You work for a company that has fairly tight security measures. You have noticed that several of the exit doors that are equipped with panic hardware have an electronic device on the wall next to the door that must be pressed before the panic bar can be activated releasing the door lock. You bring this issue to your employer’s attention and indicate you are concerned that employees trying to evacuate a smoke filled room may not be able to locate the electronic device and would be trapped at the exit door.
Your employer disagrees and continues with the practice.
Question: Who is right? You or your employer?
Answer: OSHA States the following in a March 12, 1981 letter of interpretation:29 CFR [1910.36(d)(1)] requires that [”Employees must be able to open an exit route door from the inside at all times without keys, tools, or special knowledge. A device such as a panic bar that locks only from the outside is permitted on exit discharge doors”].
The use of an electronic device that must be pressed before the panic bar can be activated violates the intent of 29 CFR [1910.36(d)(1)]. Employers utilizing such a system are cited. Employees trying to evacuate a smoke filled room may not be able to locate the electronic device and would be trapped at the exit door. Depression of the panic bar must open the exit without any prior action. Relays which signal a security monitor of the occurrence and which do not inhibit exiting are permitted.
Scenario: You are the safety manager of a construction company. Your employer has purchased a Walk-Through Railing System to attach to the ends of your portable extension ladders. The device is designed to allow a person to walk through the top of a ladder onto a rooftop or landing instead of having to step around the ladder. The Walk-Through consists of two components that attach over the top of each side rail of the ladder. In using these extensions, your employees are no longer extending the ladder three feet above the landing they are getting on to.
You are afraid your employees may now be violating 29crf1926.1053(b)(1) which states:
“When portable ladders are used for access to an upper landing surface, the ladder side rails shall extend at least 3 feet above the upper landing surface to which the ladder is used to gain access; or, when such an extension is not possible because of the ladder’s length, then the ladder shall be secured at its top to a rigid support that will not deflect, and a grasping device, such as a grabrail, shall be provided to assist employees in mounting and dismounting the ladder. In no case shall the extension be such that ladder deflection under a load would, by itself, cause the ladder to slip off its support.”
You are concerned OSHA may say that due to the fact your ladder is capable of being extended the additional three feet that you must extend it. Your employer and employees argue that by doing so you create additional hazards and defeat the whole purpose of the walk-through device.
Who is right?
Answer: Your employer and employees would be correct. According to a 2005 letter of interpretation OSHA states:
“Thus, a portable ladder with such extensions attached, and used as described above, would have its side rails extending at least 3 feet above the upper landing surface. Therefore, use of the ladder and the extensions in this manner would be in accordance with the 3-foot requirement in §1926.1053(b)(1).”
Agency rescinds Clinton-era directive and requires more safeguards against falls
The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration announced in December a new directive withdrawing a former one that allowed residential builders to bypass some fall protection requirements. The directive being replaced, issued in 1995, initially was intended as a temporary policy and was the result of concerns about the feasibility of fall protection in residential building construction. However, there continues to be a high number of fall-related deaths in construction, and industry and OSHA feels that feasibility is no longer an issue or concern.
“Fatalities from falls are the number one cause of workplace deaths in construction. We cannot tolerate workers getting killed in residential construction when effective means are readily available to prevent those deaths,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Dr. David Michaels. “Almost every week, we see a worker killed from falling off a residential roof. We can stop these fatalities, and we must.”
The National Association of Home Builders recommended rescinding the 1995 directive, as did OSHA’s labor-management Advisory Committee for Construction Safety and Health; the AFL-CIO; and the Occupational Safety and Health State Plan Association, which represents the 27 states and territories that run their own occupational safety and health programs.
According to data from the department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, an average of 40 workers are killed each year as a result of falls from residential roofs. One-third of those deaths represent Latino workers, who often lack sufficient access to safety information and protections. Latino workers comprise more than one-third of all construction employees.
OSHA’s action rescinds the Interim Fall Protection Compliance Guidelines for Residential Construction, Standard 03-00-001. Prior to the issuance of this new directive, Standard 03-00-001 allowed employers engaged in certain residential construction activities to use specified alternative methods of fall protection rather than the conventional fall protection required by the residential construction fall protection standard. With the issuance of today’s new directive, all residential construction employers must comply with 29 Code of Federal Regulations 1926.501(b)(13). Where residential builders find that traditional fall protection is not feasible in residential environments, 29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13) still allows for alternative means of providing protection.
Construction and roofing companies will have up to six months to comply with the new directive. OSHA has developed training and compliance assistance materials for small employers and will host a webinar for parties interested in learning more about complying with the standard. To view the directive and for more information, visit http://www.osha.gov/doc/residential_fall_protection.html.
Recently OSHA was asked why the definitions for Flammable and Combustible Liquids are different between the Construction and General Industry standards.Bill Parsons with OSHA took a stab at providing an answer.
Question #1: Why are the definitions for combustible liquids and flammable liquids different under OSHA’s construction and general industry standards?
Answer #1:The terms “combustible liquids” and “flammable liquids” are defined in the construction standard at 29 CFR 1926 and in the general industry standard at 29 CFR 1910 as follows:
Construction
General Industry
Combustible liquids
§1926.155(c)
§1910.106(a)(18)
“[A]ny liquid having a flash point at or above 140 °F. (60 °C.) and below 200 °F. (93.4 °C.).”
“[A]ny liquid having a flashpoint at or above 100 °F. (37.8 °C.).”
Flammable liquids
§1926.155(h)
§1910.106(a)(19)
“[A]ny liquid having a flash point below 140 °F. and having a vapor pressure not exceeding 40 pounds per square inch (absolute) at 100 °F.”
“[A]ny liquid having a flashpoint below 100 °F. (37.8 °C.), except any mixture having components with flashpoints of 100 °F. (37.8 °C.) or higher, the total of which make up 99 percent or more of the total volume of the mixture.”
The definitions in the two standards are different because the definitions were adopted from different sources. The definitions in the general industry standard originated in a national consensus standard, NFPA 30-1969, while the definitions in the construction standard were adopted from established federal standards under the Construction Safety Act. Because the two sources defined the terms differently, the construction standard and the general industry standard are not consistent.
Question #2: Are there any plans to make the definitions consistent?
Answer #2:OSHA is currently addressing these definitions in the Hazard Communication rulemaking. The proposed rule, available at 74 Federal Register 50280 (Sept. 30, 2009), proposes new definitions for combustible and flammable liquids that correspond with the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS). The proposed rule is available on the OSHA website at http://osha.gov/FedReg_osha_pdf/FED20090930.pdf.
OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA’s interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA’s website athttp://www.osha.gov.
April 30, 2010
Letter # 20060601-7121
Re: Use of portable arc welding machines in inclement weather.
Question:Is it permissible to use a portable arc welding machine in inclement weather? If so, what steps need to be taken to prevent injury?
Answer:
The OSHA standards that address the use of electrical welding equipment can be found at 29 CFR 1926.351 and 1926.354, as well as 1926.406(c). None of these standards prohibit the use of electrical (arc) welding equipment in inclement (wet) weather.
Sections 1926.351(a)-(c) detail the insulation and grounding requirements for arc welding equipment, all of which are designed to prevent employee electrocution through appropriate component capacity, equipment insulation, and grounding. Section 1926.351(d) addresses specific instructions the employer must give employees engaged in the use of electrical welding equipment, and section 1926.406(c) sets forth disconnecting means requirements for electrical welding equipment.
However, these standards do not address the possibility that current might be carried from an uncovered portable arc welder to an employee though moisture on the ground or in the air as precipitation, should the equipment covering, insulation, and grounding prove inadequate.
The General Duty Clause, also known as Section 5(a)(l) of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act, requires an employer to furnish to its 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 . . . .
The possibility of electrocution where an employee is working with or near electrical equipment that is in contact with moisture is a recognized hazard. Employers must therefore address the hazard of electrocution presented by use of electrical welding equipment in inclement weather, where the machine housing, insulation, and grounding would not prevent the transmission of electricity from the equipment to the worker through the moisture.
Employers might address this hazard by covering or enclosing the entire work area1to prevent the electrical equipment from coming in contact with the precipitation, the provision of appropriate personal protective equipment, such as rubber gloves and boots intended for this purpose, or other methods of abatement as appropriate to the particular circumstance of a given task.
If you need further clarification on this subject, please contact us by fax at: U.S. Department of Labor, Directorate of Construction, Office of Construction Standards and Guidance, fax# 202-693-1689. You can also contact us by mail at the above office, Room N3468, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210, although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail.
Sincerely,
Bill Parsons, Acting Director Directorate of Construction
1Note, however, that enclosure of a work area during welding work may subject the employee to hazardous fumes, addressed by section 1926.353 of this standard. [back to text]
We recently came across the following letter of interpretation and thought some of you might find it interesting. You can find the original posting here.
OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA’s interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA’s website at http://www.osha.gov.
April 30, 2010
Letter # 20090824-9245
Re: Interpretation of “unattended” in 29 CFR 1926.35l(d)(l) with regard to electrode holders. Question: If a welder momentarily steps six feet away from his electrode, electrode holder and cord, would the electrode and holder be considered “unattended, ” such that the electrode must be removed?
Answer:
Section 1926.351(d)(l) states:
When electrode holders are to be left unattended, the electrodes shall be removed and the holders shall be so placed or protected that they cannot make electrical contact with employees or conducting objects.
While, as you point out, there is no definition for “unattended” in 29 CFR 1926 Subpart J (Welding and Cutting), OSHA interprets that term for purposes of 1926.351(d)(l) to mean that the electrode holder is out of the welder’s immediate control.
The concern with unattended welding equipment is that a worker not knowledgeable and not authorized to use that equipment could contact, or bring a conductive object in contact with, the electrode holder. Such contact can result in flash burns, unintended arcing, and shock. Therefore, OSHA will consider an electrode holder to be in the welder’s immediate control as long as he or she is in a position to prevent an unauthorized employee from contacting the equipment. OSHA will consider a number of factors in making this determination, including the welder’s distance from the holder, the number of employees in the work area, whether the welder can see the equipment from his or her location, and relevant environmental conditions, e.g., noise levels that might make it difficult for the welder to verbally warn an approaching employee to stay away from the electrode holder. In a busy work area with many employees, the electrode holder will usually be deemed out of the welder’s immediate control as soon as the welder steps away from the equipment. On the other hand, if a welder is working alone at a bench in a tightly controlled work area, he or she could retain immediate control of the holder even if he or she steps several feet away from the equipment, as long as the equipment remains in his or her view and environmental conditions permit him or her to warn an approaching employee to avoid the holder.1
In your letter, you ask about a specific scenario in which an experienced welder steps six feet away from his electrode holder in order to pick up a slag hammer or level from his welder’s bucket. Whether the holder is “unattended” in this scenario depends on whether the welder retains immediate control of the equipment, taking into account the factors described above. If the welder is in a controlled environment, there are no other employees in the work area, and the equipment remains in his or her view at all times, he or she may step six feet away from the holder without the holder being considered unattended. However, if the welder is in an active, noisy work area surrounded by other workers and he steps six feet away from the holder, OSHA would consider the holder to be unattended and the standard would require removal of the electrode.
If you need further clarification on this subject, please contact us by fax at: 202-693-1689. U.S. Department of Labor, Directorate of Construction, Office of Construction Standards and Guidance. You can also contact us by mail at the above office, Room N3468, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210, although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail.
Sincerely,
Bill Parsons, Acting Director
Directorate of Construction
1 In other contexts, OSHA has taken the position that an operator is deemed to be attending to equipment if he or she is within twenty five (25) feet of the equipment and the equipment remains in his or her view. For example, 29 C.F.R. 1910.178(m)(5), a General Industry provision for industrial trucks, provides: “(ii) A powered industrial truck is unattended when the operator is 25 ft or more away the vehicle which remains in his view, or whenever the operator leaves the vehicle and it is not in his view.” And in a May 11, 2005 letter to Peter Kuchinsky, OSHA took the position that for purposes of 29 CFR 1926.302(e)(6) (Powder-Actuated Tools), which prohibits loaded tools from being left unattended, a “tool is considered to be attended when the . . . worker, while in view of the tool, is less than 25 feet away.” (This letter is available on OSHA’s website at http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONSp_id=25O67 ). OSHA believes that there are fundamental differences between the hazards at issue in those situations and the hazards addressed by 1926.35l(d) that justify adopting a different interpretation of “unattended” for purposes of welding equipment. The electrical hazards addressed by 1926.351(d)(l) are more immediate than the hazards associated with the unauthorized operation of powered industrial trucks or powder-actuated tools. Whereas an unauthorized employee could be injured immediately upon contact with an electrode holder, powered industrial trucks and powder-actuated tools don’t pose such immediate contact hazards; in both of those scenarios, the unauthorized employee would need to do something with or to the equipment before an injury would occur. Welders simply do not have as much time to react to prevent injury to an approaching employee. For this reason, OSHA is adopting a stricter interpretation of “unattended” in the context of 1926.35l(d). [back to text]
We recently came across the following letter of interpretation and thought some of you might find it interesting. You can find the original posting here.
This letter constitutes OSHA’s interpretation only of the requirements discussed and may not be applicable to any situation not delineated within the original correspondence.
February 16, 2010
Mr. D. Scott Hayes, M.S. Hayes Environmental Services, Inc. 3242 Executive Parkway, Suite 208 Toledo, OH 43606
Dear Mr. Hayes:
Thank you for your recent letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regarding the recordkeeping regulation contained in 29 CFR Part 1904 – Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses. In an effort to provide you with prompt and accurate responses, we developed and continue to refine a set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), in addition to maintaining a log of Letters of Interpretation (LOI) on the OSHA Recordkeeping website.
You ask for a specific interpretation of OSHA’s regulation at Section 1904.5, “Determining Work Relatedness.”
Scenario:A client’s employee working for a construction company is paid to work from 7:00 am to 12:00 pm and 12:30 pm to 5:30 pm as bound by the National Maintenance Agreement that applies to craft employees working at this work site. At 12:20 pm (while off the clock), the employee exits a restroom and falls awkwardly, causing a deep laceration which requires sutures to close.
Question:Does this case fall within the exception in Section 1904.5(b)(2)(v) for injuries and illnesses that are solely the result of employees doing personal tasks (unrelated to their employment) at the establishment outside of their assigned work hours.
Response:Under 29 CFR Subpart C, “Recordkeeping Forms and Recording Criteria,” an injury must be recorded if it is work-related, is a new case, and meets one or more of the general recording criteria (such as requiring medical treatment beyond first aid). See 29 CFR §1904.4(a). An injury is presumed to be work-related if it results from an event occurring in the work environment, unless an enumerated exception to this geographic presumption applies. See 29 CFR §1904.5(a). The work environment includes any location where one or more employees are working or are present as a condition of their employment. See 29 CFR §1904.5(b)(1). The geographic presumption (that is, an injury is work-related if it occurs in the work environment) covers cases in which an injury or illness results from activities that occur at work but that are not directly productive. See the preamble to the final rule (66Fed. Reg.5916, 5929 (Jan. 19, 2001)).
Under Section 1904.5(b)(2)(v), an injury or illness is not work-related if it is solely the result of an employee doing personal tasks (unrelated to their employment) at the establishment outside of the employee’s assigned working hours. In order for this exception to apply, the case must meet both of the stated conditions [i.e., the injury or illness must (1) be solely the result of the employee doing personal tasks (unrelated to their employment), and (2) occur outside of the employee’s assigned working hours]. For purposes of OSHA recordkeeping, “assigned working hours” means “those hours the employee is actually expected to work, including overtime.” See,OSHA’s Frequently Asked Question 5-4at http://www.osha.gov. This means that, in order for the exception in Section 1904.5(b)(2)(v) to apply, the injury or illness must occur outside the time the employee is normally expected to be present in the work environment.
Historically, OSHA has not considered the employee’s pay status at the time of the incident or the fact that he or she punches in and out with a time clock (or signing in and out) to be relevant when determining whether a case is work-related. See, OSHA’s Frequently Asked Questions 5-11, and OSHA’sMarch 10, 2005 letter of interpretation to Dr. Milagros C. Flores, Instead, the focus has been on whether the event or exposure took place when the employee was present in the work environment as a condition of employment.
In your scenario, the exception in Section 1904.5(b)(2)(v) would not apply because the injury occurred during the employee’s normal work schedule (lunch break). The exception in Section 1904.5(b)(2)(v) only applies if an injury or illness occurs when the employee is conducting personal tasks while present in the work environment at a time either (1) before the start of the normal work schedule, or (2) after the normal work schedule has ended. In other words, the exception does not apply to injuries and illnesses that occur during breaks (either formal or informal) in the employee’s normal work schedule. Therefore, the case you describe in your letter is work-related and must be recorded because it meets the general recording criteria in Section 1904.7 (the injury required sutures).
Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information helpful. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA’s interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA’s website athttp://www.osha.gov.
Sincerely,
Keith Goddard, Director Directorate of Evaluation and Analysis
We recently came across the following letter of interpretation and thought some of you might find it interesting. You can find the original posting here.
This letter constitutes OSHA’s interpretation only of the requirements discussed and may not be applicable to any situation not delineated within the original correspondence.
December 22, 2008
Mr. Michael Fox 9121 E. Tanque Verde Road; #105 Tucson, Arizona 85749
Dear Mr. Fox:
This is in response to your correspondence dated April 22, 2008 to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Your letter was forwarded to OSHA’s Directorate of Enforcement Programs for response. You are requesting clarification of OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard (HCS), 29 CFR 1910.1200. You specifically ask about the requirements of the HCS as they relate to an employer’s ability to rely on a manufacturer’s hazard determination and the subsequent reporting of those hazards on the material safety data sheet (MSDS). Your scenario and related question are paraphrased below, followed by OSHA’s response.
Scenario:An employer is using a chemical product in its facility, and a material safety data sheet for that product is present. The employer performed air monitoring and the results revealed that use of the product generated a “toxic gas.” The physical and health hazards associated with employee exposure to the toxic gas are not included on the MSDS.
Question:If an employer is using a product and discovers a health hazard during its use that is not discussed on the MSDS, can that employer ignore the existence of the unreported health hazard and proceed based solely on the hazard information presented on the MSDS (provided by the manufacturer of the product)?
Response:The HCS requires a chemical manufacturer/importer or employer to conduct a hazard determination for each hazardous chemical they produce or import. The results of the hazard determination are then reported by the manufacturer on an MSDS for that product. The manufacturer must develop an MSDS that reflects all of the physical and health hazards associated with the chemical which may occur under normal conditions of use as well as those hazards that may exist during foreseeable emergencies. Under OSHA’s HCS, an employer using the chemical (if that employer is different from the manufacturer who performed the hazard determination) is not responsible for making corrections to a deficient or inadequate MSDS.
A manufacturer is only obligated to report on an MSDS those hazards associated with its chemical under normal conditions and those that may occur during a foreseeable emergency. If the product is being used in a manner not intended by the manufacturer, then the manufacturer would not be expected to have any knowledge about this “toxic gas” and would, therefore, not be required under the HCS to include such information on the MSDS.
The HCS allows a downstream employer to rely on the results of the hazard determination performed by the manufacturer or importer which are reported on the MSDS for that chemical (or chemical product). In your scenario, an employer who uses a chemical performs air monitoring and discovers that his employees are exposed to a “toxic gas” whose hazards are not reported on the MSDS. Under these circumstances, the downstream employer may not ignore the newly discovered exposure hazards associated with use of the chemical product.
An employer may contact the product manufacturer directly to notify them of the possibility of the presence of hazards associated with the use of their chemical that are not accurately reflected on the MSDS. A chemical manufacturer that becomes newly aware of significant information regarding the hazards of a chemical has a duty to update its MSDS (29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(5)). Additionally, OSHA has policies and procedures for the field staff to address MSDSs that are deemed to be deficient. For example, an employer may contact the closest OSHA enforcement office and bring the alleged deficiency to their attention. OSHA Instruction 02-00-038, “Inspection Procedures for the Hazard Communication Standard” outlines the procedures to be used by an OSHA office when they are made aware of an MSDS that is believed to be deficient.
Additionally, if an employer has sufficient information about a potential health hazard for which no information is provided on the MSDS, it must provide employees with additional information and training regarding those new hazards. Based on the performance oriented nature of the HCS, if employers have this information, they must provide it to their employees, including information related to how employees can recognize exposures and measures to protect themselves against the workplace hazards. 29 CFR 1910.1200(h).
Lastly, OSHA’s standard for General Requirements for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), 29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1), requires employers to, “. . .assess the workplace to determine if hazards are present, or are likely to be present, which necessitate the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). . .” If the employer’s hazard determination results in findings that PPE would protect employees from hazards present in the workplace, then this equipment must be provided by the employer.
As you may be aware, the Arizona Division of Occupational Safety and Health (ADOSH) administers an OSHA-approved state occupational safety and health program for both private and public sector employers and employees in Arizona. State plans are required to implement regulations that are “at least as effective” as the federal standards. For specific Arizona OSHA requirements, we recommend that you contact the Arizona Division of Occupational Safety and Health:
Arizona Division of Occupational Safety and Health 2675 E. Broadway Blvd. #239 Tucson, AZ 85716 Phone: (520) 628-5478
Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information helpful. OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards, and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA’s interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult the website.
Sincerely,
Richard E. Fairfax, Director Directorate of Enforcement Programs
We recently came across the following letter of interpretation and thought some of you might find it interesting. You can find the original posting here.
OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA’s interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA’s website athttp://www.osha.gov.
Letter # 20051207-6795
Re: Whether a multiple lift of pre-cast concrete members is permissible
Question:Is 1926.753(e) of the steel erection standard applicable to hoisting pre-cast concrete members? Do OSHA construction standards permit multiple rigging lifts of pre-cast concrete members?
Answer:We understand your reference to “multiple rigging lifts” as a procedure in which several members are hoisted simultaneously on a single load line by a series of sequential attachment points (see illustrations of two different types of such lifts below):
29 CFR 1926.753(e),Multiple Lift Rigging Procedure, is in 1926 Subpart R,Steel Erection. As we noted in our August 23, 2005 letter to Mr. Leadbetter, the steel erection standard does not apply to the erection of pre-cast concrete members.1Instead, 1926 Subpart Q, Concrete and Masonry Construction, applies to an employer engaged in pre-cast erection work. The cranes and derricks requirements in 1926 Subpart N also apply to hoisting precast concrete members.
Multiple lift rigging is, in effect, prohibited for activities other than steel erection by 29 CFR 1926.550(a)(19), which states:
All employees shall be kept clear of loads about to be lifted and of suspended loads.
During the multiple lift (or “christmas treeing”) procedure, the hoisted members need to be attached to the rigging assembly beginning with the topmost attachment. That means that employees have to be under the already attached members while continuing the attachment process. Also, the hoisted members are detached from the assembly beginning with the bottom member, so employees are under the remaining members during the unhooking phase of the operation (see the description of this process in steel erection in Volume 66 of theFederal Registerat page 5212, January 18, 2001). Consequently, the application of this procedure to pre-cast concrete erection during the initial rigging of the members onto the hoist line would violate 1926.550(a)(19).
In addition, a provision that applies specifically to concrete and masonry work is 29 CFR 1926.704(e), which states:
No employee shall be permitted under precast concrete members being lifted or tilted into position except those employees required for the erection of those members.
Since the pre-cast members can be lifted individually, rather than as part of a multiple lift rigging procedure, there is no need for employees engaged in rigging the members onto the hoist line to be under a load. Similarly, when placing a member individually, once the member nears its placement point, employees engaged in the erection process are typically no longer under the load. However, if a multiple lift rigging procedure is used, they would remain under the other members on the load line at that point. Therefore, using a multiple lift rigging procedure would violate 1926.704(e).
We note that the Steel Erection Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee (SENRAC) developed the procedure in Subpart R specifically for steel erection.2There has been no comparable OSHA rulemaking addressing multiple lift rigging for pre-cast concrete members.
If you need additional information, please contact us by fax at: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Directorate of Construction, Office of Construction Standards and Guidance, fax # 202-693-1689. You can also contact us by mail at the above office, Room N3468, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210, although there will be a delay in our receiving correspondence by mail.
Sincerely,
Richard E. Fairfax, Acting Director Directorate of Construction
2For example, SENRAC believed that the typical steel member in a multiple lift would weigh no more than 1800 pounds (see Volume 66 of theFederal Registerat page 5211), which is considerably less than a typical pre-cast concrete member[ back to text ]
We recently came across the following letter of interpretation and thought some of you might find it interesting. You can find the original posting here.
OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA’s interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA’s website athttp://www.osha.gov.
January 14, 2009
Letter # 20070823-7896
Re: Whether a manufacturer-stipulated minimum anchor point elevation of 18½ feet precludes the use of a shock absorbing lanyard in an aerial lift. 29 CFR 1926.453(a)(1)(v); 29 CFR 1926.453(b)(2)(v); 29 CFR 1926.500(b); 29 CFR 1926.502(d); 29 CFR 1926.502(d)(15); 29 CFR 1926.502(d)(16)(iii)
Question (1):Section 1926.453(b)(2)(v) requires employees to tie off to the boom or the basket when working from an aerial lift. In addition, §1926.502(d)(16)(iii) provides that a personal fall arrest system shall be rigged such that an employee can neither free fall more than six (6) feet, nor contact any lower level. The manufacturer of a particular shock absorbing lanyard sets a minimum anchor point elevation for the lanyard of 18½ feet to prevent contact with a lower level in the event of a fall. My concern centers around the fact that, when raising an employee from a work surface, or upon returning an employee to a work surface, the employee at times will be at elevations that are less than 18½ feet.
Since at times the distance between a lift’s work platform and a lower level will be less than 18½ feet, does the manufacturer’s instruction regarding the minimum anchor point elevation preclude its use as part of a fall protection system in an aerial lift?
Answer (1):Fall protection during construction work in aerial lifts is required by 29 CFR §1926.453(b)(2)(v), which is located in Subpart L of OSHA’s construction standards; it provides:
(v) A body belt [or body harness] shall be worn and a lanyard attached to the boom or basket when working from an aerial lift.1
The other standard to which you refer, 29 CFR §1926.502(d), is in 1926 Subpart M; it provides:
(16) Personal fall arrest systems, when stopping a fall, shall: (iii) be rigged such that an employee can neither free fall more than 6 feet (1.8 m),nor contact any lower level; … [Emphasis added]
Section 1926.502(d)(16)(iii) is made applicable to the use of personal fall arrest systems2in aerial lifts by 29 CFR §1926.500(a)(3)(i).3
As noted above, section 1926.502(d)(16)(iii) requires a personal fall arrest system to prevent the employee from contacting a lower level. The lanyard you describe would not meet that criterion when the aerial lift’s work platform is at heights less than 18½ feet. Even if the working level of the aerial lift will ultimately be higher than 18½ feet, §1926.453(b)(2)(v) requires fall protection for employees in aerial lifts at lesser heights as well.4Since the fall protection system you describe would not meet the requirements of §1926.502(d)(16)(iii) under these conditions, it would be prohibited.
Question (2):Would the use of a retractable lanyard as part of a personal fall arrest system provide adequate fall protection to an employee working in an aerial lift, under 29 CFR 1926 Subpart M?
Answer (2):Section 1926.500(b) of Subpart M provides the following definition of a self-retracting lanyard:
Self-retracting lifeline/lanyardmeans 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.
There are a variety of self-retracting lanyards available for fall protection. Some provide an operating range of over 100 feet with a capability of limiting a free fall distance to less than 2 feet.
Section 1926.502(d)(16)(iii) requires that a personal fall arrest system be rigged such that an individual can neither free fall more than 6 feet, nor contact any lower level in the even of a fall (seeQuestion (1)). This requirement applies irrespective of the type of lanyard used (i.e., self-retracting or other type).
Without more specific information, we can only address your question in general terms. So, for example, if the lanyard were rigged so that the free fall distance of the employee in the aerial lift was limited to 2 feet, the system would meet the requirements in §1926.502(d)(16)(iii). However, an additional factor must be considered – the vertical and lateral loads that may be placed on an aerial lift in the event of an arrested fall. Under §1926.453(b)(2)(v) (quoted above), personal fall arrest systems in aerial lifts must be anchored to the lift’s boom or basket. Section 1926.502(d)(15) sets load requirements for anchorages in a fall arrest system:
Anchorages used for attachment of personal fall arrest equipment shall be… 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;
* * *
The length of the free fall permitted by a self-retracting lanyard may affect whether or not a personal fall arrest system complies with §1926.502(d)(15). The longer the fall, the greater the impact forces imparted to the system. Thus, the more free-fall allowed by the self-retracting lanyard, the greater the load imposed upon the aerial lift. Some aerial lifts may lack the capacity to withstand the vertical and lateral loads caused by an arrested fall. Therefore, the length of free fall permitted by the self-retracting lanyard must be such that the aerial lift is capable of maintaining a safety factor of at least two when it arrests a fall.
A restraint system may be used instead of a personal fall arrest system if a self-retracting lanyard cannot be rigged to satisfy §1926.502(d)(15). A restraint system is a system that prevents an employee from falling any distance from a work surface. The note to §1926.453(b)(2)(v) indicates a body belt or body harness may be used as part of a restraint system. However, the system must be rigged to prevent the employee from falling.
Noah Connell, Acting Director Directorate of Construction
1As of January 1, 1998, 29 CFR §1926.502(d) prohibits the use of a body belt as part of a personal fall arrest system and requires the use of a body harness instead. A body belt may still be used as part of a restraint system[ back to text ]
2“Personal fall arrest system” is defined at §1926.500(b):
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….[ back to text ]
3Section 1926.500(a)(3)(i) states:
(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.[ back to text ]
4Employees are “working” in the aerial lift within the meaning of §1926.453(b)(2)(v) while it is being raised and lowered. SeeSalah & Pecci Construction Co., Inc., 78 OSHARC 50/A13, 6 BNA OSHC 1688, 1978 CCH OSHD para. 22,807 (No. 15769, 1978).[ back to text ]
Scenario: You are the safety manager of a construction company. Your employer has purchased a Walk-Through Railing System to attach to the ends of your portable extension ladders. The device is designed to allow a person to walk through the top of a ladder onto a rooftop or landing instead of having to step around the ladder. The Walk-Through consists of two components that attach over the top of each side rail of the ladder. In using these extensions, your employees are no longer extending the ladder three feet above the landing they are getting on to. 
The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration announced in December a new directive withdrawing a former one that allowed residential builders to bypass some fall protection requirements. The directive being replaced, issued in 1995, initially was intended as a temporary policy and was the result of concerns about the feasibility of fall protection in residential building construction. However, there continues to be a high number of fall-related deaths in construction, and industry and OSHA feels that feasibility is no longer an issue or concern.
