Fall protection compliance is not always the easiest thing to achieve, and OSHA’s “Plain Language Revisions” don’t always seem to be so plain.

Often an extreme focus by a company can be placed on how to meet regulations while the point of keeping the workplace safe becomes lost.

The Plain Language Revision of OSHA’s “Interim Fall Protection Compliance Guidelines for Residential Construction” (Directive STD 03-00-001) was developed to establish an interim enforcement policy on fall protection for certain residential construction activities. It is critical that the residential contractor understand the alternative procedures presented within the Directive.

If the contractor is not implementing the alternative procedures while performing construction activities, then the contractor must follow the fall protection requirements of 29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13).

The conventional fall protection requirements for residential construction are stated in 29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13) Subpart M. Residential construction employees are required to be protected when they are exposed to falls from unprotected sides and edges on walking/working surfaces that are 6 feet or more above lower levels.

The standard options from which an employer can choose to provide this protection are (1) guardrail systems, (2) safety net systems and/or (3) personal fall arrest systems. OSHA recognizes these three types of systems as “conventional fall protection systems.” In addition to these three systems, OSHA also talks about other fall protection systems or abatement options such as scaffolding, aerial lifts and manhole covers.

The OSHA Directive STD 03-00-001 modifies the conventional fall protection requirements for certain “groups” or types of residential construction activities. OSHA refers to these fall protection system modifications as “alternative procedures.”

Passive and Active Fall Protection

The three “conventional fall protection systems” and the other fall protection systems are considered by OSHA to provide an equivalent level of worker protection. However, the three different types of conventional fall protection systems and the other abatement options produce different forces on the worker’s body depending upon the impact forces produced during use. Therefore, the fall protection systems fall into two categories: (1) passive and (2) active.

Passive control systems, also referred to as “engineer control methods,” are fall protection systems that actually prevent a free fall, thus limiting the potential forces applied against a worker. Examples include the guardrail system and the manhole cover. With passive control systems, a worker may not even be aware that a potential fall hazard exists.

Active systems require the worker to actually start free falling before a fall protection system is engaged; thus, meaning it must resist a worker’s dynamic forces as it stops the worker’s free fall. Safety net systems and personal fall protection equipment are examples of active systems. Even if using an active system that is within OSHA’s requirements, workers still have the potential of becoming seriously injured because they are not prevented or protected from free falling.

Alternative Procedures Returning to our alternative guidance, the residential construction activities for Group 1 include installing floor joists, floor sheathing, roof sheathing, erecting exterior walls, setting and bracing roof trusses and rafters. The height limitation is based on the final design or the completed structure. The limitation is either a 31⁄2-story building (including basement, two finished levels and attic) or the structure height of 48 feet (including basement to the greatest height of the structure).

Technologically Infeasible Defense

STD 03-00-001 contains specific wording that states a contractor is not required to have written documentation explaining the reasons why it would be infeasible to implement and use the “conventional fall protection systems” or the other abatement options. However, the contractor is required to study, examine and properly determine if the fall protection systems can, in fact, be implemented and used. This is typically performed by an employer’s qualified person.

Normally, either the competent person or the qualified person is a structural engineer with extensive safety knowledge, training and experience. This person should successfully demonstrate the ability to resolve problems relating to both the conventional fall protection system methodology as well as the other fall protection systems and can apply the knowledge, training and experience into the project (1926.32).

Prior to deciding to use the OSHA alternative procedures, the contractor must possess the working knowledge of why it is infeasible or technologically impossible to perform the required construction tasks using the “conventional fall protection systems.” In other words, it must be shown how the conventional methods make the tasks functionally unworkable or how those methods affect the adequate performance of the required work.

The contactor must be able to satisfy the OSHA definition of “infeasible.” The contractor must also understand that the OSHA compliance office will most likely require the contractor to verbally state the worksite-specific circumstances that preclude reliance on the “conventional fall protection systems” or the other abatement options of 1926.501(b)(13).

The Greater Hazard Defense
The contractor is required to study, examine and adequately determine if the “conventional fall protection systems” or the other abatement options would, in fact, “create a greater hazard” for its employees when in compliance with 1926.501(b)(13). The residential contractor and its employees attempting to establish a “greater hazard” defense will most likely be required by OSHA to verbally state the worksite specific circumstances that preclude reliance on conventional fall protection.

Economically Infeasible Defense
The contractor must be aware that the infeasible defense is not based on how much money it will cost to implement and use OSHA’s “conventional fall protection systems” or the other abatement options of 1926.501(b)(13). The preamble of 29 CFR 1926 Subpart M clearly states OSHA does not consider “economic infeasibility” to be a basis for failing to provide “conventional fall protection systems” or the other abatement options for its employees performing residential construction work. OSHA has consistently maintained the construction industry can either absorb the costs of compliance or pass those costs along to its customers.

If the residential contractor can demonstrate that it is infeasible or would create a greater hazard to use any of the “conventional fall protection systems” or the other abatement options, then the employer must develop and implement a fall protection plan that meets the requirements of 1926.502(k). The fall protection plan requires, among other criteria and conditions for use, that the employer designate all areas where conventional fall protection systems cannot be used as controlled access zones. The contractor must also implement a safety monitoring system in those zones if no other alternative measure has been implemented. FSM Michael C. Wright, PE, CSP, CPE, is president of Safety through Engineering, Inc., an integrator of engineering and safety. He is actively involved on ANSI and ASTM committees, and can be reached at: mikewright@ste4u.com.