of these fall protection measures, the foreman should be
notified.
A. Scaffolds are not used because:
1. The leading edge of the building is constantly changing and
the scaffolding would have to be moved at very frequent intervals.
Employees erecting and dismantling the scaffolding would be exposed
to fall hazards for a greater length of time than they would by
merely erecting the precast concrete member.
2. A scaffold tower could interfere with the safe swinging of a
load by the crane.
3. Power lines, terrain and site do not allow for the safe use
of scaffolding.
B. Vehicle mounted platforms are not used because:
1. A vehicle mounted platform will not reach areas on the deck
that are erected over other levels.
2. The leading edge of the building is usually over a lower
level of the building and this lower level will not support the
weight of a vehicle mounted platform.
3. A vehicle mounted platform could interfere with the safe
swinging of a load by the crane, either by the crane swinging the
load over or into the equipment.
4. Power lines and surrounding site work do not allow for the
safe use of a vehicle mounted platform.
C. Crane suspended personnel platforms are not used because:
1. A second crane close enough to suspend any employee in the
working and erecting area could interfere with the safe swinging of
a load by the crane hoisting the product to be erected.
2. Power lines and surrounding site work do not allow for the
safe use of a second crane on the job.
VI. Enforcement
Constant awareness of and respect for fall hazards, and
compliance with all safety rules are considered conditions of
employment. The jobsite Superintendent, as well as individuals in
the Safety and Personnel Department, reserve the right to issue
disciplinary warnings to employees, up to and including termination,
for failure to follow the guidelines of this program.
VII. Accident Investigations
All accidents that result in injury to workers, regardless of
their nature, shall be investigated and reported. It is an integral
part of any safety program that documentation take place as soon as
possible so that the cause and means of prevention can be identified
to prevent a reoccurrence.
In the event that an employee falls or there is some other
related, serious incident occurring, this plan shall be reviewed to
determine if additional practices, procedures, or training need to
be implemented to prevent similar types of falls or incidents from
occurring.
VIII. Changes to Plan
Any changes to the plan will be approved by (name of the
qualified person). This plan shall be reviewed by a qualified person
as the job progresses to determine if additional practices,
procedures or training needs to be implemented by the competent
person to improve or provide additional fall protection. Workers
shall be notified and trained, if necessary, in the new procedures.
A copy of this plan and all approved changes shall be maintained at
the jobsite.
Sample Fall Protection Plan for Residential Construction
(Insert Company Name)
This Fall Protection Plan Is Specific For The Following Project:
Location of Job--------------------------------------------------------
Date Plan Prepared or Modified-----------------------------------------
Plan Prepared By-------------------------------------------------------
Plan Approved By-------------------------------------------------------
Plan Supervised By-----------------------------------------------------
The following Fall Protection Plan is a sample program prepared
for the prevention of injuries associated with falls. A Fall
Protection Plan must be developed and evaluated on a site by site
basis. It is recommended that builders discuss the written Fall
Protection Plan with their OSHA Area Office prior to going on a
jobsite.
I. Statement of Company Policy
(Your company name here) is dedicated to the protection of its
employees from on-the-job injuries. All employees of (Your company
name here) have the responsibility to work safely on the job. The
purpose of the plan is to supplement our existing safety and health
program and to ensure that every employee who works for (Your
company name here) recognizes workplace fall hazards and takes the
appropriate measures to address those hazards.
This Fall Protection Plan addresses the use of conventional fall
protection at a number of areas on the project, as well as
identifies specific activities that require non-conventional means
of fall protection. During the construction of residential buildings
under 48 feet in height, it is sometimes infeasible or it creates a
greater hazard to use conventional fall protection systems at
specific areas or for specific tasks. The areas or tasks may
include, but are not limited to:
a. Setting and bracing of roof trusses and rafters;
b. Installation of floor sheathing and joists;
c. Roof sheathing operations; and
d. Erecting exterior walls.
In these cases, conventional fall protection systems may not be
the safest choice for builders. This plan is designed to enable
employers and employees to recognize the fall hazards associated
with this job and to establish the safest procedures that are to be
followed in order to prevent falls to lower levels or through holes
and openings in walking/working surfaces.
Each employee will be trained in these procedures and will
strictly adhere to them except when doing so would expose the
employee to a greater hazard. If, in the employee's opinion, this is
the case, the employee is to notify the competent person of their
concern and have the concern addressed before proceeding.
It is the responsibility of (name of competent person) to
implement this Fall Protection Plan. Continual observational safety
checks of work operations and the enforcement of the safety policy
and procedures shall be regularly enforced. The crew supervisor or
foreman (insert name) is responsible for correcting any unsafe
practices or conditions immediately.
It is the responsibility of the employer to ensure that all
employees understand and adhere to the procedures of this plan and
to follow the instructions of the crew supervisor. It is also the
responsibility of the employee to bring to management's attention
any unsafe or hazardous conditions or practices that may cause
injury to either themselves or any other employees. Any changes to
the Fall Protection Plan must be approved by (name of qualified
person).
II. Fall Protection Systems To Be Used on This Job
Installation of roof trusses/rafters, exterior wall erection,
roof sheathing, floor sheathing and joist/truss activities will be
conducted by employees who are specifically trained to do this type
of work and are trained to recognize the fall hazards. The nature of
such work normally exposes the employee to the fall hazard for a
short period of time. This Plan details how (Your company name here)
will minimize these hazards.
Controlled Access Zones
When using the Plan to implement the fall protection options
available, workers must be protected through limited access to high
hazard locations. Before any non-conventional fall protection
systems are used as part of the work plan, a controlled access zone
(CAZ) shall be clearly defined by the competent person as an area
where a recognized hazard exists. The demarcation of the CAZ shall
be communicated by the competent person in a recognized manner,
either through signs, wires, tapes, ropes or chains.
(Your company name here) shall take the following steps to
ensure that the CAZ is clearly marked or controlled by the competent
person:
All access to the CAZ must be restricted to authorized
entrants;
All workers who are permitted in the CAZ shall be
listed in the appropriate sections of the Plan (or be visibly
identifiable by the competent person) prior to implementation;
The competent person shall ensure that all protective
elements of the CAZ be implemented prior to the beginning of work.
Installation Procedures for Roof Truss and Rafter Erection
During the erection and bracing of roof trusses/rafters,
conventional fall protection may present a greater hazard to
workers. On this job, safety nets, guardrails and personal fall
arrest systems will not provide adequate fall protection because the
nets will cause the walls to collapse, while there are no suitable
attachment or anchorage points for guardrails or personal fall
arrest systems.
On this job, requiring workers to use a ladder for the entire
installation process will cause a greater hazard because the worker
must stand on the ladder with his back or side to the front of the
ladder. While erecting the truss or rafter the worker will need both
hands to maneuver the truss and therefore cannot hold onto the
ladder. In addition, ladders cannot be adequately protected from
movement while trusses are being maneuvered into place. Many workers
may experience additional fatigue because of the increase in
overhead work with heavy materials, which can also lead to a greater
hazard.
Exterior scaffolds cannot be utilized on this job because the
ground, after recent backfilling, cannot support the scaffolding. In
most cases, the erection and dismantling of the scaffold would
expose workers to a greater fall hazard than erection of the
trusses/rafters.
On all walls eight feet or less, workers will install interior
scaffolds along the interior wall below the location where the
trusses/rafters will be erected. ``Sawhorse'' scaffolds constructed
of 46 inch sawhorses and 2x10 planks will often allow workers to be
elevated high enough to allow for the erection of trusses and
rafters without working on the top plate of the wall.
In structures that have walls higher than eight feet and where
the use of scaffolds and ladders would create a greater hazard, safe
working procedures will be utilized when working on the top plate
and will be monitored by the crew supervisor. During all stages of
truss/rafter erection the stability of the trusses/rafters will be
ensured at all times.
(Your company name here) shall take the following steps to
protect workers who are exposed to fall hazards while working from
the top plate installing trusses/rafters:
Only the following trained workers will be allowed to
work on the top plate during roof truss or rafter installation:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Workers shall have no other duties to perform during
truss/rafter erection procedures;
All trusses/rafters will be adequately braced before
any worker can use the truss/rafter as a support;
Workers will remain on the top plate using the
previously stabilized truss/rafter as a support while other trusses/
rafters are being erected;
Workers will leave the area of the secured trusses only
when it is necessary to secure another truss/rafter;
The first two trusses/rafters will be set from ladders
leaning on side walls at points where the walls can support the
weight of the ladder; and
A worker will climb onto the interior top plate via a
ladder to secure the peaks of the first two trusses/rafters being
set.
The workers responsible for detaching trusses from cranes and/or
securing trusses at the peaks traditionally are positioned at the
peak of the trusses/rafters. There are also situations where workers
securing rafters to ridge beams will be positioned on top of the
ridge beam.
(Your company name here) shall take the following steps to
protect workers who are exposed to fall hazards while securing
trusses/rafters at the peak of the trusses/ridge beam:
Only the following trained workers will be allowed to
work at the peak during roof truss or rafter installation:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Once truss or rafter installation begins, workers not
involved in that activity shall not stand or walk below or adjacent
to the roof opening or exterior walls in any area where they could
be struck by falling objects;
Workers shall have no other duties than securing/
bracing the trusses/ridge beam;
Workers positioned at the peaks or in the webs of
trusses or on top of the ridge beam shall work from a stable
position, either by sitting on a ``ridge seat'' or other equivalent
surface that provides additional stability or by positioning
themselves in previously stabilized trusses/rafters and leaning into
and reaching through the trusses/rafters;
Workers shall not remain on or in the peak/ridge any
longer than necessary to safely complete the task.
Roof Sheathing Operations
Workers typically install roof sheathing after all trusses/
rafters and any permanent truss bracing is in place. Roof structures
are unstable until some sheathing is installed, so workers
installing roof sheathing cannot be protected from fall hazards by
conventional fall protection systems until it is determined that the
roofing system can be used as an anchorage point. At that point,
employees shall be protected by a personal fall arrest system.
Trusses/rafters are subject to collapse if a worker falls while
attached to a single truss with a belt/harness. Nets could also
cause collapse, and there is no place to attach guardrails.
All workers will ensure that they have secure footing before
they attempt to walk on the sheathing, including cleaning shoes/
boots of mud or other slip hazards.
To minimize the time workers must be exposed to a fall hazard,
materials will be staged to allow for the quickest installation of
sheathing.
(Your company name here) shall take the following steps to
protect workers who are exposed to fall hazards while installing
roof sheathing:
Once roof sheathing installation begins, workers not
involved in that activity shall not stand or walk below or adjacent
to the roof opening or exterior walls in any area where they could
be struck by falling objects;
The competent person shall determine the limits of this
area, which shall be clearly communicated to workers prior to
placement of the first piece of roof sheathing;
The competent person may order work on the roof to be
suspended for brief periods as necessary to allow other workers to
pass through such areas when this would not create a greater hazard;
Only qualified workers shall install roof sheathing;
The bottom row of roof sheathing may be installed by
workers standing in truss webs;
After the bottom row of roof sheathing is installed, a
slide guard extending the width of the roof shall be securely
attached to the roof. Slide guards are to be constructed of no less
than nominal 4'' height capable of limiting the uncontrolled slide
of workers. Workers should install the slide guard while standing in
truss webs and leaning over the sheathing;
Additional rows of roof sheathing may be installed by
workers positioned on previously installed rows of sheathing. A
slide guard can be used to assist workers in retaining their footing
during successive sheathing operations; and
Additional slide guards shall be securely attached to
the roof at intervals not to exceed 13 feet as successive rows of
sheathing are installed. For roofs with pitches in excess of 9-in-
12, slide guards will be installed at four-foot intervals.
When wet weather (rain, snow, or sleet) are present,
roof sheathing operations shall be suspended unless safe footing can
be assured for those workers installing sheathing.
When strong winds (above 40 miles per hour) are
present, roof sheathing operations are to be suspended unless wind
breakers are erected.
Installation of Floor Joists and Sheathing
During the installation of floor sheathing/joists (leading edge
construction), the following steps shall be taken to protect
workers:
Only the following trained workers will be allowed to
install floor joists or sheathing:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Materials for the operations shall be conveniently
staged to allow for easy access to workers;
The first floor joists or trusses will be rolled into
position and secured either from the ground, ladders or sawhorse
scaffolds;
Each successive floor joist or truss will be rolled
into place and secured from a platform created from a sheet of
plywood laid over the previously secured floor joists or trusses;
Except for the first row of sheathing which will be
installed from ladders or the ground, workers shall work from the
established deck; and
Any workers not assisting in the leading edge
construction while leading edges still exist (e.g. cutting the
decking for the installers) shall not be permitted within six feet
of the leading edge under construction.
Erection of Exterior Walls
During the construction and erection of exterior walls,
employers shall take the following steps to protect workers:
Only the following trained workers will be allowed to
erect exterior walls:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A painted line six feet from the perimeter will be
clearly marked prior to any wall erection activities to warn of the
approaching unprotected edge;
Materials for operations shall be conveniently staged
to minimize fall hazards; and
Workers constructing exterior walls shall complete as
much cutting of materials and other preparation as possible away
from the edge of the deck.
III. Enforcement
Constant awareness of and respect for fall hazards, and
compliance with all safety rules are considered conditions of
employment. The crew supervisor or foreman, as well as individuals
in the Safety and Personnel Department, reserve the right to issue
disciplinary warnings to employees, up to and including termination,
for failure to follow the guidelines of this program.
IV. Accident Investigations
All accidents that result in injury to workers, regardless of
their nature, shall be investigated and reported. It is an integral
part of any safety program that documentation take place as soon as
possible so that the cause and means of prevention can be identified
to prevent a reoccurrence.
In the event that an employee falls or there is some other
related, serious incident occurring, this plan shall be reviewed to
determine if additional practices, procedures, or training need to
be implemented to prevent similar types of falls or incidents from
occurring.
V. Changes to Plan
Any changes to the plan will be approved by (name of the
qualified person). This plan shall be reviewed by a qualified person
as the job progresses to determine if additional practices,
procedures or training needs to be implemented by the competent
person to improve or provide additional fall protection. Workers
shall be notified and trained, if necessary, in the new procedures.
A copy of this plan and all approved changes shall be maintained at
the jobsite.
[FR Doc. 94-19000 Filed 8-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
