Safety Standards for Fall Protection in the Construction Industry

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1926

RIN 1218-AA66

[Docket No. S-206C]

Safety Standards for Fall Protection in the Construction Industry

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department

of Labor.

ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: In this advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM), OSHA

requests comments and information on fall protection for workers

engaged in certain construction activities currently covered by OSHA's

Standards for Fall Protection in the Construction Industry, published

in volume 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations at Secs. 1926.500-

1926.503 (referred to here as the ``rule''). Since the rule was

published on August 4, 1994, OSHA has received numerous communications

requesting interpretations and claiming that compliance with the rule

is sometimes infeasible in certain activities, such as in residential

and post-frame construction, while climbing reinforced steel, erecting

precast concrete, drilling shafts, and when providing prompt rescue. We

are asking the public for information and data on fall protection for

employees in these situations.

Information provided to the Agency in support of a claim of

infeasibility should explain, in detail, why the rule cannot be

complied with in certain circumstances, what fall protection methods

could be used to protect workers engaged in these activities, and the

degree of protection such methods would provide. In addition, such

claims should be supported by data demonstrating that the current rule

is not feasible for a particular activity and data demonstrating the

effectiveness of any alternative approaches suggested. Respondents

should also provide any information on the costs of alternative

approaches and the reduction in injuries likely to be experienced if

alternatives were to be adopted. With respect to OSHA Instruction STD

3-0.1A (interim fall protection compliance guidelines for residential

construction), the Agency intends to rescind that directive unless

persuasive evidence is submitted in response to this ANPRM

demonstrating that for most residential construction employers

complying with the rule is infeasible or presents significant safety

hazards.

DATES: Comments in response to this ANPRM must be received by October

22, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Two copies of comments must be submitted to the OSHA Docket

Office, Docket S206C, Room N2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, D.C. 20210, 202-693-2350. Comments

consisting of 10 pages or less may be faxed to the Docket Office at the

following FAX number: 202-693-1648. However, two hard copies must be

mailed to us within two days. Electronic comments can be submitted on

the Internet at http://www.osha-slc.gov/e-comments/e-comments-

fallprotection.html. The exhibits referred to throughout this document

are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office (see

address and telephone number above), which is open weekdays from 10:00

am to 4:00 pm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Bonnie Friedman, Occupational

Safety and Health Administration, Office of Information and Consumer

Affairs, Room N3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue,

NW, Washington, D.C. 20210, Telephone: 202 693-1999. Anyone with

questions regarding the technical content of this document should

contact Ms. Jule Jones at 202 693-2345. For electronic copies, contact

OSHA's web page on the Internet at http://www.osha.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On November 25, 1986, OSHA proposed to revise the fall protection

standard. The rulemaking record, developed over a nine-year period,

resulted in a more performance-oriented rule, issued on August 9, 1994

(published in volume 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1926,

subpart M, and in volume 59 of the Federal Register, beginning on page

40,672). You can view the rule on OSHA's Internet site at www.osha.gov.

In general, the rule requires that an employee exposed to a fall hazard

of six feet or more must be protected by equipment that prevents or

arrests the fall.

Subsequently, some employers have claimed that parts of the rule

are not appropriate for their operations. The residential, precast

concrete, and post-frame construction industries state that different

fall protection provisions are needed for their activities. Some

vendors who deliver roofing material believe the rule should not apply

to them. Reinforcing steel (rebar construction) employers request that

workers who climb rebar walls and assemblies be permitted to climb

without fall protection and only be required to tie off upon reaching

their work location. Also, some persons familiar with safety harnesses,

restraint systems and positioning devices have raised concerns

regarding the standard's performance criteria for fall protection

systems.

In response to feasibility issues about the rule raised by the

residential construction industry, on December 8, 1995, we issued

interim fall protection procedures for residential construction

employers (``OSHA Instruction STD 3.1'') that differ from those in the

rule (on June 18, 1999, we issued a plain language re-write of STD 3.1.

The re-write, STD 3-0.1A, replaces STD 3.1). We stated that we would

undertake further rulemaking to address these fall protection issues.

STD 3-0.1A permits employers to use specified work practices instead of

conventional fall protection (systems/devices that physically prevent a

worker from falling or arrest a worker's fall) for foundation work,

some installation work on roofs and in attics, and some residential

roofing work.

This notice begins our evaluation of these and other fall

protection practices and of STD 3-0.1A. OSHA emphasizes that the

extensive rulemaking process completed in 1994 established that the

fall protection requirements in the rule are reasonably necessary and

appropriate to protect employees from the significant risks of fall

hazards. Providing such protection was demonstrated to be both

technologically and economically feasible. (See the complete discussion

in the preamble to the final rule for subpart M (volume 59 of the

Federal Register at pages 40672-40722. That preamble is available at

OSHA's Internet web site at www.osha.gov.) However, because of the

concerns raised by employers engaged in the operations listed above, we

are seeking additional information.

OSHA needs to hear the views of interested parties on all issues

raised in this notice. After reviewing your comments and data, OSHA

will decide what further steps, if any, may be appropriate.

We encourage interested parties to respond to the questions raised

in Section IV-- Summary and Explanation of Issues, where we detail each

issue that you have brought to our attention.

[[Page 38079]]

II. Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health

A summary of the issues addressed by this notice was presented to

the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH). The

full committee was initially briefed April 8, 1998, with updates

provided on both July 22 and October 8 of that year.

III. Explanation of Issues

OSHA solicits information on a variety of issues pertaining to the

fall protection standard. We are addressing 10 issues, most of which

have been raised by interested parties who believe that alternatives to

some of the rule's provisions should be permitted. They generally

recommend that OSHA allow work practices rather than personal fall

arrest systems and guardrails to protect employees against falls. The

10 issues identified for discussion and comment are as follows:

Issue 1. Whether There Is A Need for Alternative Procedures for

Residential Construction

Issue 2. Whether There Is A Need for Alternative Procedures for

Precast Concrete Erection

Issue 3. Whether There Is A Need for Alternative Procedures for

Post-Frame Construction

Issue 4. Whether There Is A Need For Alternative Procedures For

Vendors Delivering Construction Materials

Issue 5. Whether There Are Alternative Methods of Fall Protection

While Climbing Reinforcing Steel (Rebar Walls and Cages)

Issue 6. What Criteria Should Be Used for Restraint Systems

Issue 7. Whether the Strength Requirements for Anchorage Points for

Personal Fall Arrest Systems, Positioning Device Systems and

Restraint Systems Should Be Changed

Issue 8. Whether the Standard's Prompt Rescue Requirements Should Be

Revised

Issue 9. Whether There Is A Need for Alternative Procedures for

Drilling Shafts

Issue 10. Whether Body Belts Incorporated Into Full Body Harnesses

Provide Appropriate Employee Protection in a Fall

Issue 1. Whether There Is A Need For Alternative Procedures for

Residential Construction

Alternative Measures Allowed by the Rule

Section 1926.501(b)(13) contains the fall protection requirements

for residential construction, which state:

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.

When promulgating this standard, OSHA acknowledged that some

employers in the residential construction industry might have

difficulty providing conventional fall protection for certain

operations. Difficulties were expected during the erection of roof

trusses and the installation of roof sheathing, exterior wall panels,

floor joists, and floor sheathing. Accordingly, the final rule allows

some flexibility for the residential construction employer. The rule

states that conventional fall protection in residential construction is

presumed to be feasible. However, where the employer can show that

conventional fall protection is infeasible at a particular worksite,

the employer may implement a written ``alternative fall protection

plan.'' The plan must be in writing, designed for the particular work

site, and specify alternative measures that are as protective as

possible.

Alternative Procedures Allowed by Appendix E of the Rule

OSHA published a sample fall protection plan for residential

construction that outlined acceptable alternative fall protection

measures for each of the operations mentioned above. That plan is

published in Appendix E to the rule (it begins on page 343 of the July

1, 1998 version of volume 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part

1926). The Appendix E procedures consist of training requirements,

supervision and administration of the plan by a designated competent

person, use of a controlled access zone to minimize access to the work

area, and use of a safety monitor. It has additional work practice

requirements for each of the listed work activities. Workers may work

on the ``top plate'' of stud walls and on the peaks of roof trusses and

ridge beams without fall protection, under certain circumstances. Roof

sheathing operations must be done with slide guards and certain work

practice requirements. Work practice requirements are also delineated

for installation of floor joists, floor sheathing, and the erection of

exterior walls.

Alternative Measures Permitted by OSHA Instruction STD 3-0.1A That

Differ From the Rule

After the rule was enacted, homebuilder representatives identified

three additional categories of residential work where the use of

conventional fall protection systems was, in their judgment, infeasible

or would present a greater hazard to their workers: (1) Working on

foundation walls and formwork used to build the walls; (2) installing

drywall, insulation, heating/cooling systems, electrical systems,

plumbing and carpentry in attics and on roofs, and (3) roofing work

(the installation of weatherproofing roofing materials). These

commenters asserted that, when doing these activities, nets could not

be used and there was no place available and/or strong enough to anchor

fall arrest equipment. They also stated that conventional fall

protection for these activities was infeasible, or would create a

greater hazard, in all residential projects, so it did not make sense

to require employers to have written, site-specific alternative

procedure plans for each site.

OSHA Instruction STD 3-0.1A provides a list of work practice

measures that employers engaged in residential construction may use

instead of fall protection for work on foundation walls/formwork,

installation work in attics and on roofs and for roofing work. In

addition, it provides that an employer's alternative fall protection

plan does not have to be written or site-specific as long as it follows

either Appendix E or, for these additional types of work, the

procedures in STD 3-0.1A. Further, it permits employers to use these

procedures without first having to show that conventional fall

protection is infeasible or creates a greater hazard.

Procedures for Foundation/formwork Activities and Installation Work in

Attics and On Roofs

The work practices allowed as alternatives to fall protection for

working on foundation walls and related formwork consist of limiting

the work to trained workers, minimizing their fall exposure, adequately

supporting the wall/formwork, not working in bad weather, staging

materials and equipment in locations that are convenient to those on

the formwork, and eliminating impalement hazards. The procedures for

installation work in attics and on roofs require limiting the work to

trained employees, limiting their exposure, staging materials,

eliminating impalement

[[Page 38080]]

hazards, limiting access to affected work areas, and not working in bad

weather.

Procedures for Roofing Work

STD 3-0.1A also contains alternative procedures for some roofing

work. Shortly after OSHA issued the rule, the National Roofing

Contractors Association (NRCA) and the National Association of Home

Builders (NAHB) asked OSHA to clarify how the roofing provisions

applied to residential construction and asserted that more flexibility

was warranted. They provided information on industry practices in

support of their claims.

NAHB suggested that the sample fall protection plan found in

Appendix E be expanded to specifically address roofing work at

residential sites. The Association considered the use of conventional

fall protection systems in residential roofing to be either infeasible

or to pose a greater hazard. Roofing contractors claimed that requiring

conventional fall protection is extreme and would not improve safety.

They stated that their workers are skilled professionals who wear the

proper footwear and understand the consequences of falling, and do not

believe that fall protection is necessary during roofing activities.

They further believe that full compliance with the rule is too costly

and interferes with their ability to remain competitive, especially

since, in their view, their competitors do not use conventional fall

protection. To a large extent, information from the NAHB formed the

basis of the alternative procedures in STD 3-0.1A for residential

roofing work.

The STD 3-0.1A alternative procedures for roofing work may only be

used where the roof slope is no more than 8 inches (vertical) in 12

(horizontal) and the fall distance, from the eave of the roof to the

ground level, is 25 feet or less. Workers must be trained on slip

hazards, and access to the rake edge must be minimized. Work must be

suspended in bad weather, and impalement hazards must be eliminated.

In addition, for roofs with a slope of up to 4 in 12 inches, the

employer has the option of using either a safety monitor or slide

guards. A slide guard is typically a 2'' x 6'' board attached along the

roof. STD 3-0.1A specifies certain materials, configurations, and

locations for slide guards, depending on the steepness of the roof.

With two exceptions, slide guards must be used on any roof with a

slope of over 4 in 12, up to 8 in 12. Those two exceptions are for

roofs made of tile or metal, in which case a safety monitor may be used

instead of slide guards. Fall protection must be used for all roofs

with a roof slope steeper than 8 in 12.

Since the rule was enacted, there have been advances in the types

and capability of commercially available fall protection equipment.

OSHA specifically solicits comment on the alternatives to the rule

permitted for roofing work by STD 3-0.1A. Specific questions on the

various operations are listed later in this document.

Definition of Residential Construction

Although the rule has specific requirements for residential

construction, it does not define that term. NAHB and others have

asserted that ``residential construction'' should be defined to include

light commercial structures in which the materials, methods and work

environment are essentially the same as in homebuilding. They asserted

that many homebuilders construct light commercial structures and that

the hazards on both residential and these light commercial structures

are essentially the same. NRCA has also asked that we clarify the term

``residential construction.'' NRCA asserts that homebuilding and

similarly constructed light commercial structures should be treated in

the same way with respect to providing fall protection during roofing

work.

In STD 3-0.1A, OSHA defined residential construction as including

work on structures where the working environment, construction

materials, methods, and work procedures are essentially the same as

those used for building typical single family homes and townhouses.

Also, STD 3-0.1A stated that work on discrete parts of a large

commercial structure could be considered residential construction as

long as the working environment, materials, methods, and procedures

were similar to those used for single family homes and townhouses.

We have received a number of inquiries and comments about this

definition. A number of commenters have stated that the definition

fails to adequately distinguish between work that is residential and

work that is commercial. Some have suggested that some fall protection

devices and methods that may not be economically feasible in

constructing single family homes and townhouse residences are

economically feasible when similar structures are built for commercial

use. Others have suggested that as long as the materials, methods and

work environment are the same, the alternative procedures allowed in

STD 3-0.1A should apply, without regard to whether the building will be

occupied as a residence or used for commercial purposes.

Request for Comments and Supporting Information

OSHA solicits comments on the alternative fall protection measures

for residential construction work in Appendix E of the rule and in STD

3-0.1A, as well as on the STD 3-0.1A definition of residential

construction. We seek comments and supporting information on whether

the alternative procedures in STD 3-0.1A are the most protective and

feasible methods currently available for protecting residential

construction workers from falls. We request that comments include

detailed information on fall protection methods, equipment, injuries

and accidents, and personal experience related to these topics in both

residential and light commercial construction.

Questions on Installing Floor Joists and Floor Sheathing

A fall protection system that is currently available consists of

three components: a body harness, an anchor, and an adjustable strap

with snap hooks at each end (Ex. 1-1). The anchor consists of a strap,

which looks similar to a seat belt strap, with a D-ring at one end. For

a floor sheathing operation, the anchor is installed by nailing the

strap end to the first course of floor sheathing with double-headed

nails. The nails are installed through the floor sheathing and into a

floor joist.

The adjustable strap has snap hooks at each end--one connects to

the anchor's D-ring and the other connects to the harness. As the

leading edge advances, or as the worker moves about, the strap can be

lengthened or shortened by depressing an adjustment device and letting

out or pulling in the strap. When the anchor is no longer needed, the

nails are removed (facilitated by the double headed nail) and the strap

is discarded.

Is there a reason why this system is not feasible in floor joist

and floor sheathing installations? Are there situations where movable

catch platforms could not be used below the areas where workers are

installing floor joists and floor sheathing to protect against falls?

Another way of providing fall protection for some construction

activities is to set up a lifeline, to which individual workers attach

their lanyards. As work progresses, the lifeline is moved forward. Is

there a reason why this type of system could not be used when

installing floor joists and floor sheathing? Are there retractable

lanyards that will engage fast

[[Page 38081]]

enough to prevent a worker installing floor joists and floor sheathing

approximately 10 feet above the next lower level from being injured in

an arrested fall?

Questions on Installing Roof Sheathing

There are a number of commercially available products designed to

serve as anchor points in wood framed structures for fall arrest

systems. Most of these are designed to be attached to a roof truss,

rafter or sheathing. Some provide a single attachment point, while

others have multiple attachment points. Some are designed to be used to

support a lifeline to which two workers can attach their lanyards. Some

incorporate a swivelling, retractable lanyard (Exhibits 1-2 through 1-

5).

Most of these products are designed to withstand a 5,000 pound load

(the rule requires fall arrest system anchors to support a 5,000 pound

load or to have a safety factor of two). A key question in determining

the viability of these anchors in roof sheathing operations is the

strength of the part of the structure to which the anchor is attached.

Some contractors are adding bracing to roof trusses so that the strap

anchors can be used during part of the sheathing operation. Are there

other anchor systems available that can be installed before some (or

any) sheathing is in place and still withstand a 5,000 pound load? How

much sheathing (and in what arrangement) has to be installed before an

anchor will support this load?

Various ``shock-absorbing'' lanyards and fall protection devices

have been developed. The loads imposed in an arrested fall on the

anchor point when using shock-absorbing equipment is less than when

using conventional equipment. How much less are those loads? What is

the minimum strength needed for anchors when shock-absorbing equipment

is used?

The rule's 5,000 pound/factor of two requirement is for an anchor

that is used as part of a fall protection system. A fall protection

system arrests a person's fall. In contrast, a fall restraint system is

a system that prevents a worker from falling any distance at all. The

anchor for such a system is not called upon to withstand the forces of

an arrested fall--it only has to withstand the forces of restraining a

worker from moving further than the length of the lanyard. What is an

appropriate minimum strength for an anchor in a restraint system? Is

there a reason why a restraint system could not be used when installing

roof sheathing?

Some roof sheathers use the strap anchor in conjunction with the

following sheathing method: The strap anchor is nailed to (and wrapped

around) one or more roof trusses before it is erected. Sheathing is

installed by workers by standing on platforms on the inside of the

second floor, starting from the eaves and working upward toward the

ridge (top) of the roof (this eliminates the fall hazard to the

exterior). The final (top) course is installed by workers on the roof

who tie-off to the strap anchor. At that point the trusses are braced

by all but the final course of sheathing. Is there a reason why this

system is not feasible in roof sheathing installations?

Questions on Setting and Bracing Roof Trusses and Rafters

The procedures in Appendix E of the rule call for the first two

trusses or rafters to be set from ladders. After the first two are set,

a worker is permitted to climb a ladder onto the interior top plate to

secure the peaks. The worker may remain on the top plate, using the

(now stabilized) trusses or rafters for support, while the other

trusses or rafters are erected. Also, workers may be stationed on the

peaks of trusses or the ridge beam to detach trusses from cranes and to

secure trusses (and also to secure rafters to the ridge beam, where

there is no other feasible means of doing this).

There is now at least one commercially available device that

eliminates the need for a worker to be on a truss to install bracing.

This device is a temporary, reusable brace which is attached on one end

to the truss before the truss is erected. Once the truss is raised, a

worker on the floor level pulls the other end of the brace down onto

the adjoining truss by a rope (Ex. 1-6). This eliminates the need for a

worker to be on the truss or ridge to attach bracing. There are also

devices available that permit a load to be detached from a crane

remotely, rather than having to be on a peak or ridge beam to detach it

manually.

We are interested in hearing from those who are familiar with these

types of systems and have used them in residential construction or

similar situations. Is there a reason why these types of systems are

not feasible or present a greater hazard to workers performing this

type of work? Is there a reason why some of this work could not be done

from platforms? Are there other ways of protecting against the fall

hazards facing workers performing residential construction or similar

work?

The sample plan in Appendix E of the rule contains the following

sample statement of why ladders may be a greater hazard on a particular

site: ``requiring workers to use a ladder for the entire installation

process [of roof trusses and rafters] 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.''

There are commercially available hooking devices for the tops of

ladders. Is there a reason why these or similar devices could not be

used to help secure the ladder? When a ladder is used while erecting a

truss, the ladder and the worker are on the inside of the exterior

wall. If the worker were to fall, the worker would fall to the inside

floor. In contrast, a worker on the top plate could fall to the

exterior. On a second story, that fall would be a significantly greater

distance than the interior fall. Is there a reason why it would be

safer to erect the truss while standing on the top plate than to use a

ladder with a securing device? OSHA seeks comment on these statements

and questions, particularly from equipment manufacturers and those who

have used or seen devices or methods other than working from the top

plate, peak or ridge.

The sample plan in Appendix E of the rule also states that

``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.'' OSHA seeks comments on whether the problem of recently

backfilled soil is unique to residential construction and whether this

is an impediment to using exterior scaffolds. We also ask for comment

on the extent to which different types of scaffolding are suitable to

this work.

Questions on Working on Concrete and Block Foundation Walls and Related

Formwork

STD 3-0.1A permits workers to work on the top of the foundation

wall or formwork to the extent necessary to do the work. The only

protective measures required when working on the top of the foundation

wall or formwork are training, not working in bad weather, staging

materials, and eliminating impalement hazards. Are there reasons why

this work could not be done from ladders and/or scaffolds? Is there

formwork available for this type of work

[[Page 38082]]

to which scaffolds can be attached? We are particularly interested in

hearing from workers or employers who have done this work without

standing on the tops of the walls or formwork.

Questions on Installation Work (Drywall, Insulation, Heating and

Cooling Systems, Alarms, Telephone Lines and Cable TV, Plumbing and

Carpentry) in Attics and on Roofs

The only protective measures required in STD 3-0.1A for these types

of installation work are training, staging materials, eliminating

impalement hazards, restricting access, and suspending work in bad

weather. The strap anchor mentioned above, when attached to roof

trusses before installation, can be left in place to provide tie-off

points for this type of work in attics and on roofs (after all work is

completed, the strap is cut off). Is there a reason why that system is

infeasible for this work? Is there a reason why it is not feasible to

use platforms, scaffolds or ladders when doing some or all of this

work? Is there a reason why other fall arrest or fall restraint systems

could not be used? In particular, with respect to the work on roofs, is

there a reason why a fall restraint or fall arrest system could not be

anchored to the roof structure during this work?

Questions on Roofing Work

The alternative procedures in STD 3-0.1A for roofing work consist

of work practices and, depending on the steepness of the roof, monitors

or slide guards. For roofs with a slope of up to 4 in 12 inches,

monitors may be used instead of slide guards. Are monitors an effective

means of preventing falls? What experience have you had using monitors?

Is there a reason why slide guards are infeasible on roofs with slopes

of less than 4 in 12?

STD 3-0.1A permits monitors to be used in place of slide guards for

tile or metal roofs with a slope of up to 8 to 12 inches. Since these

roof surfaces are more slippery than most other types of roofing, is

there a reason why monitors should be allowed in place of slide guards

for these roofs? Are there slide guard brackets/devices that can be

used on these roofs?

STD 3-0.1A contains specifications for the configuration and

installation of slide guards. Are these specifications appropriate? Are

slide guards effective as replacements for personal fall protection?

OSHA has received a number of comments stating that roof anchors

cannot be used on unsheathed or partially sheathed roofs because the

structure to which the anchor is attached cannot withstand a 5,000

pound load. However, there are anchors on the market that are

advertised as being suitable for use on a fully sheathed roof. Since

roofing work is done after the roof is fully sheathed, are there

technical or other reasons why roof anchors could not be used for

roofing work? Some commenters have suggested that there are liability

issues associated with installing roof anchors and then leaving them in

place for others to use once the job is done. The strap anchors can be

removed by simply cutting the strap. Why is it infeasible to remove a

roof anchor (please specify how much time/expense is needed)? Are there

other roof anchors that are designed to be readily removed? OSHA is

particularly interested in comments from workers, employers and

manufacturers who have studied, used or designed roof anchors for

roofing work.

Questions on the Definition of Residential Construction

STD 3-0.1A defines residential construction as any construction

project where the working environment, materials, methods and

procedures are essentially the same as those used for typical single

family homes and townhouses. Therefore, many buildings that will not be

occupied as residences, but will be used for light commercial purposes,

are included in the definition. Also, the STD 3-0.1A definition would

include portions of commercial structures where the environment,

materials and methods are similar to those used in building homes and

townhouses. Is this an appropriate definition of residential

construction for the purposes of the rule? Does this definition

adequately distinguish between projects where conventional fall

protection is feasible and those where, for some operations, it is not?

Is this a workable definition--can employers readily use it to

determine whether their project is considered residential construction?

OSHA has received letters asking how the STD 3.1 definition applies to

stick frame and brick apartment buildings; single story stick-framed

commercial malls; and single story stick-framed retail structures. Does

the STD 3-0.1A definition adequately deal with these type of projects?

Should OSHA define residential construction in terms of the end use of

the structure? Should the economic scale of the project be a factor in

determining the fall protection options available to the builder? Would

it be appropriate for OSHA to allow the use of alternative fall

protection procedures on portions of a commercial structure that meet

the definition of residential construction?

Issue 2. Whether There Is A Need for Alternative Procedures for Precast

Concrete Erection

The precast concrete erection rule in subpart M,

Sec. 1926.501(b)(12), generally requires protection for employees

exposed to fall hazards of 6 feet or more. Fall protection options are

guardrails, safety nets, or personal fall arrest systems. In addition,

if the employer demonstrates that it is infeasible or creates a greater

hazard to use these systems, alternative measures may be used. When

using alternative measures, the employer must implement a fall

protection plan meeting the requirements of section 1926.502(k).

To meet the section 1926.502(k) requirements, a precast erection

employer may follow the sample plan spelled out in Appendix E to

subpart M (this is printed beginning on page 343 of the July 1, 1998

edition of volume 29 Code of Federal Regulations Part 1926). Under

certain circumstances, that plan permits work without conventional fall

protection during leading edge erection, initial connecting and

grouting. The Precast Concrete Institute (PCI) thinks that fall

protection should not be required for precast concrete erection

activities occurring at heights below fifteen (15) feet and thirty (30)

feet, the same fall protection thresholds as those in the recently

proposed rule for steel erection (volume 63 of the Federal Register at

pages 43452-43513) (Ex. 1-7).

On August 13, 1998, OSHA issued a proposed rule for fall protection

in steel erection. This proposal is a product of negotiated rulemaking,

conducted under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (printed in volume 5 of

the Unites States Code at section 561). The proposed rule would require

fall protection for most steel erection workers above 15 feet. In that

rule, however, there are exceptions for steel erection employees

engaged in connecting activity and for deckers. Employees engaged in

connecting work would be allowed to work at heights up to 30 feet

without fall protection (but they must wear fall protection equipment

and the employer must provide an attachment point). Deckers would also

be allowed to work without fall protection up to 30 feet as long as

they work in a Controlled Decking Zone. Conventional fall protection,

such as safety nets, guardrail systems, or personal fall arrest systems

would be required for all steel erection workers at heights over 30

feet.

[[Page 38083]]

PCI believes that the 15 foot threshold used in the proposed steel

erection rule should also apply to the precast erection industry. They

state that overhead attachment points (anchorages) are not always

available when performing precast concrete work and that workers tied

off at foot level need at least 12-19 feet of clearance below,

depending on the type of system chosen.

PCI believes that the steel erection industry will have an unfair

economic advantage over their industry if the threshold heights for

fall protection differ in each industry. In support of this assertion,

PCI has submitted data which it claims show that the use of fall

protection equipment causes a 25 percent reduction in productivity. (

Ex. 1-8)

PCI also argues that there are structures where both precast

concrete and steel is erected and the same workers on such sites may be

required to operate under two different rules. In such situations,

under the steel erection proposal, workers doing the steel erection

would be under the 15/30 foot thresholds. When the precast concrete is

erected, with concrete members placed directly on the structural steel,

the 6 foot threshold of subpart M would apply. This precast work is

sometimes done by the same crews that erected the steel. PCI believes

there should be one rule for these operations.

OSHA specifically requests comment on the extent to which the

technical limitations of fall protection systems, and the limitations

on the ways those systems can be used, forecloses the option of using

conventional fall protection in precast erection. For example, the 15

foot minimum clearance limitation alluded to by PCI relates to

assertions that have been made on the limitations of three types of

fall protection systems: fixed lanyards anchored at floor level, some

retractable lanyards, and nets. However, no minimum clearance is needed

for temporary guardrails. The strap system described above is designed

to work when anchored at floor level. The adjustable strap lanyard

permits a worker to be tied-off at a fixed point and to move to various

distances by extending and shortening the strap as needed. We believe

that other lanyard systems connected to a lifeline can be installed so

that a worker can work at and along a leading edge and be prevented

from stepping past the edge, or to limit a leading edge worker's fall

to six feet. We seek information on whether there are specific

instances where these types of systems would not work in precast

erection.

Questions on Precast Concrete Erection

In what specific situations are guardrails not useable in precast

erection? Are there situations where lanyards connected to lifelines

are not useable in precast concrete erection? Are there situations

where the strap system would not be feasible? How do these limitations

compare to those used in steel erection? Are there other fall

protection devices that are useable in precast erection at 6 feet? In

what specific way does the current rule for precast concrete erection,

which gives alternatives when employers can show infeasibility or

greater hazard, have insufficient flexibility to account for the

technical limitations of fall protection systems?

Issue 3. Whether There Is A Need for Alternative Procedures for Post-

Frame Construction

Post-frame construction employers believe there are many

similarities between their work and residential construction, and that

they too should be allowed to protect employees by using alternatives

to conventional fall protection systems without showing on a site-

specific basis that conventional fall protection is infeasible or

creates a greater hazard.

The National Frame Builders Association (NFBA) suggested (in a

letter to OSHA dated August 16, 1995, Ex. 1-9) that their work was

similar to steel erection and that OSHA should exempt them from any

fall protection rules up to a height of 25 feet. They assert that

OSHA's requirements for residential construction, along with Appendix E

of the rule and STD 3.1, are reasonable and appropriate for post frame

construction operations.

Questions on Post-frame Construction

OSHA seeks comments and/or data on the following: under what

specific circumstances are there problems with using conventional fall

protection when building a post-frame structure? In what particular

phases and parts of the operation do those problems arise? What factors

limit the usability of fall protection systems in post-frame

construction? Are there reasons why ladders, work platforms, scaffolds,

restraint systems or fall protection systems cannot be used in post-

frame construction? Are workers in post-frame construction exposed to

unique fall hazards? We are particularly interested in hearing from

safety product manufacturers or dealers, familiar with post-frame

construction, who know of fall protection systems that can be used

during post-frame construction and the limitations of those systems. We

are also interested in hearing from builders and employees engaged in

post-frame construction. What experiences do you have with fall

protection systems in these operations? What accidents and/or near

misses have occurred in your post-frame construction operations?

Issue 4. Whether There Is A Need For Alternative Procedures For Vendors

Delivering Construction Materials

Employees of vendors delivering materials to a construction site

can be exposed to the same fall hazards that construction workers face

every day. However, some vendors have stated that fall protection for

their workers is often infeasible, for several reasons. One is that the

strength of a roof under construction is limited; if the weight of the

materials being delivered collapses the structure, being tied-off to

the structure will obviously not provide protection. Second, they

assert that in the limited work area provided by the roof under

construction, the use of fall protection systems creates a greater

hazard because workers may trip over each other's lanyards. Finally,

they point out that ``rope grab'' systems are infeasible for their

workers. Those systems require the user to pull the lanyard with one

hand in order to move across a work surface. Workers delivering

materials would need to hold the rope grab with one hand and, at the

same time, carry the materials, which are often large and/or heavy,

with the other.

In February 1995 OSHA addressed fall protection issues related to

vendors delivering materials by issuing two interpretations, designated

Interpretation M-1 and Interpretation M-2 (Ex. 1-10). In Interpretation

M-1, OSHA clarified when vendor employees are engaged in construction.

They are defined as being so engaged ``when they deliver products or

materials to the construction site that are used during the

construction activity or when they are engaged in an activity that

completes the construction work, such as final cleaning of buildings

and structures.'' The Interpretation also made clear that if a

construction contractor picks up materials at the vendor's store or

outlet (rather than having the vendor deliver the materials), the

vendor is not engaged in construction. Therefore, vendor employees

delivering materials to a construction site and exposed to fall hazards

of 6 feet (l.8 m) or more are covered by subpart M (Interpretation M-

1).

[[Page 38084]]

Interpretation M-2 explained how OSHA would apply the fall

protection requirements to vendor employees:

Gaining Access to the Roof: A handhold (rope, chain, or other

railing) must be attached to the conveyer belt so that the employee

has something to steady himself with as he gains access to the roof

or a ladder must be used to gain access to the roof.

Distributing the Roofing Materials: Once on the roof the

vendor's employee will receive the roofing products from a conveyor

belt (lift truck or similar equipment) and then distribute the

products onto the roof at various locations. During this

distribution process, OSHA will not require the vendor's employees

to install an anchorage point for fall protection equipment

regardless of the slope of the roof or the fall distance.

However, if an anchorage point is already available on the roof, the

employees must use fall protection equipment.

Questions on Fall Protection for Vendor Employees

Is there a reason why conventional fall protection for vendors is

infeasible? Although the use of lanyards may pose a tripping hazard,

that hazard--falling while protected by a fall protection system--must

be compared with falling six or more feet to a lower level or to the

ground. Why would tripping and being in an arrested fall be a greater

hazard than the risk of falling, unprotected, to the ground?

We believe that there are fall protection devices available for

this work other than rope grabs. For example, retractable lanyards and

lanyards attached to lifelines permit workers to move across a surface

while still being protected from falls. We believe that, when using

these systems, a worker can use both hands and not have to hold onto

the fall protection equipment. Are there reasons why these types of

systems cannot be used to protect vendor employees?

There are now commercially available fall protection anchors that

are designed to be placed on top of roof sheathing (Ex. 1-2). Is there

a reason why vendors delivering supplies to a roof could not install

this type of anchor and use it for fall protection for their employees?

Also, the strap anchor can be installed to the trusses and be left

available for the roofing work. Is there a reason why these systems are

infeasible or would pose a greater hazard? We are particularly

interested in hearing from safety product manufacturers or dealers,

familiar with these operations, who are aware of fall protection

systems (and their limitations) that can be used when delivering

materials to roofs. We would also like to hear from vendors and vendor

employees who have knowledge of industry practice and the use of fall

protection for workers delivering construction materials.

Issue 5. Whether There Are Alternative Methods of Fall Protection While

Climbing Reinforcing Steel (Rebar Walls and Cages)

Paragraph (b)(5) of Sec. 1926.501, titled ``Formwork and

reinforcing steel,'' requires employers to protect employees from falls

by a safety net system, personal fall arrest system, or a positioning

device system. These requirements are essentially the same ones that

applied before we revised the rule. The issue concerning climbing rebar

(steel rods used to reinforce concrete) is whether fall protection is

infeasible for employees while climbing rebar walls and assemblies. In

late December 1994, the National Association of Reinforcing Steel

Contractors (NARSC) and the International Association of Bridge,

Structural, and Ornamental Iron Workers (IWI) asked OSHA to clarify the

requirements for workers climbing built-in-place rebar walls. They felt

that employees were safer if allowed to climb the rebar without fall

protection; only upon reaching their work location should they have to

attach their personal fall arrest system or positioning device system

(such as a rebar chain assembly).

Usually when placing and tying built-in-place rebar walls (as

opposed to preassembled units, which are built on the ground and lifted

into position), workers carry lengths of rebar cradled in their arms as

they climb. Because of this, and the need to constantly connect and

disconnect the lanyard while climbing, the NARSC and IWI felt their

workers would encounter a greater risk of falling if required to comply

with the rule. Also, the chain length in a rebar chain assembly, or the

length of the lanyard in a positioning device system, ranges from 18 to

24 inches. This restricts the worker's movement and increases the

frequency of disconnecting and reconnecting, according to these

commenters.

In December 1994 and January 1995 (Ex. 1-11), OSHA issued

interpretation letters that responded to these concerns by allowing

employees to climb vertically and/or horizontally on the face of

reinforcing steel walls and cages, up to a height of 24 feet, without

being protected from falls. Over 24 feet, employees could not free

climb.

Subsequently, on July 18 and August 5, 1996, the NARSC and the IWI

submitted another interpretation request, which focused on preassembled

reinforcing steel units. NARSC and IWI wanted us to expand our earlier

interpretation for built-in-place units to cover preassembled units.

Several interested parties supported NARSC's and IWI's request.

In a letter of interpretation dated May 19, 1997 (Ex. 1-12), we

stated that, pending future rulemaking, employees could climb or move

on both built-in-place and preassembled rebar units without fall

protection until they reached their work location or until they reached

a fall distance of 24 feet. Over 24 feet, continuous fall protection

would be required.

Questions on Climbing Rebar

Are there ways of transporting lengths of rebar, other than having

workers carry them in their arms? How far do workers typically have to

move on the rebar in order to get to their initial work station, and to

get to subsequent work stations? What portion is typically vertical,

how much is horizontal, and for what part of the work? How many cycles

of connecting disconnecting/reconnecting a fall protection device would

be required in these point-to-point moves? To what extent is moving

vertically on the rebar similar to climbing a fixed ladder? What

problems are involved with providing fall protection for horizontal

climbing? How are they different from those in vertical climbing? When

employees climb without carrying rebar, are there any problems using

positioning devices or personal fall arrest systems? Are there reasons

why employees engaged in work other than rebar assembly work cannot use

fall protection while climbing rebar? We are particularly interested in

hearing from employers and employees engaged in placing and tying rebar

walls and assemblies, and the type of fall protection methods they

currently use. We would also like to receive information, including

accident experience or data, as well as comments, comparing the risk of

falling while moving horizontally and the risk while moving vertically.

Issue 6. What Criteria Should Be Used for Restraint Systems?

Subpart M does not mention ``restraint systems.'' Employers have

asked for criteria for restraint systems and have questioned whether

they can use a body belt with a restraint system instead of a full body

harness to comply with the rule (Ex. 1-13). They have questioned

whether the anchorage requirements for a restraint system need to be as

strong as those for a personal fall arrest system, since a restraint

system prevents a fall. Since restraint systems prevent falls, they can

be used

[[Page 38085]]

to meet the requirements of the rule, according to some employers.

Is there is a need for a definition clarifying how restraint

systems differ from other types of fall protection? In recent

interpretation letters (Exs. 1-14 and 1-15), OSHA defined a restraint

system as a means of preventing an employee from reaching a fall

hazard. In other words, there will be no fall distance because the fall

is prevented. For example, a restraint system would prevent an employee

from stepping past the edge of a floor or roof. In contrast, a

positioning device permits a fall, but the fall is arrested after no

more than two feet. A personal fall arrest system arrests a fall after

no more than six feet.

There are several reasons to consider adopting a definition and

criteria for restraint systems. When using a restraint system, there is

no fall to arrest--which means that no load is imposed on the body from

an arrested fall. That may obviate the need for a body harness. Also,

restraint system components may not need to be as strong as those for

fall arrest systems; they need only be strong enough to hold an

employee back from the edge.

One drawback to having diminished strength requirements for

restraint systems may be that restraint system components may get mixed

up with fall arrest system components and fail when used in a personal

fall arrest system. This may be a particular problem with anchors--fall

arrest systems may be inadvertently anchored to a restraint system

anchor, which would not be adequate in an arrested fall.

Questions About Restraint System Criteria

OSHA requests comments on whether it should adopt separate

requirements in Sec. 1926.502 for restraint systems. Specifically, what

are the maximum loads expected to be imposed on a system designed to

restrain an employee from stepping past an edge? What are the

appropriate strength requirements for restraint system anchors and

other components? Is there a need for the requirements in subpart M for

snap hooks and other connecting hardware also to apply to restraint

systems? Alternatively, should components of a restraint system meet

the same strength and other criteria as those for personal fall arrest

systems? Is there a significant likelihood that restraint system

components would get mixed up with personal fall arrest system

components?

Issue 7. Whether the Strength Requirements for Anchorage Points for

Personal Fall Arrest Systems, Positioning Device Systems, and Restraint

Systems Should Be Changed

This issue addresses whether the anchorage requirement for

positioning device systems should be changed. Commenters point out

that, in some circumstances, the strength requirements for positioning

device anchors are greater than those for personal fall arrest system

anchors (Ex. 1-16). They assert that this does not make sense because

positioning devices do not have to withstand as much force as fall

arrest systems.

The rule requires fall arrest system anchorages to be capable of

supporting at least 5,000 pounds (22.2 Kn) per employee or that the

system maintain a safety factor of two. These commenters have

calculated that, in some circumstances, a safety factor of two can be

achieved in a 6 foot fall using an anchor strength of 2,000 pounds.

In contrast, positioning device anchors must always have a strength

of at least 3,000 pounds. (Under Sec. 1926.502(e)(2), positioning

device anchors must be capable of supporting at least twice the

potential impact load of an employee's fall, or 3,000 pounds, whichever

is greater.) Since a positioning device limits a fall to only two feet,

while a personal fall arrest system must sustain the much higher loads

imposed by a six foot fall, these commenters suggest that the

positioning device anchor requirements in Sec. 1926.502(e)(2) be

changed to require a support capability of 3,000 pounds, or two times

the potential impact, whichever is less, rather than the current rule's

requirement of whichever is greater.

Questions on Strength Requirements for Positioning Device Anchors

We request comments on whether the strength requirement for

positioning device anchors should be changed to permit a capability

based on the calculated potential impact. Are there circumstances when

a positioning device anchor would have to be stronger than a fall

arrest system anchor, as suggested by these commenters? What are the

factors that a strength calculation should be based on? Should it be

similar to the approach taken for fall arrest system anchors?

Issue 8. Whether the Standard's Prompt Rescue Requirements Should Be

Changed

The rule requires employers to ensure that workers in an arrested

fall either be promptly rescued from the fall arrest system or be able

to rescue themselves, Sec. 1926.502(d)(20). Some employers state that

they cannot comply with this requirement when an employee is working

alone in a remote location. Commenters say that self-rescue is rarely

possible, since the worker is hanging in a harness in mid-air, often at

least six feet down from the anchor point. Providing a mobile telephone

or two-way radio will not always work, because these devices may be out

of range in remote areas. Even in less remote areas, there are ``dead

spots'' where these communication devices will not work. They also

claim that it is often impossible to determine in advance if a

construction crew will be working in a dead spot. A further

complication is that in some remote areas, even if rescue personnel can

be reached by telephone or radio, it may take a long time for help to

arrive.

In some cases, providing an additional worker would ensure a prompt

rescue. Some commenters have asserted that in many situations this

second person would have no work to do other than to ``stand by'' in

the event of an arrested fall. Others have questioned the need for this

provision, pointing out that rescue is not required when employees are

protected from falls by a positioning device or while tethered or

restrained. They assert that rescue is only required when employees are

performing construction work and using a personal fall arrest system--

that there is no comparable rescue requirement while employees are

performing maintenance work.

Most of the general industry standards do not explicitly require

prompt rescue, although OSHA interprets the general industry standard

for electric power generation, transmission and distribution (volume 29

of the Code of Federal Regulations at section 1910.269) as

incorporating the rescue provision of 1926 subpart M. For other work,

an employee who must be protected by the rescue requirement while doing

construction work would not have to be protected in this way when

engaged in maintenance work.

Questions on Prompt Rescue

OSHA seeks comments and information on the rule's prompt rescue

requirement. We specifically seek information on the extent to which

there have been instances where rescue has been necessary from arrested

falls, or where workers have fallen unprotected by a fall arrest

system, but would have needed to be rescued had they been protected. Is

there a need to define ``prompt'? How long can an employee

[[Page 38086]]

be suspended in a harness without being harmed?

Issue 9. Whether There Is a Need for Alternative Procedures for

Drilling Shafts

The rule (Sec. 1926.501(b)(7)(ii)) requires employees at the edge

of a well, pit, shaft, or similar excavation, 6 feet or more in depth,

to be protected from falling by the use of a guardrail system, fences,

barricades, or covers. OSHA's policy is that where these options are

infeasible, this requirement can be met by the use of a personal fall

arrest system.

The International Association of Foundation Drilling and others are

concerned that excavating shafts using drilling rigs presents unique

fall protection problems and that requiring conventional fall

protection while performing certain tasks creates a greater hazard to

workers. They assert that lanyards and lifelines can get entangled with

equipment and that self-retracting lanyards may be rendered inoperable

by mud and/or wet concrete. They do not consider guardrails, fences,

barricades, or covers as viable fall protection options around an

active shaft because these would prevent the drilling workers from

doing their work.

When addressing the fall hazards associated with holes, OSHA stated

in the preamble to the rule (located at volume 59 of the Federal

Register at page 40686) that it did not intend a guardrail to be

erected around holes while employees were working at the hole and that,

if a hole cover was removed while work was in progress, guardrails

would not be required because they would interfere with the performance

of work. The drilling industry commenters believe that this statement

should apply to shafts that are actively being drilled and that only

after the shaft has been completed should fall protection be required.

These commenters also suggest that the diameter of a shaft should

be considered in determining when fall protection is required. They

assert that small diameter shafts do not pose the same hazards as

larger diameter shafts--that workers around shafts with a diameter of

18-30'' do not necessarily need fall protection.

Questions on Fall Protection While Drilling Shafts

OSHA requests comments with supporting information on any

difficulties or hazards associated with providing fall protection

during the drilling of shafts. With respect to the entanglement issue,

what equipment at a drilling or shaft excavation site can entangle a

fall protection system, and under what specific circumstances can that

occur? Where is the fall protection equipment anchored when the

entanglement potential exists? What movement of which equipment could

catch the safety lines? What work activities are being performed near

the excavation? Is there a reason why the entanglement problem could

not be avoided by using different safety equipment, coordinating work

or modifying work practices? Are there retractable lanyards that are

not adversely affected by mud and wet concrete? Are there ways of

covering the lanyards to protect them from mud and concrete? Is there a

reason why catenary lifeline systems could not be used? Under what

circumstances are guardrails infeasible? Does the diameter of the shaft

have a bearing on the extent to which fall protection is infeasible or

on the degree of hazard present? Under what circumstances is the

installation of a collar on top of a caisson, or simply allowing the

caisson to extend above grade, infeasible?

Issue 10. Whether Body Belts Incorporated Into Full Body Harnesses

Provide Appropriate Employee Protection in a Fall

Interested parties have raised a concern about full body harnesses

that incorporate body belts into the harness system. Their concern is

that, during a fall, these types of body harnesses impose loads on the

user that are similar to those imposed by a body belt, since the belt

portion of the harness transmits the arresting forces directly to the

abdomen. They claim that workers may attach their lanyards to the belt

portion of the harness, thus defeating the advantages of using a

harness instead of a body belt. Under Sec. 1926.502(d), body belts are

not permitted as part of a personal fall arrest system because of their

potential to cause injury to a worker who falls.

The rule currently defines a body harness as ``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.'' OSHA solicits comments on full body harnesses

that incorporate body belts. OSHA encourages individuals familiar with

these types of harness systems to comment on the possible benefits or

detriments of their use.

Questions on Body Harnesses

Should OSHA revise its definition of a body harness to prohibit

harnesses that, in effect, incorporate body belts? Does this type of

harness transmit excessive forces to the waist/abdomen area in an

arrested fall when the harness is properly attached?

IV. Authority and Signature

This document was prepared under the direction of Charles N.

Jeffress, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and

Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW,

Washington, D.C. 20210. It is issued pursuant to section 6(b) of the

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655).

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 1st day of July, 1999.

Charles N. Jeffress,

Assistant Secretary.

[FR Doc. 99-17663 Filed 7-13-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P