[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 14, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38078-38086]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-17663]


      

[[Page 38077]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Department of Labor





_______________________________________________________________________



Occupational Safety and Health Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



29 CFR Part 1926



Safety Standards for Fall Protection in the Construction Industry; 
Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 14, 1999 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 38078]]


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

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