occupational safety and health administration - the construction … · 1996. 8. 30. · 46026...

fede

ral r

egiste

r

46025

FridayAugust 30, 1996

Part II

Department of LaborOccupational Safety and HealthAdministration

29 CFR Part 1926Safety Standards for Scaffolds Used inthe Construction Industry; Final Rule

46026 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 170 / Friday, August 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration

29 CFR Part 1926

[Docket No. S–205]

RIN 1218–AA40

Safety Standards for Scaffolds Used inthe Construction Industry

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, U.S. Department ofLabor.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety andHealth Administration (OSHA) herebyrevises the construction industry safetystandards which regulate the design,construction, and use of scaffolds. Thefinal rule updates the existing scaffoldstandards and sets performance-orientedcriteria, where possible, to protectemployees from scaffold-related hazardssuch as falls, falling objects, structuralinstability, electrocution andoverloading.

In particular, the final rule has beenupdated to address types of scaffolds—such as catenary scaffolds, step andtrestle ladder scaffolds, and multi-levelsuspended scaffolds—not covered byOSHA’s existing scaffold standards. Inaddition, the final rule allowsemployers greater flexibility in the useof fall protection systems to protectemployees working on scaffolds andextends fall protection to erectors anddismantlers of scaffolds to the extentfeasible. Another area that the final rulestrengthens is training for workers usingscaffolds; the conditions under whichsuch employees must be retrained arealso specified in the final rule. Finally,the language of the rule has beensimplified, duplicative and outdatedprovisions have been eliminated,overlapping requirements have beenconsolidated, and the performanceorientation of the rule has beenenhanced to allow employers as muchflexibility in compliance as is consistentwith employee protection.DATES: Effective dates. This standardwill become effective on November 29,1996, except for § 1926.453(a)(2), whichwill not become effective until an Officeof Management and Budget (OMB)Control number is received anddisplayed for this ‘‘collection ofinformation’’ in accordance with thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). OSHA will publisha document in the Federal Registerannouncing the effective date of§ 1926.453(a)(2).

Incorporation by reference. Theincorporations by reference of certainpublications listed in this final rule areapproved by the Director of the FederalRegister as of November 29, 1996.

Compliance date: Employers arerequired to comply with the provisionsof paragraphs (e)(9) and (g)(2) of§ 1926.451, which address safe accessand fall protection, respectively, foremployees erecting and dismantlingsupported scaffolds starting onSeptember 2, 1997.

Comments. Written comments on thepaperwork requirements of this finalrule must be submitted on or beforeOctober 29, 1996.ADDRESSES: In compliance with 28U.S.C. 2112(a), the Agency designatesfor receipt of petitions for review of thestandard, the Associate Solicitor forOccupational Safety and Health, Officeof the Solicitor, Room S–4004, U.S.Department of Labor, 200 ConstitutionAvenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210.

Suggestions and informationregarding the drafting of non-mandatoryAppendix B, ‘‘Criteria for Determiningthe Feasibility of Providing FallProtection and Safe Access for WorkersErecting or Dismantling SupportedScaffolds’’ should be submitted to theDocket Officer, Docket S–205, U.S.Department of Labor, Room N–2625,200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,Washington, D.C. 20210.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.Anne C. Cyr, Occupational Safety andHealth Administration, Office ofInformation and Public Affairs, RoomN–3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200Constitution Avenue, N.W.,Washington, D.C. 20210, Telephone:(202) 219–8148.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Congress amended the Contract WorkHours Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 327 etseq.) in 1969 by adding a new section107 (40 U.S.C. 333) to provideemployees in the construction industrywith a safer work environment and toreduce the frequency and severity ofconstruction accidents and injuries. Theamendment, commonly known as theConstruction Safety Act (CSA),significantly strengthened employeeprotection by authorizing thepromulgation of construction safety andhealth standards for employees of thebuilding trades and constructionindustry working on federal andfederally-financed or federally-assistedconstruction projects. Accordingly, theSecretary of Labor issued Safety andHealth Regulations for Construction in

29 CFR part 1518 (36 FR 7340, April 17,1971).

The Occupational Safety and HealthAct of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C.651 et seq.) authorized the Secretary ofLabor to adopt established federalstandards issued under other statutes,including the CSA, as occupationalsafety and health standards.Accordingly, the Secretary of Laboradopted the Construction Standards,which had been issued under the CSA,as OSHA standards (36 FR 10466, May29, 1971). The Safety and HealthRegulations for Construction weresubsequently redesignated as 29 CFRpart 1926 (36 FR 25232, December 30,1971). Standards addressing scaffolds,§§ 1926.451 and 1926.452, were adoptedin subpart L of part 1926 as OSHAstandards as part of this process.

Various amendments were made tosubpart L during the first two years ofthe OSH Act. The amendments revisedscaffold provisions that addressedplanking grades, wood pole scaffoldconstruction, overhead protection,bracket scaffold loading, and plankspans. Also, substantive provisionsconcerning pump jack scaffolds, heightof catch platforms, and guardrails wereadded (37 FR 25712, December 2, 1972).

Based on concerns regarding theeffectiveness of the existing scaffoldstandards, OSHA began a completereview of subpart L in 1977. The Agencyconsulted the Advisory Committee onConstruction Safety and Health(ACCSH) several times regarding draftrevisions to subpart L. The transcripts ofthese meetings are part of the publicrecord for this rulemaking (Ex. 3–4).OSHA addresses specificrecommendations from the ACCSH, aswell as those submitted by otherrulemaking participants, in theSummary and Explanation section,below.

On November 25, 1986, OSHA issueda notice of proposed rulemaking(NPRM) on scaffolds used inconstruction (51 FR 42680). Theproposal set a period, ending February23, 1987, during which interestedparties could submit written commentsor request a hearing. The Agency twicegranted requests for more time to submitcomments and hearing requests. OSHAfirst extended the comment and hearingrequest period to June 1, 1987 (52 FR5790, February 26, 1987) and thenextended that period to August 14, 1987(52 FR 20616, June 2, 1987). OSHAreceived 602 comments on the proposal,along with several hearing requests.

On January 26, 1988, OSHAannounced that it would convene aninformal public hearing on March 22,1988 to elicit additional information on

46027Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 170 / Friday, August 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

specific issues related to scaffolds, fallprotection and stairways and ladders(53 FR 2048). The informal publichearing was held on March 22–23, 1988,with Administrative Law Judge JoelWilliams presiding. At the close of thehearing, Judge Williams set a period,ending May 9, 1988, for the submissionof additional comments andinformation. OSHA received 31submissions, including testimony anddocumentary evidence, in response tothe hearing notice. On August 11, 1988,Judge Williams certified the rulemakingrecord, including the hearing transcriptand all written submissions to thedocket, thereby closing the record forthis proceeding.

In 1988, the American NationalStandards Institute (ANSI), anorganization which sets voluntaryconsensus standards, approved arevision of ANSI A10.8–1977,Scaffolding, updating its safetyrequirements for the use of scaffolds inconstruction and demolition operations.Section 6(b)(8) of the OSH Act requiresthat when an OSHA standard differssubstantially from an existing nationalconsensus standard, the Secretary mustpublish ‘‘a statement of the reasons whythe rule as adopted will better effectuatethe purposes of the Act than thenational consensus standard.’’ Incompliance with that requirement,OSHA has reviewed the requirements ofthis final rule with reference to thecorresponding provisions of ANSIA10.8–1988. The Agency discusses therelationship between the provisions ofsubpart L and corresponding provisionsof ANSI A10.8–1988 in the Summaryand Explanation, below.

On March 29, 1993, OSHA reopenedthe rulemaking record for subpart L (58FR 16509) to obtain additionalcomments and information regardingfall protection and safe means of accessfor employees erecting and dismantlingscaffolds; the use of crossbraces inscaffold systems; and the use of repairbracket scaffolds. The comment periodwas scheduled to end on May 28, 1993.On May 26, 1993, the Agency extendedthe comment period (58 FR 30131) toJune 29, 1993, in response to a requestfor additional time to submit comments.OSHA received 46 comments inresponse to the March 29 notice. Thosecomments are discussed below inrelation to the pertinent provisions ofthe final rule.

On February 1, 1994, OSHA againreopened the rulemaking record (59 FR4615) to obtain comments andinformation regarding scaffoldstairways; repair bracket scaffolds; tankbuilder scaffolds; a NIOSH study ofworkplace fatalities; and scaffold-related

material incorporated from the proposedpart 1910, subpart D rulemaking. Thecomment period, which ended onMarch 18, 1994, elicited 46 comments.Those comments are also discussedbelow in relation to the pertinentprovisions of the final rule.

A wide range of employers,businesses, labor unions, tradeassociations, state governments, andother interested parties contributed tothe development of this record. OSHAappreciates these efforts to help developa rulemaking record that provides asound basis for the promulgation ofrevised subpart L.

Based on its review of existingsubpart L, OSHA believes that certainprovisions in the existing standards areoutdated, redundant, or ambiguous. Inaddition, some types of scaffolds usedin construction (e.g., catenary scaffolds)are not clearly addressed by the existingstandards, and some provisions coveronly certain types of scaffolds whenthey should apply to all. The final ruleeliminates those unnecessary, outdatedand redundant provisions (e.g., revisedsubpart L states the requirement forguardrails once, rather than 19 separatetimes as in the existing standard).

OSHA is coordinating the revision ofpart 1926, subpart L, with the ongoingrulemakings initiated to revise theGeneral Industry (part 1910, subpart D)and Shipyard (part 1915, subpart N)scaffold standards, so that thosestandards will be consistent, whereappropriate.

II. Hazards InvolvedScaffold-related incidents resulting in

injuries and fatalities continue to occurdespite the fact that OSHA has had ascaffold standard (existing subpart L) inplace since 1971 (Exs. 1, 2, 3, 42, 43, 44and 45). However, the Agency believesthat compliance with the standard beingpublished today will be better than ithas been in the past because thisstandard has been simplified, broughtup to date, and strengthened to provideadditional protection.

Although specific accident ratioscannot be projected for the estimated 3.6million construction workers currentlycovered by subpart L, the EconomicAnalysis that accompanies this finalrule estimates that, of the 510,500injuries and illnesses that occur in theconstruction industry annually, 9,750are related to scaffolds. In addition, ofthe estimated 924 occupational fatalitiesoccurring annually, at least 79 areassociated with work on scaffolds.

OSHA prepared the followingstatistical estimates (based on 4.5million construction workers thencovered by subpart L) to support the

1986 proposal for subpart L, based on areview of accident data prepared by theBureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) (Ex. 3–1). The revised scaffold standardscontain a number of provisionsdesigned specifically to address thefindings of this analysis.

a. Seventy-two percent of the workersinjured in scaffold accidents covered bythe BLS study attributed the accidenteither to the planking or support givingway, or to the employee slipping, orbeing struck by a falling object. Plankslippage was the most commonly citedcause.

b. About 70 percent of the workerslearned of the safety requirements forinstalling work platforms, assemblingscaffolds, and inspecting scaffoldsthrough on-the-job training.Approximately 25 percent had notraining in these areas.

c. Only 33 percent of scaffolds wereequipped with a guardrail.

The following are recent examples,from the OSHA Integrated ManagementInformation System (IMIS) data, of thetypes of accidents that continue toinjure and kill employees working onscaffolds.

• In July, 1991, two employees wereworking on a pump jack scaffold doingroofing work. The scaffold becameoverloaded and broke. The employeesfell 12 feet to the ground, resulting inone fatality and one serious injury.

• In August, 1992, two workers wereerecting an aluminum pump jackscaffold. As they were raising thesecond aluminum pole, the poleapparently contacted an overheadpower line. The pole being raised was29 feet 10 inches long and the line was28 feet 10 inches high. The line wasapproximately 11 feet from the house.One employee died and the othersuffered severe burns and washospitalized. The surviving employeenoted that he thought they had enoughroom to work around the power lines,which were not de-energized orshielded.

• In July, 1993, a foreman climbed upthe frame of a 45 foot high tubularwelded frame scaffold to check on anemployee who was sandblasting insidea stack at a steam plant. The scaffoldwas not equipped with guardrails andthere was no access ladder. After talkingto the employee, the foreman either fellfrom the unguarded platform or fellwhile climbing down the scaffold endframe, resulting in his death. There wereno witnesses to the fall.

Based on its analysis of the availabledata and its field experience inenforcing construction standards, theAgency has determined that employeesusing scaffolds are exposed to a


significant risk of harm. Specifically,scaffold related fatalities still accountfor approximately 9% of all fatalities inthe construction workplace. In addition,the above data indicate that the revisedfinal standard would have preventedmany of these accidents more effectivelythan compliance with the existingscaffold standards. Consequently, OSHAfinds that the revision of its scaffoldstandards for construction is necessaryto improve employee protection. OSHAhas determined that, as revised, thestandard clearly states employers’ dutiesand the appropriate compliancemeasures.

For additional discussion of incidencerates, significance of risk, and theprotectiveness of the final rule, seeSection IV, Summary of the FinalEconomic Analysis.

III. Summary and Explanation of theFinal Rule

The following discussion explainshow the final rule corresponds to ordiffers from the proposed scaffoldstandard and the existing standard, andhow the comments and testimonypresented on each provision influencedthe drafting of the final rule. Exceptwhere otherwise indicated, proposedprovisions which did not elicitcomment have been promulgated asproposed, for reasons stated in thepreamble to the proposed rule which ishereby incorporated by reference (51 FR42680).

Subpart L—Scaffolds. The title ofsubpart L of OSHA’s Constructionstandards has been changed from‘‘Scaffolding’’ to ‘‘Scaffolds’’, asproposed. The word ‘‘scaffold’’ is usedin the title and throughout the final rulein lieu of the longer word ‘‘scaffolding.’’This change does not affect the scope ofsubpart L. OSHA did not receive anycomments concerning the title of thesubpart.

Section 1926.450 Scope, applicationand definitions applicable to thissubpart. Paragraph (a) of § 1926.450states the scope and application ofsubpart L. The final rule will apply toall scaffolds used in construction,alteration, repair (including paintingand decorating), and demolitionoperations covered under 29 CFR part1926, except that crane or derricksuspended personnel platforms willcontinue to be regulated under§ 1926.550(g). Language explicitlyexcluding these platforms has beenadded to the final rule. The relationshipbetween § 1926.550(g), which coversthese platforms, and subpart L isdiscussed further in relation to§ 1926.451(c)(2) and NPRM Issue 3,below. In addition, aerial lifts are

covered exclusively in § 1926.453, asnoted in paragraph (a) of § 1926.450.Proposed paragraph (a) covered allscaffolds.

A commenter (Ex. 2–38)recommended that OSHA explicitlyexempt personnel platforms suspendedby cranes or derricks from this finalrule. The commenter stated ‘‘[t]hiswould avoid confusion, both for theCompliance Officer and the employer.’’As noted above, the Agency recognizesthe need for an exemption and hasrevised paragraph (a) accordingly.

Another commenter (Ex. 2–18),representing the elevator industry,suggested that OSHA revise the scope ofproposed subpart L to exclude ‘‘Falsecars used in elevator construction thatare equipped with independent safetiesthat operate on the guardrails * * *’’The commenter supported thesuggestion as follows: ‘‘An elevator falsecar operates on fixed guiderails * * *equipped with safeties that ride on theguiderails * * * and are operatedautomatically by the slackening of thehoisting rope. Past OSHRC(Occupational Safety and Health ReviewCommission) decisions have recognizedthat a false car is a unique tool and isnot a scaffold.’’ The commenter did notcite any specific OSHRC decisions tosupport its assertion.

OSHA disagrees with this commenteron this point, because the findings intwo enforcement cases involving theOtis Elevator Company (12 OSHRC 1470and 12 OSHRC 1513 (1985)) clearlyindicate that the scaffold standards ofsubpart L cover false cars. In OtisElevator Company, 12 OSHRC 1513(1985), the final order stated:

The evidence in this case showed that thefalse cars were used as elevated workingspace from which employees installedpermanent elevator rails. The ability to raiseand lower the false cars by means of cablesfrom overhead supports does not removefalse cars from the applicability of thescaffold standard, and a false car is found tobe a scaffold within the meaning of 29 CFR1926.452(b)(27).

The Agency notes that elevator falsecars fit the definition of a ‘‘scaffold’’ infinal rule § 1926.450(b) in that they aretemporary elevated work platforms usedfor supporting employees. Accordingly,there are no apparent grounds fordisputing that elevator false cars areproperly regulated under part 1926,subpart L. Therefore, OSHA willcontinue to regulate temporary elevatedwork platforms, such as false cars andgo-devils used in elevator shaftconstruction, as scaffolds.

The Scaffolding, Shoring and FormingInstitute (SSFI) (Ex. 2–367)recommended that OSHA include

‘‘Window cleaning’’ within the scope ofsubpart L, because ‘‘[w]indow cleaningis a common activity that, for theoverwhelming majority of instances,uses transportable suspendedscaffolds.’’ In addition, the ScaffoldIndustry Association (SIA) (Ex. 2–368)suggested that OSHA add ‘‘scheduledand unscheduled maintenance(including but not limited to paintingand decorating, tuck pointing, sandblasting, water proofing and windowcleaning)’’ to the scope of subpart L,because maintenance is a type of work‘‘regularly performed on scaffoldsaddressed in this subpart and, therefore,should be included in the scope.’’

Another commenter (Ex. 2–462) statedthat expanding the scope of subpart L toinclude maintenance would createconfusion and ‘‘would greatly reducethe safety standard already in place forPowered platforms for exterior buildingmaintenance’’ (29 CFR 1910.66).

The Agency is not expanding thescope to include building maintenancebecause building maintenance (such aswindow cleaning) is a general industryactivity, addressed under theappropriate scaffold and poweredplatform standards of 29 CFR part 1910.

OSHA received a general comment(Ex. 2–29) which noted that § 1910.66addressed powered platforms used forexterior building maintenance ingeneral industry and urged OSHA toensure that the corresponding regulatorylanguage in the construction standardfor scaffolds was consistent. Asdiscussed above, the Agency agrees, andis coordinating its General Industry,Shipyard and Construction rulemakingactivity so that employers in thoseindustries have consistent regulation, tothe extent that workplace conditionspermit.

Paragraph (b) of § 1926.450 lists anddefines all major terms used in subpartL. Proposed terms and definitionswhich elicited no comments and whichhave been promulgated unchanged orwith only minor editorial revisions arenot addressed below. Those termsinclude ‘‘adjustable suspensionscaffold’’, ‘‘boatswains’ chair’’, ‘‘bodybelt’’, ‘‘body harness’’, ‘‘ brace’’, ‘‘cleat’’,‘‘coupler’’, ‘‘crawling board’’, ‘‘doublepole scaffold’’, ‘‘exposed power lines’’,‘‘fabricated decking and planking’’,‘‘float (ship) scaffold’’, ‘‘form scaffold’’,‘‘hoist’’, ‘‘interior hung scaffold’’,‘‘ladder stand’’, ‘‘lean-to scaffold’’,‘‘lower level’’, ‘‘mobile scaffold’’,‘‘multi-level suspension scaffold’’,‘‘multi-point adjustable scaffold’’, ‘‘opensides and edges’’, ‘‘overhandbricklaying’’, ‘‘platform’’, ‘‘polescaffold’’, ‘‘pump jack scaffolds’’, ‘‘roofbracket scaffold’’, ‘‘runner’’, ‘‘self-


contained adjustable scaffold’’, ‘‘shorescaffold’’, ‘‘single-point adjustablesuspension scaffold’’, ‘‘single polescaffold’’, ‘‘step platform and trestleladder scaffold’’, ‘‘stone setter multi-point adjustable suspension scaffold’’,‘‘supported scaffold’’, ‘‘suspensionscaffold’’, ‘‘tube and coupler scaffolds’’,‘‘tubular welded frame scaffold’’, ‘‘two-point suspension scaffold’’, ‘‘unstableobjects’’, ‘‘vertical pickup’’, ‘‘walkway’’,and ‘‘window jack scaffold’’.

As proposed, OSHA is revising itsdefinitions for particular types ofscaffolds by specifying whether aparticular type of scaffold is a‘‘supported’’ or a ‘‘suspension scaffold.’’OSHA believes that adding thisinformation will make it easier foremployers to identify the appropriategeneral requirements in final rule§ 1926.451.

In addition, the Agency has revisedsubpart L definitions by deletinglanguage that limits the use of aparticular type of scaffold. Suchsubstantive limitations are moreappropriately placed in regulatory text.Accordingly, for example, OSHA hasrevised the definition for ‘‘bricklayers’square scaffolds’’ (a scaffold composedof framed wood squares which supporta platform, limited to light and mediumduty) by deleting the words ‘‘limited tolight and medium duty’’. Similarly,OSHA has revised the definition for‘‘coupler’’ to be ‘‘a device for lockingtogether the component tubes of a tubeand coupler scaffold’’, deleting languageaddressing the material used for thecoupler because such requirements aremore properly located in §§ 1926.451 or1926.452.

The following discussion covers theterms for which definitions are beingadded or revised in this final rule andthose proposed terms which elicitedcomments.

‘‘Bearer (Putlog).’’ This definition isthe same as the definition proposedexcept that the word ‘‘Putlog,’’ anindustry-used term, has been added tothe definition. A commenter (Ex. 2–29)suggested putlog should be included inthe proposed definition ‘‘to show a closeor synonymous relationship to the term‘bearer’ ’’ and because ‘‘it is a widelyused and understood term.’’ The Agencyagrees with the commenter and hasrevised the proposed definitionaccordingly.

‘‘Bricklayers’ Square Scaffold’’ isdefined in existing § 1926.452(b) andthe proposed definition is substantivelyunchanged in the final rule. Thedefinition deletes the existing§ 1926.452(b) requirements thatbricklayers’ square scaffolds beconstructed of ‘‘wood’’ and that the

platform capacity be limited to ‘‘lightand medium duty.’’ The reviseddefinition recognizes that bricklayers’square scaffolds can be constructed ofmaterials other than ‘‘wood’’ and thattheir capacity is not limited to ‘‘lightand medium duty’’ as long as they canmeet the capacity requirements set forthin final rule § 1926.451(a)(1).

A commenter (Ex. 2–23) suggestedthat OSHA adopt the ANSI A10.8–1977definition for Bricklayers’ SquareScaffold which specifies the use of‘‘wood’’ and the ability to sustain lightto medium loads. As stated above,OSHA believes it would beinappropriate to limit technologicaladvances that would provide for the useof other materials with greatercapacities. Therefore, the Agency hasnot made the suggested revision.

‘‘Carpenters’ bracket scaffold.’’ Thisterm means a supported scaffoldconsisting of a platform supported bybrackets attached to building orstructural walls. The final rule isidentical to the proposal. The SIA (Ex.2–368) suggested that because differenttrades (i.e., cement finishers) use thistype scaffold, the term be renamed‘‘bracket scaffold’’ exclusively. OSHArecognizes that this type of scaffold isused by several trade groups. However,OSHA believes that it is widelyrecognized in the construction industrythat ‘‘carpenters’ bracket scaffolds’’ arenot used only by carpenters. Therefore,the Agency is not making the suggestedrevision.

‘‘Catenary scaffold.’’ This type ofscaffold is not specifically addressed inOSHA’s existing rule but is covered infinal rule § 1926.452(r). This term refersto a suspension scaffold consisting of aplatform supported by two essentiallyhorizontal and parallel ropes which aresecured to structural members and maybe supported by vertical pickups. Theproposed definition has been changed toreplace the language ‘‘fastened to’’ with‘‘supported by’’ and a phrase has beenadded explaining that horizontal ropes‘‘may be supported by vertical pickups.’’

One commenter (Ex. 2–23) suggestedthat OSHA insert the word ‘‘wire’’between the words ‘‘parallel’’ and‘‘rope.’’

However, OSHA does not intend torestrict the type of material used forsuspension scaffold rope as long as it is‘‘capable of supporting without failuresix times the maximum intended load’’as set forth in final rule § 1926.451(a)(3).

Two commenters (Exs. 2–23 and 2–368) suggested OSHA replace the words‘‘fastened to’’ with ‘‘supported by’’ inthis definition. OSHA agrees that thesuggested words more accuratelydescribe the function of the horizontal

ropes with relation to the platform andis revising the proposed definitionaccordingly.

In addition, the SIA (Ex. 2–368)suggested that OSHA add the phrase‘‘and may be supported by verticalpickups’’. OSHA agrees with thecommenter. Vertical pick-ups can act assupports for sagging horizontal ropes.Also, because final rule § 1926.452(r)(1)refers to vertical pickups, OSHAbelieves that it is appropriate to includethis phrase in the definitions.

‘‘Chimney hoist.’’ This term is beingadded to recognize a specific type ofmulti-point adjustable suspensionscaffold used to gain access to worksitesinside chimneys.

‘‘Competent person.’’ This term isbeing added to the final rule as a matterof convenience for users. The definitionis identical to that found in § 1926.32.

‘‘Continuous run scaffold (runscaffold)’’ means a two-point or multi-point adjustable suspension scaffoldconstructed using a series ofinterconnected braced scaffold membersor supporting structures erected to forma continuous scaffold. This term is beingadded to recognize this type of system.The Agency notes that the key elementhere is that the scaffold members mustbe interconnected so that the erectedscaffold acts as a single unit. This wouldpreclude planking across twoindependent scaffolds without joiningthem so the resulting scaffold acts asone unit. This system allows erecting alengthy scaffold without requiring acontinuous planked platform, as long asthe smaller platform is properlyguarded.

‘‘Deceleration device.’’ This termmeans any mechanism, such as a ropegrab, rip stitch lanyard, specially-wovenlanyard, tearing or deforming lanyard,automatic self-retracting lifelines/lanyard, which serves to dissipate asubstantial amount of energy during afall arrest, or otherwise limits the energyimposed on an employee during fallarrest. The proposed definition, whichwas effectively identical, has beeneditorially revised for the sake of clarity.

Three commenters (Exs. 2–13, 2–368and 2–516) suggested that rope grabsand some self-retracting lifelines are not‘‘deceleration devices’’ but are actuallyfall arrest devices. OSHA notes,however, that it is difficult todifferentiate clearly between systemcomponents, as suggested, because fallarrest (stopping) and energy absorption(braking) are closely related. TheAgency also observes that theperformance criteria for personal fallarrest equipment address the entiresystem, not just ‘‘fall arresters’’ or


‘‘energy absorbers’’. Accordingly, OSHAhas not made the suggested change.

‘‘Equivalent.’’ This term is used in thefinal rule to allow alternative means ofcomplying with the standard. Thedefinition provides that the employermust be able to demonstrate that thealternative means of compliance willprovide an equal or greater degree ofsafety than that attained by using themethod or item specified in thestandard. The final definition isidentical to the proposed definition,except that minor editorial changes havebeen made for the sake of clarity. Thefinal rule definition is consistent withthe corresponding definitions in§ 1910.66 and in part 1926, subparts Mand X.

The SIA (Ex. 2–368) suggested thatOSHA not require the employer to‘‘demonstrate whether or not thescaffold is of ‘equal or greater degree ofsafety’ because the employer is toomany steps removed from themanufacturer’’ and because requiringthe employer to test for equivalencywould create a significant danger thatfailure would occur. However, theproposed language reflects the Agency’slongstanding position that employerswho choose to deviate from criteria setin OSHA standards must be able todemonstrate that employee protectionhas not been adversely affected. Theemployer has the flexibility to establishequivalence by any effective means,including information available fromequipment suppliers and taking intoaccount the specific circumstances ofthe work to be done.

‘‘Eye’’ or ‘‘eye splice’’ means a loopwith or without a thimble at the end ofa wire rope. This term is being added tothe final rule to clarify the Agency’sintent that this type of connection is anacceptable way to connect wire ropeswithout significantly affecting theirstrength or capacities. The term is usedin final rule § 1926.451(d) (8) and (9).

‘‘Fabricated frame scaffold’’ means asupported or suspended frame scaffoldconsisting of platform(s) supported onfabricated end frames with integralposts, horizontal bearers, andintermediate members. This is the termfor the type of scaffold presentlyidentified as ‘‘tubular welded framescaffold.’’ OSHA has determined thatthe current term is too restrictivebecause the words ‘‘tubular’’ meansround and ‘‘welded’’ means that metalcomponents are involved. Theprovisions of final rule § 1926.452(c),Fabricated frame scaffolds, are notsubject to such limitations. Theyaddress fabricated frames and relatedscaffold components whether thecomponent parts are square or round, or

made of metal, plastic, wood, or someother material. The final rule definitionis identical to that in the proposed rule.

Two commenters (Exs. 2–13 and 2–320) suggested using the existing term‘‘tubular welded frame’’ and onecommenter (Ex. 2–23) suggested usingthe term ‘‘Fabricated tubular frame(Tubular welded frame scaffold)’’instead of the proposed term. However,as explained above, OSHA does notintend to restrict this term to ‘‘tubular’’or ‘‘welded’’ components.

‘‘Failure.’’ This term is used inperformance-oriented paragraphs suchas §§ 1926.451 (a)(1) and (a)(3), whichaddress scaffold capacity. Because theword might otherwise be interpreted tomean only breakage or a physicalseparation of scaffold components, thefinal rule definition clearly indicatesthat load refusal (the point where theultimate strength of a component isexceeded) is also considered to befailure. This is the point wherestructural members lose their ability tocarry loads although they have notbroken or separated. The term is thesame as the term defined in Subpart Xof Part 1926, Ladders and Stairways.The definition for ‘‘failure’’ in the finalrule is the same as proposed.

One commenter (Ex. 2–40) suggestedthat the term ‘‘ultimate strength’’ wasnot clearly defined. Another commenter(Ex. 2–38) suggested deleting the lastsentence of the proposed definition(Load refusal is the point where theultimate strength is exceeded) to avoidconfusion between ‘‘ultimate strength’’and ‘‘overloading without breaking.’’ AsOSHA stated above, ‘‘ultimate strength’’may be exceeded without componentparts breaking or separating. Therefore,the Agency believes the suggestedchanges are unnecessary.

‘‘Guardrail system.’’ This term refersto perimeter protection composed ofvertical barriers which are erected toprevent employees from falling. Thefinal rule definition is essentiallyidentical to the proposed definition.This term replaces the definition of‘‘guardrail’’ in the existing rule, whichappeared at § 1926.452(b)(10). The olddefinition was rail secured to uprightsand erected along the exposed sides andends of platforms. OSHA believes thatthis definition did not adequately reflectthe manner in which toprails, midrailsand other intermediate members, andtoeboards combine to provide effectivefall protection. The final rule definitionof guardrail clearly indicates that theentire system, including toprail, midrail(or other intermediate protection), anduprights, is covered when guardrails areaddressed in final rule § 1926.451(e).The definition of guardrail system used

in the proposed rule stated that aguardrail system was ‘‘a vertical barriererected to prevent employees fromfalling from an open side or edge of ascaffold platform or walkway’’. Theproposed definition also distinguishedbetween ‘‘Type I guardrails’’, whichwere capable of providing fallprotection without the use of personalfall arrest systems, and ‘‘Type IIguardrails’’, which would need to besupplemented by personal fall arrestsystems (as explained below, OSHA hasnot maintained this distinction in thefinal rule).

The SIA (Ex. 2–368) suggestedreplacing the word ‘‘prevent’’ with theword ‘‘protect’’ in the proposeddefinition of ‘‘guardrail system’’.According to standard dictionarymeanings of both words, ‘‘prevent’’more accurately describes the functionof the guardrail system, which is to keepthe employee from going past theperimeter of the scaffold in the firstplace. Therefore, the Agency is notmaking the suggested change.

Three commenters (Exs. 2–13, 2–53and 2–370) recommended that OSHAretain the guardrail rules in the existingscaffold standard and eliminate theconcept of ‘‘Type I’’ and ‘‘Type II’’ fromthe proposed definition of guardrailsystems. The commenters suggested thatthe old rule’s definition of guardrailprotection would provide more fallprotection than the definition used inthe proposed rule. For reasonsdiscussed further below, OSHA findsthat the final rule’s requirements forguardrail systems, which are essentiallyidentical to those in the proposed rule,provide more protection than therequirements in the existing rule.However, OSHA has deleted thediscussion of ‘‘Type I’’ and ‘‘Type II’’guardrails from the final rule for thesake of clarity and has added specificcriteria for guardrails to final rule§ 1926.451(g).

‘‘Horse scaffold’’ means a supportedscaffold consisting of a platformsupported by construction horses. Horsescaffolds made of metal are sometimesknown as trestle scaffolds. Theproposed definition was similar exceptthat it did not include the term ‘‘trestlescaffold.’’ The SIA (Ex. 2–368) suggestedrevising the definition to specify thathorse scaffolds ‘‘may be constructed ofwood, metal, or a combination of both.The metal horses may be referred to as‘trestle horses’.’’ Under OSHA’sperformance-oriented approach tosubpart L, an employer may use anyconstruction materials (e.g., wood ormetal) that enable the scaffold tocomply with the capacity requirementset forth in § 1926.451(a)(1). However,


the Agency agrees that it would beuseful to indicate that some horsescaffolds constructed of metal areknown as trestle scaffolds. OSHA hasrevised the definition accordingly.

‘‘Ladder jack scaffold.’’ The final ruledefinition, which is identical to that inthe proposed rule, states that this typeof scaffold is a supported scaffoldconsisting of a platform supported bybrackets attached to ladders.

A commenter (Ex. 2–23) stated thatthe capacity of this type of scaffoldshould be limited to ‘‘light duty’’ andthat the words ‘‘light duty’’ should beincluded in this definition. Asdiscussed above, OSHA believes it isinappropriate for definitions to includesubstantive requirements. In any event,the Agency has determined that a ladderjack scaffold which complies with thecapacity criteria of § 1926.451(a)(1) andthe other pertinent subpart Lrequirements will be consideredacceptable. Accordingly, OSHA has notmade the suggested change.

‘‘Landing.’’ This new term, which hasbeen added to ensure that therequirements of final rule§ 1926.451(e)(4) are clearly understood,refers to a platform at the end of a flightof stairs.

‘‘Large area scaffold’’ means a polescaffold, tube and coupler scaffold,systems scaffold, or fabricated framescaffold erected over substantially theentire work area, for example; A scaffolderected over the entire floor area of aroom. The Agency has added this termand definition, along with final rule§ 1926.452(d), to provide a referencepoint in the standard for this widelyused type of scaffold.

‘‘Lifeline’’ means a componentconsisting of a flexible line forconnection to an anchorage at one endto hang vertically (vertical lifeline) orfor connection to anchorages at bothends to stretch horizontally (horizontallifeline), and which serves as a meansfor connecting other components of apersonal fall arrest system to theanchorage. A vertical lifeline issometimes known as a dropline. Ahorizontal lifeline is sometimes knownas a trolley line. This definition, whichwas not part of the proposed rule, hasbeen added for the sake of clarity. Thedefinition in part 1926, subpart M, FallProtection, is consistent with thedefinition in final subpart L. Theproposed terms ‘‘dropline’’ and ‘‘trolleyline’’, along with their definitions, havebeen deleted as separate definitions andhave been incorporated into this finalrule definition.

One commenter (Ex. 2–57) stated thata ‘‘trolley line’’ was a ‘‘horizontallifeline’’ and suggested that OSHA set

‘‘strength requirements.’’ While finalrule subpart L does not set numericalload requirements for ‘‘horizontallifelines’’, criteria for such equipmentare provided in § 1926.502(d), subpartM, as referenced by a note to final rule§ 1926.451(g)(3).

‘‘Masons’ adjustable supportedscaffold.’’ OSHA proposed this term,which was not defined in existingsubpart L, so employers who used ‘‘self-contained adjustable scaffolds’’ inmasonry operations would have a clearreference point in revised subpart L.The final rule is identical to theproposed rule definition.

One commenter (Ex. 2–23) suggestedreplacing the parenthetical reference toself contained adjustable scaffolds withthe definition for such scaffolds in ANSIA10.8–1977. However, to limitredundancy and confusion, OSHA doesnot believe that this term should bedefined by the format suggested by thecommenter.

‘‘Masons’ multi-point adjustablesuspension scaffold.’’ This term replacesthe term ‘‘Masons’ adjustable multiple-point suspension scaffold’’ in theexisting standard. The term means atwo-point or multi-point adjustablesuspension scaffold designed and usedfor masonry operations. The final ruledefinition is the same as that proposed.

One commenter (Ex. 2–23) suggestedOSHA adopt the definition for this termfrom ANSI A10.8–1977, which containsthe language ‘‘continuous platform.’’However, it is not OSHA’s intent tolimit this type of scaffold to a single‘‘continuous platform.’’ All types ofmulti-point suspension scaffoldscovered by subpart L may consist ofmore than one platform. Multi-pointscaffolds are not limited by the numberof suspension wires, platforms, or thelocation of attachment of the suspensionwires to the platform or platforms(Example: A multi-point scaffold mayconsist of one platform suspended byfour wires or it may consist of twoplatforms suspended by four wires).Additionally the definition suggested bythe commenter did not include thewords ‘‘masonry operations.’’ OSHA isincluding the words ‘‘masonryoperations’’ in this definition so itapplies specifically to such scaffoldsused in the masonry trade.

‘‘Maximum intended load’’ means thetotal load of all persons, equipment,tools, materials, transmitted loads, andother loads reasonably anticipated to beapplied to a scaffold or scaffoldcomponent at any one time. This termreplaces the existing terms ‘‘maximumrated load’’ and ‘‘workload’’. The termaddresses the types of loads which areto be included when determining the

maximum load. OSHA has beenconcerned that the word ‘‘rated’’ in theexisting term ‘‘maximum rated load’’does not clearly express how the safetyfactor of four (existing rule paragraph1926.451(a)(7)) or six (existing ruleparagraph 1926.451(a)(2)) is to beincorporated into the determination ofthe maximum load. The final ruledefinition and final rule § 1926.451(a)(1)clearly indicate that the maximumintended load is determined withoutregard to safety factors. Once themaximum intended load is determined,the employer then applies the pertinentsafety factor to determine the requisitestrength for the system in question.

The final rule definition is the sameas in the proposed rule except the word‘‘employees’’ has been replaced with theword ‘‘persons’’. The SIA (Ex. 2–368)suggested this change because‘‘[p]ersons other than employees mightbe on a scaffold thus overloading it.’’OSHA agrees that the weight of all‘‘persons’’ needs to be considered whencalculating the maximum intended load.

One commenter (Ex. 2–23) suggestedthat OSHA add the closely related term‘‘scaffold load rating’’ which includesdefinitions for the words ‘‘heavy-dutyloading,’’ ‘‘medium-duty loading,’’‘‘light-duty loading’’ and ‘‘specialloading.’’ The Agency providesexamples of appropriate measures for‘‘heavy-duty,’’ ‘‘medium-duty’’ and‘‘light-duty’’ scaffold in non-mandatoryAppendix A of final rule subpart L.Accordingly, the Agency believes theappropriate information is available andno further changes are necessary.

Two comments (Exs. 2–13 and 2–320)suggested replacing the proposed termand definition of maximum intendedload with the term ‘‘Maximum RatedLoad.’’ The commenters suggested thatthe term ‘‘Maximum Rated Load’’ takesinto account safety factors establishedby the designer or manufacturer.

OSHA agrees that the term‘‘Maximum Rated Load’’ does includebuilt-in safety factors. As stated above,by not including the words ‘‘safetyfactor’’ in this definition or replacingthe proposed term with ‘‘MaximumRated Load,’’ which implies built-insafety factors, OSHA clearly indicatesthat the minimum safety factor of 4:1 asset forth in final rule § 1926.451(a)(1)applies. The Agency believes it isappropriate to take into account the‘‘expected’’ burden as well as theburden a scaffold ‘‘can’’ support withoutfailure.

‘‘Needle beam scaffold’’ means asuspension scaffold supported byneedle beams. The final rule definitionis the same as the proposed definition.One commenter (Ex. 2–23) suggested


that OSHA limit the use of this type ofscaffold to ‘‘light-duty’’. However, asdiscussed earlier, the Agency does notintend to limit the capacity of a scaffoldas long as it meets the pertinentrequirements of § 1926.451(a). OSHAhas provided examples of measures thatwould enable a scaffold to comply withthese requirements in non-mandatoryAppendix A.

‘‘Outrigger.’’ This term means thestructural member of a supportedscaffold used to increase the base widthof a scaffold in order to provide supportand stability for the scaffold. The terms,‘‘outrigger beam’’ and ‘‘outriggerscaffold’’ are new definitions providedto explain the difference between thesethree similar terms. The final rulediffers from the proposal, which definedoutrigger as ‘‘the structural member of asupported scaffold used to increase thebase width of a scaffold in order toprovide greater stability for thescaffold.’’ The wording change wasmade in response to a comment fromthe SIA (Ex. 2–368), suggesting thatOSHA replace the word ‘‘greater’’ withthe words ‘‘support and increased.’’OSHA agrees that the suggested wordingmore accurately expresses the Agency’sintent.

‘‘Personal fall arrest system.’’ Thisterm, which replaces the proposed term‘‘body belt/harness system’’, refers to asystem used to arrest the fall of anemployee from a working level. Itconsists of an anchorage, connectors,and a body belt or body harness andmay include a lanyard, decelerationdevice, lifeline, or suitablecombinations of these. The final ruleson fall protection (part 1926, subpart M)and powered platforms (§ 1910.66) alsodefine ‘‘personal fall arrest system’’ inthis manner. The final rule definition isessentially the same as that proposed for‘‘body belt/harness systems’’, and thephrase ‘‘personal fall arrest systems’’appears in the final rule wherever thephase ‘‘body belt/harness systems’’ wasused in the proposed rule. A commenter(Ex. 2–13) suggested that the definitionbe reworded to indicate clearly thatlifelines and deceleration devices arenot always included as a part of a bodybelt/harness system. OSHA agrees andhas clarified this point in the reviseddefinition.

OSHA has deleted the proposed term‘‘platform unit’’ and has incorporatedthe proposed definition language intofinal rule § 1926.451(b)(1)(i), whichaddresses the construction of scaffoldplatforms.

‘‘Power operated hoists.’’ This newterm refers to hoists which are poweredby other than human energy. The finalrule language differs from the proposed

language, which used the term‘‘mechanically-powered hoists’’. OSHAhas revised the terms ‘‘mechanicallypowered’’ and ‘‘manually powered’’hoists to read ‘‘power operated hoistsand manually operated hoists’’, becausethe Agency has determined that thelanguage should be consistent withANSI A10.8–1988, paragraph 6.

‘‘Qualified.’’ This term is being addedto the final rule as a matter ofconvenience for users. The definition isidentical to that found in § 1926.32.

‘‘Rated load.’’ This new termaddresses the maximum load that ahoist is allowed to lift. The discussionof final rule § 1926.451(a)(1), below,addresses the use of this term.

‘‘Repair bracket scaffold.’’ This newterm has been added to address the typeof scaffold addressed by final rule§ 1926.452(x). This term is discussedbelow in conjunction with thediscussion of that paragraph.

‘‘Scaffold.’’ This term refers to atemporary elevated platform (supportedor suspended) and its supportingstructure, including points of anchorage,used for supporting employees ormaterials or both. The definition alsoclearly indicates that crane or derricksuspended personnel platforms are notscaffolds. The Agency has added thephrase ‘‘including points of anchorage’’to the definition of scaffold in the finalrule to indicate clearly that points ofanchorage are considered to be part ofa scaffold.

‘‘Stair tower (Scaffold stairway/tower).’’ This new term has been addedto describe the means of accessaddressed by final rule § 1926.451(e)(4).This term is addressed in relation to thatprovision below.

‘‘Stall load.’’ This new term has beenadded to identify the maximum loadthat a hoist can lift without stalling orshutting down. The use of this term isdiscussed in relation to final rule§ 1926.451(a)(2), below.

‘‘Stilts’’ mean a pair of poles orsimilar supports with raised footrests,used to permit walking above theground or working surface. This termand definition has been added torecognize this type of scaffold, which isused by many trades in the constructionindustry to allow employees to walkelevated above the ground or workingsurface. Final rule paragraph§ 1926.452(y) addresses the safe use ofthis type of scaffold both as a scaffolditself, and on other types of scaffolds(large area scaffolds).

‘‘System scaffold’’ means a scaffoldconsisting of posts with fixedconnection points that accept runners,bearers, and diagonals that can beinterconnected at predetermined levels.

This new term has been added to thefinal rule to recognize the existence andacceptance of this type of scaffold. Thedefinition is identical to the definitionfor the same term found in ANSI A10.8–1988.

‘‘Tank builders’ scaffold’’ means asupported scaffold consisting of aplatform supported by brackets that areeither directly attached to a cylindricaltank or are attached to devices that areattached to such a tank. In the February1, 1994 notice of record reopening (59FR 4618), OSHA suggested a definitionof ‘‘tank builders’ scaffold’’ forconsideration. That definition was verysimilar to the final rule definitionexcept that the reopening noticedefinition did not specifically refer tocylindrical tanks and did specify thatthe platform was welded to the steelplates of the tank.

The commenters (Exs. 43–19, 43–23,43–33, 43–34, 43–35, 43–39, 43–40, 43–42, and 43–43) who responded to theproposed definition for tank builders’scaffold stated:

A ‘‘tank’’ is not necessarily a cylinder. Thescaffold is used on structures that can becylindrical, rectangular, conical, spherical,spheroidal, or elliptical. Also, ‘‘tanks’’ areconstructed of material other than metal; e.g.,fiberglass, wood, etc. Some tanks havevertical walls that are so thin that a bracketcould not be welded to it; rather, the bracketwould have to be bolted. We would furthercomment that the bracket is often insertedinto a device which is welded to the steelplate. So we would suggest not referencingthe bracket being attached to the structure,but rather the bracket being attached to adevice that is affixed to the structure.

In addition, eleven commenters (Exs.43–19, 43–21, 43–23, 43–27, 43–33, 43–34, 43–35, 43–39, 43–40, 43–42, and 43–43) stated that the criteria of an April 4,1975 variance (40 FR 15139), whichaddressed tank builder scaffolds, wouldbe adequately addressed by generalprovisions of the final rule and thedefinition of ‘‘tank builders’ scaffold’’.

The 1975 variance order stated:The applicants’ business, which is part of

the tank building industry, involves theerection of relatively large steel platesegments of circumferential rings. Due to theunique nature of the construction involved,special procedures, including specialscaffolding, have been developed. Forexample, as opposed to more conventionalscaffolds, tank scaffolds must be highlyportable and have a relatively low density ofoccupancy by [workers]. These scaffolds areraised up the shell of the tank as new ringsof steel are added and work is completed atthe level below.

Most plate structures are fabricated fromstandard length plates * * * eachapproximately 31.416 feet (9.42 m.) long,[with] brackets [normally] welded to themwhile they are on the ground prior to being


placed into position on the tank wall.Scaffolding and guardrail supports are thenattached to these brackets. If the applicantswere to comply with [requirements] that [themaximum spacing for supports be no morethan 8 feet (2.4 m.) for guardrails or 10 feet(3.0 m.) for planking], they assert it would benecessary to lay out each steel plate intosections with the brackets locatedapproximately 7.854 feet (2.36 m.) apart.Instead, the applicants wish to lay out theplates into three equal sections with bracketslocated approximately 10′ 6′′ (3.15 m.) apart.

* * * Because the contour of the steelplates of the tank face is curved and theadjacent edge of the scaffold platform isstraight, there is an open space betweenthem. As a result, applicants have installedtaut wire rope on the scaffold brackets thatextends midway between the innermost edgeof the scaffold platform and the curved platestructure of the tank face to serve as a safetyline in lieu of an inner guardrail assembly.

Since the information submitted toOSHA in relation to the varianceaddressed scaffolds used on cylindricalsteel tanks, the Agency is applying thecriteria of the variance only to structuresthat are approximately cylindrical. TheAgency believes that non-cylindricalstructures should be addressed on acase-by-case basis under the generalprovisions of the final rule. OSHA notesthat 9 of the 11 commenters (Exs. 43–19, 43–23, 43–33, 43–34, 43–35, 43–39,43–40, 43–42, and 43–43) mentionedabove also stated ‘‘[t]ank builders placethe scaffold inside of a cylinder,traditionally, to erect the tank.’’However, the Agency believes that therequirements of the variance, asmodified in Appendix A of the finalrule, can reasonably be applied tocylindrical tanks that are constructed ofmaterials other than steel. The final ruledefinition for ‘‘tank builders’ scaffold’’has been worded accordingly.

OSHA has not promulgated specificrequirements for tank builders’ scaffoldsin the final rule because the Agencybelieves that the requirements for thosescaffolds are adequately addressed inthe general provisions of the final rule.The Agency notes that it has placedseveral provisions (some of which havebeen editorially modified) of thevariance in Appendix A for the benefitof employers who use tank builders’scaffolds, and that the introductory textto the Appendix clearly indicates thatfollowing the Appendix will beconsidered to constitute compliancewith the requirements of this standardwith regard to scaffolds used in theconstruction of cylindrical tanks.However, employers choosing not tofollow the Appendix must still complywith the applicable requirements of§ 1926.451, particularly paragraphs (a)and (f).

‘‘Top plate bracket scaffold.’’ Thisterm is being added to the final rule torecognize a type of scaffold which issimilar to carpenters’ bracket scaffoldsand form scaffolds. This type of scaffoldconsists of a platform supported bybrackets that hook over or are attachedto the top plate of a wall. Such scaffoldsare used in residential constructionwhen employees are setting roof trusses.

OSHA has deleted the followingterms, which are defined in the oldscaffold standard, from the definitionsection of the final rule, because thoseterms are now defined in other subpartsor because the final rule no longer usesthe terms in question: ‘‘heavy dutyscaffold,’’ ‘‘light duty scaffold,’’‘‘medium duty scaffold,’’ ‘‘midrail,’’‘‘toeboard,’’ and ‘‘working load.’’ Inaddition, the proposed definitions for‘‘drop lines’’, and ‘‘trolley line’’ havebeen deleted from this final rule, sincethey have been incorporated into thedefinition of ‘‘lifeline’’.

Under Issue L–12 in the preamble ofthe proposed rule, OSHA solicitedtestimony and related information on asuggestion by the ACCSH (Tr. 206, 6–9–87) that definitions for ‘‘ramp’’ and‘‘runway’’ be added to the standard. TheACCSH indicated that the addeddefinitions would facilitate clearunderstanding of the requirements inproposed § 1926.451(c)(4) (final rule§ 1926.451(e)(4)). As noted under thediscussion of the Issue, a member of theACCSH recommended that the Agencyuse the definition of ramp developed bythe National Safety Council.

The one comment (Ex. 2–593) OSHAreceived addressing the Issue supporteddefining the two terms. The commenterdid not provide any suggested wordingbut indicated that the definitions shouldbe ‘‘clear and consistent with existingOSHA and ANSI definitions.’’

In the final rule, OSHA has replacedthe proposed term ‘‘runway’’ with theterm ‘‘walkway’’, to indicate theAgency’s regulatory intent clearly .However, the Agency believes that‘‘ramp’’ is a commonly understood termand does not require a specific OSHAdefinition. Accordingly, OSHA has notadded a definition for ‘‘ramp’’ to thefinal rule.

Paragraph 1926.451(a) CapacityFinal rule paragraph (a) sets the

minimum strength criteria for allscaffold components and connections.The final rule sets scaffold capacityrequirements that are substantively thesame as those in existing subpart L,while eliminating ambiguities andapparent inconsistencies. Theintroductory text of the proposedparagraph, which stated that ‘‘the

following requirements applied to alltypes of scaffolds except as indicated:’’,has been deleted in the final rulebecause the Agency has determined thatit is too similar to the introductory textof paragraph (a)(1) and, therefore, isunnecessary.

Paragraph (a)(1) requires that eachscaffold and scaffold component becapable of supporting, without failure,its own weight and at least 4 times themaximum intended load applied ortransmitted to it. Paragraphs (a)(2),(a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5) and (g) of § 1926.451provide exceptions to this general rule,and are discussed below. This provisionis based on existing § 1926.451(a)(7),which requires that scaffolds andscaffold components ‘‘be capable ofsupporting without failure at least fourtimes the maximum intended load’’.

The final rule clearly provides thatthe 4 to 1 factor for a component appliesonly to the load which is actuallyapplied or transmitted to thatcomponent, and not to the total loadplaced on the scaffold. Existing§ 1926.451(a)(7), taken literally, couldbe read to require that each separatescaffold component be able to supportfour times the maximum intended load(MIL) of the entire scaffold. Forexample, the existing provision could beinterpreted to require that a crossbraceon a supported scaffold be capable ofsupporting the same load as a scaffoldleg, that is, be sized to support fourtimes the entire MIL regardless of wherethe load is placed on the scaffold andregardless of the fact that the functionof a brace is to prevent sway and notdirectly to support the MIL. Such anapproach was not OSHA’s intent. TheAgency intended that each componentbe adequate to meet the 4 to 1 factor, butonly for the portion of the MIL appliedor transmitted to that component. TheMIL for each component depends on thetype and configuration of the scaffoldsystem. Final rule paragraph (a)(1),which is effectively identical to thecorresponding language in proposedparagraph (a)(1), clearly expresses theAgency’s intent. The proposedprovision has been editorially revisedand reorganized for the sake of clarity.In particular, the exceptions to proposedparagraph (a)(1), which providedifferent coverage for suspensionscaffolds, have been clearly delineatedas separate paragraphs (a)(2) through(a)(6) in the final rule.

Paragraph (a)(2) of the final rulerequires that direct connections to roofsand floors and counterweights used tobalance adjustable suspension scaffoldsbe capable of resisting at least 4 timesthe tipping moment imposed by thescaffold operating at either the rated


load of the hoist or at 1.5 (minimum)times the tipping moment imposed bythe scaffold operating at the stall load ofthe hoist, whichever is greater. Proposedparagraph (a)(2) simply required thatdirect connections to roofs and floors,and counterweights used to supportsuspension scaffolds, be capable ofproviding a resisting moment of at leastfour times the tipping moment. Theproposed provision was intended toclarify that the safety factor of four toone also applies to direct connections tofloors and roofs and to counterweightsystems. These areas are as integral tothe scaffold system as the scaffoldplatform itself. OSHA has revised theproposed provision to account for theneed to base the factor of safety foradjustable suspension scaffolds on therated load of the hoist and the stall loadof the hoist.

Several commenters (Exs. 2–8, 2–28,2–64, 2–367, and 2–516) indicated thatthe factors of safety for adjustablesuspension scaffolds should be based onthe rated load of the hoist. Four of thosecommenters (Exs. 2–28, 2–64, 2–367and 2–516) and the SIA (Ex. 2–368)recommended that the stall capacity ofthe hoist be considered in the factors ofsafety.

One of these commenters (Ex. 2–28)stated that many suspended scaffoldsare rigged by inexperienced personswho do not realize that if the scaffoldcatches on an obstruction, the maximumlifting power (stall load) of the hoist canbe developed and transmitted to thecounterweights and anchorages. Thiscommenter suggested adding one of thefollowing requirements to proposed§ 1926.451(a)(2) as an alternative to fourtimes the tipping moment: (1) or 4,000pounds, whichever is greater; (2) or 150% of the maximum pulling power of thehoist, whichever is greater; or 4 timesthe rated load of the hoist, whichever isgreater. The SIA (Ex. 2–368)recommended changing the resistingmoment of proposed § 1926.451(a)(2) to‘‘at least 1.5 times the stall capacity ofthe hoist or four times the maximumintended load, whichever is greater.’’

Three commenters (Exs. 2–8, 2–28,and 2–516) indicated that UnderwritersLaboratories (U.L.) standard 1323(Standard for Scaffold Hoists) limits themaximum output of a scaffold hoist to3 times the rated working load of thehoist. One commenter (Ex. 2–64)recommended that OSHA limit the stallload of a hoist to no more than threetimes the rated load of the hoist.Another commenter (Ex. 2–8) stated thatif the safety factor for suspendedscaffolds is not based upon the highestrated working load of any component,normally the hoist, failure can occur.

Two commenters (Exs. 2–8 and2–516) presented examples of therelationship between the stall load of ahoist and the rated load of the samehoist. One commenter (Ex. 2–8)provided the following example:

A typical hoist with a ‘‘rated working load’’of 1000 lbs. can exert a pulling force of 3000lbs. if an obstruction is encountered such asa window ledge or air conditioner whileascending. If one designs for a maximumintended load of only 500 lbs. because of ashort light scaffold platform or a work cageand the counterweight or suspension systemis designed for 4:1 MIL then the ultimate loadthat the suspension can support is 4 × 500lbs. MIL or 2000 lbs. A 3000 lb. hoist pullcan cause failure or even wire rope failure if6 × MIL is used. No one intends to stall ahoist on an obstruction but it does occur.Therefore, a suspended scaffold should bedesigned for safety factors based upon MIL orrated working load of the hoist whichever isgreater.

OSHA agrees that the safety factors forthe counterweights, riggings, directconnections to roofs and floors, andsuspension ropes of adjustablesuspension scaffolds should be relatedto the rated load of the hoist and thestall load of the hoist, and not be basedon the maximum intended load. OSHAagrees with the commenters who statedthat failure can result if the factors ofsafety are based on the maximumintended load. Furthermore, the Agencyalso agrees with the commenters (Exs.2–28 and 2–368) who indicated thatthese factors of safety should be basedon 1.5 times the stall load of the hoist.

The Agency notes that the stall loadof a hoist is equal to three times therated load of that hoist. When oneapplies the 4 to 1 safety factor required(4 × rated load = 4/3 × stall load) theresult would be 1.33 times the stall load.However, while using 1.33 times thestall load would provide the requiredsafety factor, OSHA is using 1.5 timesthe stall load based on the abovecomments. The Agency believes thatsuch a requirement reduces thepossibility of failure due to improperlyinstalled equipment as well as thedynamic loads that can be developedwhen an obstruction is encountered.Accordingly, the Agency has changedthe final rule language so that it requiresa factor of safety of four times themaximum rated load of the hoist or 1.5times the stall load of the hoist,whichever is greater.

Paragraph (a)(3) of the final ruleprovides that ‘‘[e]ach suspension rope,including its connecting hardware, usedon non-adjustable suspension scaffoldsshall be capable of supporting, withoutfailure, at least 6 times the maximumintended load applied or transmitted tothat rope.’’ This is the same requirement

as the proposed rule except that finalrule paragraph (a)(3) applies only tonon-adjustable suspension scaffolds,while the requirements for adjustablesuspension scaffolds have been placedin final rule paragraph (a)(4), below. Theproposed rule did not distinguishbetween these two types of scaffolds.Proposed paragraph (a)(4)(i) has beenredesignated to § 1926.451(f)(11) of thefinal rule, to consolidate allrequirements for wire rope used withsuspension scaffolds. In addition,proposed paragraphs (a)(4)(ii) and (iii)have been moved to non-mandatoryAppendix A, so that examples ofmeasures that would comply with finalparagraph (a) are consolidated in oneplace.

Paragraph (a)(4) of the final ruleprovides that ‘‘[e]ach suspension rope,including connecting hardware, used onadjustable suspension scaffolds shall becapable of supporting, without failure,at least 6 times the maximum intendedload applied or transmitted to that ropewith the scaffold operating at either (a)The rated load of the hoist, or (b) 2(minimum) times the stall load of thehoist, whichever is greater’’.

This provision addresses adjustablesuspended scaffolds and is similar toproposed paragraph (a)(3) except thatthe proposed paragraph contained thelanguage ‘‘maximum intended loadapplied or transmitted to the rope’’instead of ‘‘rated load of the hoist (or atleast 2 times the stall load of the hoist,whichever is greater)’’. The proposedrule was based on existing§ 1926.451(a)(19).

Three commenters (Exs. 2–8, 2–64,and 2–516) recommended that OSHAuse ‘‘rated capacity of the hoist’’ insteadof ‘‘maximum intended load.’’ Thisrecommendation was based on thebelief that the safety factor for adjustablesuspended scaffolds should be based onthe highest rated work load of anycomponent, normally the hoist. TheAgency agrees and has modified theproposed rule accordingly. In addition,the Agency has included language thataccounts for the stall load of the hoistin the factor of safety for the samereasons that were discussed in regard tofinal rule § 1926.451(a)(2), except thatthe factor to be applied to the stall loadhas been increased from 1.5 to 2 inorder to account for the 6:1 factor ofsafety applied to suspension ropes. Thisfactor of safety does not include anadded margin as does the factor of safetyin paragraph (a)(2). One commenter (Ex.2–516) recommended an 8:1 factor ofsafety for suspension ropes onadjustable suspension scaffolds. Thisrecommendation was based on severalfactors that can reduce the effective


strength of a rope: (1) A terminationrating of 80% of the wire rope designstrength; (2) time-use of the rope; (3)energy applied to the system when theoverspeed brake is actuated; and (4)failure of the brake to set or the loss ofone end of the platform rigging. Thecommenter concluded that these factorscan reduce the factor of safety from 6:1to 1.15:1, with failure occurring ifanything else goes wrong such as thefree end of the platform swingingthrough its arc.

OSHA notes that this commenteraddresses a worst case scenario whichwould involve violations of otherprovisions of the final rule. The Agencybelieves that each of the elements of thescenario will be prevented bycompliance with the final rule. Forexample, final rule § 1926.451(d)(6)requires winding drum hoists to containnot less than four wraps of thesuspension rope at the lowest point ofscaffold travel, thereby reducing theforce applied to the termination at thewinding drum. In addition, final rule§ 1926.451(d)(12)(v) prohibits the use ofU-bolt clips at the point of suspensionfor any scaffold hoist. Also, final rule§ 1926.451(a)(3) requires thatsuspension rope connections beconsidered part of the rope and thatthey be taken into account whendetermining whether a rope is capableof withstanding without failure at leastsix times the loads imposed upon it.

Further, final rule § 1926.451(d)(10)requires that a competent person inspectsuspension ropes prior to eachworkshift or after any occurrence whichcould affect a rope’s structural integrity.Paragraph 1926.451(d)(10) also requiresthat defective or damaged ropes beremoved from service. For thesereasons, OSHA believes that the finalrule adequately addresses thecommenter’s concerns.

The third commenter (Ex. 2–29)recommended that OSHA include theweight of the scaffold and all itscomponents in calculating maximumintended load. The Agency believes theabove described changes made toproposed paragraph (a) resolve theconcerns raised by this comment.

Paragraph (a)(5) of the final rule,which was not part of the proposed rule,requires that the stall load of anyscaffold hoist not exceed 3 times itsrated load. OSHA finds that thisrequirement is reasonably necessary toprevent accidental overloading ofsuspension scaffold support systems.OSHA notes that U.L. standard 1323limits the output force of a scaffold hoistto three times the rated load of the hoist.As far as OSHA has been able todetermine, the other laboratories which

test and list scaffold hoists adhere to therequirements of U.L. 1323.

A commenter (Ex. 2–64)recommended that OSHA limit the stallload of scaffold hoists to three times therated load of the hoist. The Agencyagrees that it is appropriate to add thesuggested provision, for the reasonsdescribed above.

Final rule paragraph (a)(6) requiresthat scaffolds be designed by a qualifiedperson and constructed and loaded inaccordance with that design. Theprovision also indicates that non-mandatory Appendix A providesexamples of criteria, including designspecifications, that will enable theemployer to comply with paragraph (a)of this section. Proposed paragraph(a)(1), which focused on supportedscaffolds, also referenced Appendix Afor acceptable criteria.

Non-mandatory Appendix A providesexamples of design and constructionmeasures that employers can use tocomply with final rule § 1926.451(a).This Appendix is based on therequirements set by existing§§ 1926.451(c)(1)–(4) and by Tables L–3through L–19. OSHA has recognizedthat employers can design and constructscaffolds which satisfy the performancerequirements of the final rule withoutfollowing the specifications set by theexisting rule, and drafted both theproposed and final rule § 1926.451(a)accordingly. The Agency believes thatthe above-cited specifications couldassist an employer in complying withthe capacity requirements of the finalrule, so OSHA has relocated thatlanguage to non-mandatory AppendixA.

In Issue 5 of the preamble to theNPRM, OSHA requested comment onwhether or not all scaffold units (suchas planks and decks) should have theircapabilities or grades marked on them.Some commenters (Exs. 2–41, 2–46, 2–51, 2–54, 2–73, 2–367, 2–495, 2–512, 2–516, and 2–534) indicated they favoredthe requirements for such markings.Two commenters (Exs. 2–495 and 2–534) stated ‘‘very few people wouldknow which grade for any species ofwood qualifies that plank as scaffoldgrade.’’ Those commenters recognizedthat there was a lack of consensusconcerning the maximum safe loads oncertain plank spans, stating that ‘‘[a]t thesame time, we believe it may bepremature to require that all planks beso marked since agreement onmethodology of determining loaddisplacement has not been reached bythe engineering profession.’’

Another commenter (Ex. 2–54)indicated that marks would not wear offplatform units because ‘‘[i]n most

instances, planks are placed and notmoved [and are] generally not rubbedagainst each other constantly.’’ Anothercommenter (Ex. 2–516) stated ‘‘[i]f it isso worn that the mark is lost, it probablyneeds retesting anyway.’’

One commenter (Ex. 2–51) stated thatwhile grade marks would wear off, itseems unlikely ‘‘that every plank on anentire job would simultaneously suffersuch a fate. We believe that invariably,there would be some plank where gradestamping was legible if grade stampingever existed.’’

Another commenter (Ex. 2–41) stated‘‘[k]nowledge of the capacity of each[piece of] equipment is basic toimplementation of this proposal.’’

In addition, the SSFI (Ex. 2–367)pointed out that fabricated plank stagesand platforms are currently marked as totheir capacity. They stated that this‘‘practice should be continued forfabricated planks, stages, and platforms,as these are designed for uniqueapplications.’’ The commenter alsostated ‘‘there is no common practicewithin the industry to have solid sawnlumber marked as to their loadcapacity.’’ The SSFI recommended ‘‘thatthe solid sawn lumber or laminatedveneer be repeatedly and continuouslygrade[-]stamped along the side edge ofthe material at the time the plank isinitially purchased.’’

Another commenter (Ex. 2–51) statedthat ‘‘[s]ince 1980, Timber ProductsInspection has been involved in fivecases where plank failure has resultedin injury and litigation. In all five casesthe planks that failed were purchased asrough Canadian Spruce #1 and better or#2 and better. None of the planks weregrade-stamped and one plank wasidentified as Lodge pole pine instead ofspruce.’’

Another commenter (Ex. 2–35)recommended that OSHA adopt thelanguage of the ANSI A10.8 draftscaffold standard that requires ‘‘solidsawn scaffold plank to bear the gradestamp of a grading agency approved bythe American Lumber StandardsCommittee.’’ The commenter also stated‘‘it is essential to assure use of scaffoldmembers of adequate strength andstiffness.’’

In addition, a commenter (Ex. 2–534)stated:

We are strong advocates of requiring thatall plank to be used as scaffold plank berequired to be stamped or embossed as‘‘SCAFFOLD PLANK’’. To most people, allplanks look alike. Very few people wouldknow which grade for any species of woodqualifies that plank as scaffold grade unlessthe grade stamp is explicit for flatwise use as‘‘Scaffold Plank’’.

* * * There is everything to gain, andnothing to lose, by requiring marks that


communicate to answer the bottom linequestion, ‘‘Is this plank OK as a scaffoldplank?’’

In addressing Issue 5, the ACCSHrecommended (Tr. 6/9/87, pp. 64–65)that all planking and decks, etc., beproperly marked as scaffold materials.The Advisory Committee indicated thata performance standard, which wouldallow employers to determine how theywanted to mark these materials, wouldbe appropriate. Among the optionsenvisioned by the ACCSH to distinguishthe materials intended solely forscaffold system use were color-codingsystems, stamping, and tagging.

On the other hand, some commentersexpressed the view that a markingrequirement would be impractical (Exs.2–15, 2–20, 2–22, 2–368, and 2–390). Inaddition, commenters (Exs. 2–20, 2–53,2–55, and 2–390) stated that therequisite costs would be burdensome,and others (Exs. 2–13, 2–15, 2–69, and2–368) stated that, while manufacturedor fabricated planks or platforms wereoften or usually marked, carrying thisover to wooden components wasinadvisable, citing anticipated problemswith the volume of planks to be markedand the marks wearing off. Severalcommenters (Exs. 2–20, 2–55, 2–70, and2–390) pointed out the marks wouldlend a possibly false sense of security orsafety, and some (Exs. 2–20, 2–55, 2–69,and 2–390) added that maintaining themarks would be neither feasible noreconomical. One commenter (Ex. 2–70)stated ‘‘The user of platform units cancalculate the maximum load that can beplaced on a scaffold and it is up tomanagement personnel to ensure thatthe scaffolding is not overloaded. I feelthat the marking of platform units doesnot, in itself, insure a safe scaffolding.’’

After careful evaluation of the abovecomments, the Agency has decided notto require marking of platform units.OSHA has determined that, whilemarkings can increase confidence inand use of appropriate platform units,they do not add to the inherent safetyof the scaffold. Furthermore, theabsence of markings does not establisha lack of quality.

In addition, materials quality is onlyone of several factors which must beconsidered when erecting a scaffoldplatform. Other significant elementsinclude unit size, span, and loadapplied. A platform unit, whether woodor metal, solid sawn or prefabricated,which is marked as appropriate for useas a plank, may be appropriate for usein one set of conditions but not inanother (i.e., longer span or higherload). Similarly, a platform unit whichdoes not have the quality characteristicsto allow its use in one situation may be

acceptable for use in another (i.e.,shorter span or lighter load) whether ornot it is marked. The importantconsideration in all situations is that theplatform be capable of supporting theload with a design factor of four.

OSHA believes the grading rules ofrecognized independent inspectionagencies, such as the American LumberStandards Committee (ALSC), provideuseful information about wood plankselection and use. Planks that aremarked and used in accordance withpertinent grading rules of the ALSC orother recognized independentinspection agency will be deemed tomeet the four-to-one requirement.Therefore, given the extent to which theprivate sector has voluntarily adoptedplank grading and marking programs,the Agency has concluded that anybenefit resulting from the addition ofmarking requirements would beminimal.

Wood products such as Canadianspruce, which are alleged to beunacceptably inferior in someapplications, could have standardsdeveloped for their use by a recognizedgrading agency. OSHA believes there arecombinations of thickness, quality,span, loads, and other factors that canbe established for all species of woodused for platforms.

Issue 17 of the preamble to the NPRMasked whether the Agency shouldspecify a minimum slippage capacity of4,000 pounds and a minimum breakagecapacity of 16,000 pounds for couplersused on tube and coupler type scaffolds.The SSFI and SIA (Exs. 2–367 and 2–368) opposed such a requirement,stating that ‘‘the entire scaffold structureshould be required to withstand thespecified design loads.’’ They also notedthat this special component requirementwas unlike other OSHA requirements.The SIA (Ex. 2–368) also stated:

It is redundant and unnecessary to specifya quantitative value for clamp strength sincethe required safety factors already inexistence provide the proper strength for theintended load. There may be cases where theclamps should be of higher value or lowervalue, depending on usage. Consequently,requiring a numerical value may produce thecatastrophe which the proposed rule is tryingto avoid in the first place. Existing rulesrequire design by competent individuals,which provides the proper safeguards againstabuse and eliminates the need for theproposed rule.

Also, a commenter (Ex. 2–15)indicated that a British standard (BS1129) recognizing 2800 lb. has been inplace for 20 years ‘‘with satisfactoryresults.’’ The commenter stated thatmost American clamps are built toBS1129, and went on to indicate that

the same 2800 lb. figure is generallysufficient, except for possible heavy-duty applications in a specificconfiguration. The commenter furtherfelt that specifying a 4,000 lb. minimumslippage capacity would ‘‘outlaw’’ manyclamps.

One commenter (Ex. 2–22) stated thatboth slippage and minimum breakagecapacities ‘‘should be equivalent to thatrequired on the other parts of thescaffold.’’

Another commenter (Ex. 2–128) stated‘‘couplers for tube and clamp [scaffolds]should be rated by the manufacturer inaccordance with a recognized testingstandard [and] certified by an engineer.’’In addition, a commenter (Ex. 2–13)expounded on the relationship betweenthe torque applied to tighten a couplerand the slippage capacity, and notedthat proper torque values needed to bedetermined by tests or calculations.

The ACCSH (Tr. 6/9/87, pp. 138–147)recommended that OSHA specify bothminimum slippage and breakagecapacities and should require employersto obtain manufacturer’s specificationsand/or certifications that a scaffoldmeets minimum standards. However,the ACCSH did not endorse thesuggested 4000 and 16,000 pound limitsand did not propose any other limits.

After a careful review of the abovecomments, OSHA has determined thatthe capacity provisions set out in finalrule § 1926.451(a) will appropriatelyaddress the concerns regarding scaffoldstrength and that additionalspecifications would be redundant.

Issue 21 of the preamble to the NPRMrequested public comment onappropriate field test procedures orcertifications for determining thecapacity of scaffolds and scaffoldcomponents such as planks and ropes.As noted above, existing§ 1926.451(a)(7) and proposed§ 1926.451(a)(1) require scaffolds to becapable of supporting, without failure,at least four times the maximumintended load. OSHA has recognized,however, that field testing of scaffoldsand scaffold components with loadsfour times greater than the maximumintended load could cause damage thatwould render the scaffold and scaffoldcomponents unusable.

One commenter (Ex. 2–54) mentionedreliance on testing laboratories to ensurethat rope and planks meet industrystandards. Another commenter (Ex. 2–64) stated that scaffolds’ and supportsystems’ rated capacities should bemarked when manufactured and thatany field testing beyond that set forth ina manufacturer’s instructions would besuperfluous and could conflict withthose instructions.


The SSFI (Ex. 2–367) and the SIA (Ex.2–368) both stated that field testing ofsupported scaffolds would permanentlydamage equipment or render it useless,and that a visual check of thescaffolding before use should ensuresafety ‘‘as the manufacturer alreadywarrants the appropriate safety factors.’’The SIA also stated that current testingmethods ‘‘are not suitable for checkingthe ultimate capacity of scaffoldcomponents.’’ The SIA further statedthat for metal components, visualinspection is the only practical methodavailable. For wooden components, theSIA stated that inherent materialvariables make obtaining repeatableresults from a suitable bending testimpossible. On the other hand, the SIArecommended that suspension scaffoldsbe field tested with the intended load.

Two other commenters (Ex. 2–495and 2–534) agreed with the SIA that itis impossible to obtain repeatableresults from a bending test. However,they stated that a minimum thresholddesign value for flat-wise bending ofplanks could be derived from availableinformation for flat-wise bending forany specie of plank. Those commentersalso stated that field testing would notnecessarily permanently damage orrender a plank useless. They stated thatstrength testing of used planks could beaccomplished by combining visualinspections with deflection testing usinga safe load and deflection testingmachines that are currently available.

One commenter (Ex. 2–516) indicatedthat a reasonable level of load testing forscaffold machinery might be found‘‘somewhere near 1.25 times [the] ratedload’’ and that ‘‘any field tests should bea ratio of rated load, not failure load.’’The commenter assumed different safetyfactors for moving equipment,suspended scaffold hoists, and fixedstructures. The commenter alsoquestioned whether the safety factorreferred to in Issue 21 was for static,dynamic, or shock loads, and noted that4 to 1 is not an engineering safety factorbut a gross factor. In addition, thecommenter stated:

Any device or mechanism designed for astructural safety factor of four-to-onecertainly can be tested at some level less thanfour-to-one without structural failure. * * *It is difficult to comprehend the rationale ofprohibiting testing of a structure using 11⁄2times rated load for fear it will collapse,when the structure must not collapse at 4times rated load. There would then be doubtin my mind as to its ability to meet that 4-to-1 criterion.

Also, the commenter (Ex. 2–516)pointed out that any test of woodcomponents should consider the effectsof aging material, and he listed a

number of variables for which sometesting adjustments would be required.These variables included ‘‘fatigue,finish,’’ and ‘‘material test scales.’’

Two commenters (Exs. 2–13 and 2–69) indicated there would be no needfor field testing since scaffolds shouldbe designed for their intended load withan added safety factor. In particular, oneof those commenters (Ex. 2–13) stated‘‘[t]here are no appropriate field tests forsuch items as planks and ropes. Asimple visual inspection is all that isrequired by a competent person.’’

The ACCSH (Tr. pp. 163–174, 6–9–87)recommended that the manufacturer’sdesign specifications be recognized assufficient for manufactured scaffolds.The ACCSH also recommended thatspecifications or testing procedures bespecified for job-made scaffolds.

After carefully considering the abovecomments, OSHA has decided not torequire field testing of scaffolds. Basedon the comments received, the Agencyhas determined that such testing is notneeded and that, given the inspectionand capacity requirements, it would bedifficult or impossible to implementeffectively for the range of materials inquestion.

Issue 23 of the preamble to the NPRMsolicited comments on whether or notthe Agency should revise paragraph1.(b) of proposed non-mandatoryAppendix A, which provides forselection of wood scaffold planksaccording to the grading rulesestablished by a recognizedindependent inspection agency. Inparticular, OSHA asked if the languageshould be more specific and, if so, whatthat language should be.

Four commenters (Exs. 2–13, 2–22, 2–29, and 2–53) responded that theproposed Appendix A language wasadequate. One commenter (Ex. 2–13)added ‘‘it should be mandatory that theemployer visually check all scaffoldplanks before they are used.’’ Anothercommenter (Ex. 2–54) stated thatscaffold planks ‘‘should haveidentification’’ to indicate that they arescaffold grade.

However, a commenter (Ex. 2–534)noted that ‘‘it may be premature torequire that all planks be so markedsince agreement on methodology ofdetermining load displacement has notbeen reached by the engineeringprofession.’’

The SSFI (Ex. 2–367) recommendedthat scaffold planks be marked, andnoted that the most plank failures areinspection related. The SIA (Ex. 2–368)recommended that OSHA reviseparagraph (b) of proposed Appendix Ato read, in part, as follows:

All solid sawn planking shall be‘SCAFFOLD GRADE’ plank and gradestamped as appropriate per the publishedgrading rules of the recognized independentinspection agency and as approved by theBoard of Review of the American LumberStandards Committee. The maximumpermissible spans for 2 × 10 inch (nominal11⁄2′′ × 91⁄4′′ minimum dressed (S4S), 15⁄8′′ ×91⁄2′′ minimum rough or 2′′ × 10′′ minimumrough, solid sawn wood planks shall be asshown in the following table.

Paragraph 1(b) of Appendix A should beexpanded and clarified to eliminate theconfusion that exists over the use of nominalthickness scaffold grade planks on 10 ft.spans for light trades. This could be achievedby defining a scaffold grade plank in themanner done in Cal-OSHA standards.

Cal-OSHA Section 1637(e) requires what itcalls a ‘‘structural plank’’ for scaffoldplatforms as follows:

‘‘Except as specified in certain otherOrders, all planking shall be 2-inch (nominal)material selected for scaffold grade plank asdefined in Section 1504 under the headingLumber—‘Structural Plank’.’’

The ACCSH, in its June 9, 1987 (Tr.pp. 175–180), meeting, recommendedthat a competent person be responsiblefor the selection and use of scaffoldmaterials, where scaffolding materialsare not certified by the manufacturer.

After carefully considering the abovecomments, OSHA has decided tomodify paragraph 1.(b) of non-mandatory Appendix A to the final ruleto provide for identification of scaffoldplanks by the grade stamp of therecognized lumber grading associationor independent lumber gradinginspection agency under whose gradingrules the planks were selected. OSHA isalso modifying proposed Appendix A toprovide that the association or agencyunder which the wood is graded shouldbe certified by the Board of Review,American Lumber Standard Committeeas set forth in the American SoftwoodLumber Standard of the U.S.Department of Commerce. This addedlanguage clearly indicates whatconstitutes a ‘‘recognized’’ inspectionagency.

As a separate matter, OSHA ismodifying Appendix A to the final ruleto provide that allowable spans ofscaffold planks, other than 2 x 10 inch(nominal) or 2 x 9 inch (rough) solidsawn planks which are addressed in thetable in paragraph 1 (b), shall bedetermined in accordance with theNational Design Specification For WoodConstruction published by the NationalForest Products Association or withANSI A10.8–1988, paragraph 5. OSHAnotes that Appendix A is intended tohelp the employer comply with thescaffolding rules. The Agency believesthat the above modifications willfacilitate compliance with those rules.


Paragraph (a)(6) of the final rule,which was not part of the proposed rule,requires that scaffolds be designed by aqualified person and must beconstructed and loaded in accordancewith that design. OSHA believes that a‘‘qualified’’ person can design a scaffoldwhich satisfies the criteria of§ 1926.451(a). This provision also notesthat non-mandatory Appendix Acontains examples of criteria that willenable employers to comply withparagraph (a) of this section.

Issue 24 of the preamble of the NPRMnoted that existing §§ 1926.451(b)(16),(c)(4), (c)(5), (d)(9) and (g)(3) andproposed § 1926.451(b)(18)(i) and§§ 1926.452(a)(10), (b)(10), (c)(6) and(i)(8) require that an engineer designspecified scaffold types and/orcomponents that are not built or loadedin accordance with Tables L–4 throughL–13 of existing § 1926.451 or proposed§ 1926.451 Appendix A, respectively.OSHA asked for comments regardingthe extent to which the services of anengineer or of a qualified person wouldbe needed to design scaffolds inaccordance with the provisions ofAppendix A or to design scaffolds that,while not in accordance with AppendixA, would comply with § 1926.451(a).

Two commenters (Exs. 2–69 and 2–437) responded that employers shouldbe allowed to assess whether individualemployees with several years of hands-on experience are capable of designingand modifying scaffolds or an engineer’sservices are required. Also, a commenter(Ex. 2–22) expressed the view that therewas no need for further licensing anddeterminations because employers areresponsible for ensuring that scaffoldsmeet regulations for capacity and thatalterations of scaffold designs are madeby qualified individuals. The AGCcommenters (Exs. 2–20, 2–55, and 2–390) stated ‘‘there are many individualsin the construction industry with manyyears of experience who are quitecapable of scaffold design andmodification. Employers should bepermitted the flexibility to determine ifsuch individuals are capable or if theyshould seek the services of anengineer.’’

Another commenter (Ex. 2–54) notedthat not all engineers are capable ofdesigning scaffolds and that a goodmany people who work with scaffoldsdo not know all the scaffold limits orstrengths. The commenteracknowledged that complicated scaffolddesigns require the skills of an engineerfamiliar with the equipment available.However, the commenter added that acompetent worker who has followed anengineer’s drawings to erect a scaffoldcan at times recall and use that

experience in another situationrequiring a complicated scaffoldstructure.

In addition, a commenter (Ex. 2–21)stated that no additional specificationrequiring the use of engineering serviceswas warranted. The commenterexplained that ‘‘[c]onditions on mostconstruction jobs change daily and canbest be handled by qualified foremen orsupervisors on the job.’’ Also, acommenter (Ex. 2–31), addressingpumpjack scaffolds specifically,responded that although he was not anengineer himself, he knew at least asmuch as anyone else about pumpjackscaffolds. He felt that an engineer couldbe supplanted by someone withrecognized expertise but added that hedid not believe a specific definition ofsomeone qualified to design a scaffoldsystem could be made.

Both the SSFI (Ex. 2–367) and the SIA(Ex. 2–368) recommended that a‘‘qualified person,’’ as defined inproposed ANSI A10.8, be allowed todesign those scaffolds that would notrequire the services of a registeredengineer. They quoted the proposedANSI definition as follows:

A term describing one who, by possessionof a recognized degree, certificate, orprofessional standing, or who by extensiveknowledge, training, and experience, hassuccessfully demonstrated the ability to solveor resolve problems relating to the subjectmatter, the work, or the project.

The suggested definition is identical tothe definition of ‘‘qualified’’ in§ 1926.32(l).

Two Saf-t-Green commenters (Exs. 2–14 and 2–15) stated that people otherthan engineers were capable ofdesigning scaffolds. In particular, onecommenter (Ex. 2–15) stated ‘‘There aremany good, practical scaffold designerswho are not engineers. They should notbe excluded.’’

On the other hand, some responses toIssue 24 stated that the services of aregistered or professional engineer wereneeded (Exs. 2–3, 2–9, 2–13, 2–70, 2–128, and 2–516). One such commenter(Ex. 2–13) stated that he backed usingregistered professional engineers ‘‘withthe knowledge and training required for[designing] a life support system’’ andqueried where ‘‘an equivalent qualifiedresponsible person could be found?’’One commenter (Ex. 2–70) offered abrief response, ‘‘when in doubt, consultan engineer.’’ Another commenter (Ex.2–516) responded:

I would rather take my chances with theengineer [-designed scaffold system]. At leasthe knows some limits. Any other definitionlets anyone determine by themselves thatthey are eminently qualified. All it then takes

to be qualified is a big ego, a little knowledge,and a pile of frame scaffold.

A comment from Aluma-Systems,Incorporated (Ex. 2–128) expressed thebelief that an engineer’s services shouldbe required for all but the simplest ofscaffold structures. The commenterindicated that the Province of Ontariorequires that a professional engineerdesign any scaffold which exceeds 15meters in height (approximately 50 feet),any suspension scaffold where thescaffold consists of more than oneplatform, or any suspension scaffoldwhere the weight of the platform and itscomponents exceed 363 kg.

In addition, two commenters (Exs. 2–12 and 2–53) responded that theexisting regulations were sufficient oradequate. One of the two (Ex. 2–12)stated that there was already sufficientregulation and questioned whether rulescould be made to cover all situations.

In its June 9, 1987, meeting, theACCSH (Tr. pp. 180–183) recommendedthat OSHA authorize a competentperson, rather than a qualified person,to follow Appendix A for scaffolddesign, but that a registered professionalengineer be required to design scaffoldswhere conditions are not covered byAppendix A. The Agency notes that acompetent person, as defined in§ 1926.32(f) and in the final rule forsubpart L, is able to detect hazards andhas the authority to have hazardscorrected. On the other hand,‘‘qualified’’, as defined in § 1926.32(m)and in the final rule for subpart L, refersto a person who has the ability to solveor resolve safety and health problems.

After carefully considering the abovecomments, OSHA believes that theproposed rule adequately addressed theconditions under which a scaffold mustbe designed by an engineer.Accordingly, the above-listed proposedrequirements (§ 1926.451(b)(18)(i) [nowfinal rule § 1926.451(d)(3)(i)] and§§ 1926.452(a)(10), (b)(10), (c)(6), and(i)(8)) have been promulgated in thefinal rule. As discussed below, proposedrules § 1926.452(a)(10) and (b)(10) havebeen revised to distinguish more clearlybetween those circumstances where theemployer would need the services of aregistered professional engineer andthose situations where the services of aqualified person, who could refer tonon-mandatory Appendix A, would besufficient.

The Agency believes that there arequalified persons who can properlydesign scaffolds without reference toAppendix A. The Agency also believesthat there will be circumstances wherethe ‘‘qualified person’’ retained tocomply with paragraph (a)(6) will needto be a registered professional engineer.


Paragraph 1926.451(b) ScaffoldPlatform Construction

Paragraph 1926.451(b) of this finalrule provides criteria for theconstruction of scaffolds. Paragraph(b)(1) requires all platforms, exceptwalkways and those platforms used byemployees performing scaffold erectionand dismantling operations, to be fullydecked or planked. In addition,paragraph (b)(1)(i) requires that platformunits be placed so that spaces betweenunits do not exceed 1-inch, exceptwhere employers establish that morespace is needed. For example, thiswould be necessary to fit arounduprights when using side brackets toextend platform width. Paragraph(b)(1)(ii) provides that, where theexception created by paragraph (b)(1)(i)applies, employers shall place platformunits as close together as possible, withthe space between the platform anduprights not to exceed 91⁄2 inches.OSHA set 91⁄2 inches as the maximumspace allowed, because the minimumwidth for scaffold units that could beexpected to sustain a working load isjust over 91⁄2 inches. This provision,which is effectively identical to theprovision in the proposed rule, codifiesthe Agency’s longstandinginterpretation of existing§ 1926.451(a)(4), which addressesguardrails on scaffolds, to require thatguardrails be erected as close as possibleto the platform planking. Becauseguardrails normally can be convenientlyattached only at the scaffold uprights,OSHA has required the platforms to besized such that there is no gap betweenthe outermost plank edge and theguardrail. However, most prefabricatedend frames do not have a lateral spacingbetween uprights which canaccommodate an integral number ofcommercially-available planks. In orderto comply with the existing rule, someemployers have modified the last plank(notched, slanted, or cut it to size). Thiscan lead to a significant reduction inplank strength, and possibly causetipping of the plank (sideways) ifeccentrically loaded. Therefore, to dealwith this problem, proposed and finalrule paragraph (b)(1) have modified thecorresponding requirement of theexisting standard by requiring the spanbetween uprights to be planked ordecked as fully as possible, but allowingup to 91⁄2 inches between the plankingor decking and the guardrail supports.As explained above, 91⁄2 inches is themaximum allowable open space.

One commenter (Ex. 2–29) stated thatthe 1-inch opening allowed by proposedparagraph (b)(1)(i) would be largeenough to ‘‘allow many tools and small

materials to fall through’’, andrecommended a maximum space of 1⁄4inch between units. OSHA, however,finds that such a small maximum spacewould pose unreasonable complianceburdens, and is retaining the 1-inchmaximum.

The SSFI and the SIA (Exs. 2–367 and2–368) stated that compliance withproposed paragraph (b)(1) would beimpossible when erecting ordismantling scaffolds. In particular, theSIA (Ex. 2–368) stated:

For example: On a multi-level supportedscaffold where construction work is to beperformed only at the top level, lower levelswould not be planked. Erectors would onlyuse sufficient planks required to constructthe scaffold.

Load requirements limit the number oflevels that can be planked on manyinstallations. The additional cost in labor andmaterial would be staggering. In addition, thefatigue factor created by installing fullplanking from one level to the next wouldcreate a greater hazard to the erectors.

The Agency agrees with the SIAcomments and acknowledges that arequirement to fully plank under theseconditions would unreasonablyinterfere with the erection anddismantling process. The Agency alsoagrees that a requirement to fully plankevery intermediate platform level,where no work other than scaffolderection or dismantling operations willoccur, is overly burdensome. Therefore,OSHA has revised proposed paragraph(b)(1), which already exceptedwalkways from the requirement for fullplanking or decking, to add anexception to the final rule to theplanking requirements for erection ordismantling operations. In a situationwhere no work, other than erecting ordismantling the scaffold, is being doneat intermediate levels, the final rulerequires only that the plankingestablished by the employer asnecessary to provide safe workingconditions for employees erecting ordismantling the scaffold be used. On theother hand, if scaffold erection ordismantling is being performed from anintermediate level platform that is beingor will be used as a work area, thatplatform must be fully planked inaccordance with paragraph (b)(1).

Paragraph (b)(2) of the final rulerequires that all scaffold platforms andwalkways be at least 18 inches (46 cm)wide, with lesser widths allowed forladder jack scaffolds, top plate bracketscaffolds, pump jack scaffolds, roofbracket scaffolds, and boatswains’chairs, and for scaffolds in areas shownto be too narrow to accommodate an 18-inch wide surface. Proposed paragraph(b)(2) also required a minimum 18-inch

width, with exceptions for ladder jackscaffolds (12 inches) and boatswains’chairs (any width). The rationale forsetting a 12-inch minimum width forladder jack scaffolds, as discussed in thepreamble of the proposal (51 FR 42684–85), was the difficulty of handling one18-inch wide plank or two 9-inchplanks on a ladder, which the Agencyconsidered more hazardous thanworking on a 12-inch wide plank. In thefinal rule, OSHA has also includedpump jack scaffolds in the exception toparagraph (b)(2) for which a minimumplatform width of 12 inches ispermitted, based on a commenter’sstatement (Ex. 2–31) that OSHA’sperformance criteria for pump jackscaffolds enable employees to worksafely on platforms that are 12 inches or14 inches wide. The commenter alsoindicated that requiring pump jackscaffold platforms to be at least 18inches, instead of 12 inches, widewould create ‘‘an economic hardship* * * for this very prevalent sizealuminum platform.’’ OSHA agrees thatpump jack scaffolds with platforms asnarrow as 12 inches can satisfy theperformance criteria of the final ruleand has revised paragraph (b)(2)accordingly.

In addition, the Agency is recognizingtop plate bracket scaffolds and addingthem to the list of scaffolds which arepermitted to have platforms not lessthan 12 inches in width. As discussedabove in the definition section, these aresupported scaffolds, similar tocarpenters’ bracket scaffolds and formscaffolds, which consist of a platformsupported by brackets that hook over orare attached to the top plate of a wall.These scaffolds are used in residentialconstruction for setting trusses, usuallyfor high ceiling situations (e.g.,cathedral ceilings, atria). The Agencyhas determined that use of this type ofscaffold, even with a 12-inch wideplatform, provides greater protection foremployees setting trusses than the useof ladders, makeshift scaffolds orwalking the top plate. OSHA concludesthat it would be less safe to requirewider platforms for top plate scaffoldsbecause setting up this type of scaffoldwould then require handling andpositioning an 18-inch wide platform ortwo nine-inch wide platforms, andhandling and positioning larger, heavierbrackets, which is usually done fromladders. OSHA finds that this would bemore hazardous than working on one12-inch wide platform equipped withfall protection.

As proposed, OSHA is deleting therequirement that appeared in theexisting scaffold rule at § 1926.451(l)(1),which sets the minimum dimensions of


a boatswains’ chair at 12 inches by 24inches, because, with the advent ofslings and molded seats, the Agencybelieves that setting minimumdimensions is overly restrictive. Thisperformance-oriented approach isreflected by the inclusion of language inparagraph (b)(2)(i) which specificallyexempts boatswains’ chairs from anywidth requirements.

The SIA (Ex. 2–368) suggested thatplatforms as narrow as 12 inches widebe allowed in areas where entryways arerestricted. Another commenter (Ex. 2–64) suggested that suspension scaffoldsdesigned for special applications (e.g.,to fit through manholes) be permitted tobe as narrow as 12 inches. OSHArealizes that there may be instanceswhere the nature of the work beingperformed makes it impossible to makeplatforms and walkways at least 18inches wide. Where the employer canestablish that such a situation exists, theAgency will accept platforms andwalkways that are less than 18 incheswide, provided both that such platformsand walkways are as wide as is feasibleand that employees are adequatelyprotected from fall hazards by the use ofguardrails and/or personal fall arrestsystems, as required by paragraph (g).

Final rule paragraph (b)(3) (proposedas paragraph (b)(4)) sets therequirements for the space between thefront edge of a platform and the face ofthe structure where the scaffold is beingused. Paragraph (b)(3) requires that,except as provided in paragraphs(b)(3)(i) and (b)(3)(ii), the front edge ofall platforms must be no more than 14inches from the face of the structure,unless the employer implementsguardrail systems or personal fall arrestsystems that comply with paragraph (g)of the final rule to protect employeesfrom falling between the platform andthe structure. Final rule paragraph(b)(3)(i) requires that the front edges ofoutrigger scaffolds be no more thanthree inches from the face of thestructure, as is required by§ 1926.451(g)(4) of OSHA’s existingstandard. Final rule paragraph (b)(3)(ii)requires that the front edges of scaffoldsused for plastering and lathingoperations be no more than 18 inchesfrom the face of the structure.

The 18-inch dimension wasdeveloped from data collected by WangAssociates (Ex. 5) which show that ashorter distance between the scaffoldplatform and the wall is not feasible forthe operators of plastering and lathingequipment because of interference withthe tools used during such operations.However, these same operations causethe employee to stand back from theedge and the hazard of falling is

correspondingly reduced. The SIA (Ex.2–368) supported the 18-inch provisionas being necessary for the types of workcovered, while acknowledging that insome cases 14 inches would beadequate.

Final rule paragraph (b)(3) iseffectively identical to proposedparagraph (b)(4), except that theproposed provision specified ‘‘Type I’’guardrails instead of requiringcompliance with paragraph (g). OSHAhas deleted the designations ‘‘Type I’’and ‘‘Type II’’ from the final rule forsubpart L, as discussed above in relationto the definition of ‘‘Guardrail system’’.

Existing § 1926.451(a)(4) requiresguardrails on all open sides and ends ofa scaffold platform, but does not specifyhow far away a scaffold platform may befrom a building before the side facingthe building is considered to be an‘‘open side.’’ OSHA’s existing scaffoldrule has often been interpreted to meanthat no open space is allowed. However,zero clearance during all phases ofconstruction is not feasible. The 14-inchlimit in proposed paragraph (b)(4)recognized that during construction theface of the wall being built often movesout toward the scaffolds. There must besufficient space at the beginning of workto allow for the installation ofinsulation, lathing, plaster, masonryunits, ledges, facings and otherarchitectural or structural additions.The spacing must be allowed for fromthe start, because it is not practical tomove large scaffolds away from the wallas wall construction progressesoutward. When the initial set backdistance must be more than 14 inches,the platform can often still be keptwithin 14 inches of the building by theuse of side brackets or extensions onsupported scaffolds, and by angulatedroping, static lines, or equivalent meanson suspension scaffolds.

Two commenters (Exs. 2–41 and 2–465) questioned the use of 14 inches inthis provision, suggesting that amaximum of 12 inches be allowed.While OSHA recognizes that thesuggested 12-inch spacing could bemarginally more protective, the Agencyalso recognizes that, as discussed above,in many cases an unobstructed workingspace of at least 14 inches is necessary.OSHA also notes that ANSI A10.8–1988,paragraph 4.5.9, allows up to a 16-inchspace for supported scaffolds and a 12-inch space for suspended scaffolds. Insupport of OSHA’s position, the SIA(Ex. 2–368) endorsed the proposedlanguage as the proper solution to theproblem, while noting that it wouldprefer 18 inches. The Agency believesthat the 14-inch space appropriatelyaddresses both the safety concerns and

the need to allow necessary room formany of the jobs normally performedfrom scaffolds.

Final rule paragraph (b)(4) requireseach end of a platform unit, unlesscleated or otherwise restrained by hooksor equivalent means, to extend over thecenter line of its support at least sixinches (15 cm). This provision isvirtually identical to proposedparagraph (b)(5), which was based onexisting § 1926.451(a)(14). The use ofcleats, hooks, and similar securingdevices would also be allowed asalternatives to the six inch extension inthe proposed and final rules, because oftheir ability to restrain movement ofplatform units.

OSHA received one comment (Ex. 2–40) on this provision, which stressed theimportance of securing platform unitsagainst movement.

Final rule paragraph (b)(5) (proposedparagraph (b)(6)) addresses themaximum distance platform units mayextend over their supports. In particular,paragraph (b)(5)(i) provides that eachend of a platform unit 10 feet (3 m) orless in length shall not extend over itssupport more than 12 inches (30 cm)unless the unit is designed, andinstalled so that the cantilevered portionof the unit is able to support employeesor material without tipping or hasguardrails which prevent employeeaccess to the cantilevered end. Inaddition, paragraph (b)(5)(ii) providesthat each platform unit greater than 10feet in length shall not extend over itssupport more than 18 inches (46 cm),unless the unit is designed and installedso that the cantilevered portion of theunit is able to support employeeswithout tipping, or that the unit hasguardrails which block employee accessto the cantilevered end.

OSHA proposed to change themaximum overhang allowed by existing§ 1926.451(a)(14) from 12 inches to 18inches because many planks in use are10 feet long, and are used to span eightfoot distances. OSHA also notes thatANSI A10.8–1988, paragraph 4.17,limits planks from extending more than18 inches over their supports, withoutregard to the length of the plank.

OSHA’s thinking at the time of theproposal was that the existingrequirement was unnecessarilyrestrictive, and that strict adherence tothe existing maximum overhang limitwould require platform units to be cutif they extended beyond the 12-inchlimit.

Although no comments were receivedon this provision, OSHA has concluded,upon further consideration of thismatter, that the maximum overhangallowed, unless the above specified


measures have been taken, should belimited to 12 inches for planks 10 feetor less in length, and 18 inches forplanks greater than 10 feet in length.The Agency concludes that allowing an18-inch overhang as a matter of coursewould be unsafe, because the weight ofan employee on an 18-inch overhangcould easily tip a 10-foot plank.However, an 18-inch overhang on aplank that is longer than 10 feet wouldbe permissible because the additionalweight of the longer platform wouldoffset the weight of the employee on theoverhang. In addition, an employer whoseeks to use platform units thatoverhang the supports more than theprescribed distance would be requiredto satisfy the performance criteria ofparagraph (b)(5) of the final rule.

Under final rule paragraph (b)(6),where platform units are abutted tocreate a long platform, each abutted endshall rest on a separate support surface.Abutted platform units do not rest oneon another, but instead are end-to-end.Consequently, one unit does not supportthe other, and proper support can onlybe provided by separate supportsurfaces. This provision is virtuallyidentical to proposed paragraph (b)(7),except that the final rule has deleted thewords ‘‘butt plate or equivalent meansof support’’, because those words addnothing to the requirement for ‘‘separatesupport.’’ This provision is based onexisting § 1926.451(b)(12), whichcurrently applies only to wood polescaffolds. OSHA has determined that allscaffolds need proper platform supportand, accordingly, has promulgated thisprovision.

The Agency has also added a note tothis provision stating that commonsupport members such as ‘‘T’’ sectionsor hook-on platforms designed to rest oncommon supports are not prohibited bythis provision. The Agency is doing thisto prevent confusion since thesecommonly used support members mightbe considered not to meet therequirements of this provision.

Final rule paragraph (b)(7) providesthat where platforms are overlapped tocreate a long platform, the overlap shalloccur only over supports, and shall notbe less than 12 inches (30 cm) unlessthe platforms are nailed together orotherwise restrained to preventmovement. This provision is virtuallyidentical to proposed paragraph (b)(8)which was based on existing§ 1926.451(a)(12).

Final rule paragraph (b)(8) requiresthat at all points of a scaffold where theplatform changes direction, such asturning a corner, any platform that restson a bearer at an angle other than a rightangle shall be laid first and platforms

which rest at right angles over the samebearer shall be laid second, on top of thefirst platform. This provision is virtuallyidentical to proposed paragraph (b)(9),which was based on existing§ 1926.451(b)(13). While this provisionin OSHA’s existing standard addressesonly wood pole scaffolds, OSHA hasdetermined, as with final rule paragraph(b)(6), that the existing requirement isappropriately applied to theconstruction of all scaffold platforms.

Final rule paragraph (b)(9) providesthat wood platforms shall not becovered with opaque finishes, exceptthat platform edges may be covered ormarked for purposes of identification.Platforms may be coated periodicallywith wood preservatives, fire-retardantfinishes, and slip-resistant finishes, butthe coating may not obscure the top orbottom wood surfaces. This paragraph isintended to ensure that structuraldefects in platforms are not coveredfrom view by the use of an opaquecoating or finish. Hairline cracks cansignificantly reduce the strength of awood member, so early detection ofstructural defects is important. Opaquefinishes can cover such cracks and makethem difficult to discover. The edges ofplatform units are excepted from thisrule to allow identification marks,grading marks, or other similar type ofmarks to be placed on the unit edges.

This provision is virtually identical toproposed paragraph (b)(10). Theproposal addressed the use of woodpreservatives, fire retardant finishes andslip-resistant finishes in a ‘‘note’’, whilethe final rule has incorporated thepertinent language directly into theregulatory text. In short, those finishesmay be used as long as they do notobscure the top or bottom woodsurfaces.

Final rule paragraph (b)(10) requiresthat scaffold components manufacturedby different manufacturers not beintermixed unless the component partsfit together without force and theresulting scaffold’s structural integrity ismaintained by the user. Scaffoldcomponents manufactured by differentmanufacturers shall not be modified inorder to intermix them unless theresulting scaffold is determined by acompetent person to be structurallysound. OSHA expects that thecompetent person who evaluates thescaffold will have the appropriateknowledge, skill and experienceregarding scaffold systems andcomponents.

This provision is identical toproposed paragraph (b)(11), except thatthe proposal did not contain the phrase‘‘and the resulting scaffold’s structuralintegrity is maintained by the user’’. The

SIA (Ex. 2–368) suggested the addedlanguage, citing the ‘‘latest ANSI A10.8draft.’’ The Agency acknowledges that ascaffold may lack the requisitestructural integrity even though theintermixed components ‘‘fit togetherwithout force.’’ OSHA agrees that therequirement to maintain structuralintegrity should be clearly stated in thisprovision and has revised the final ruleaccordingly.

One commenter (Ex. 2–29) stated‘‘[m]any, if not all, scaffoldmanufacturers void any liability if theirscaffold components are intermixed* * * A standard requirement shouldnot result in a lesser degree of safety;neither should it encourage an employerto take a course of action that couldincrease his liability.’’ The SSFI (Ex. 2–367) stated ‘‘[i]t would be the Institute’srecommendation that scaffoldcomponents not be intermixed eventhough they may re[a]dily fit togetherwithout force. Many times the capacityor bracing alignment would not be thesame as other types of scaffold, thuscreating a hazardous situation.’’ OSHAagrees that an unsafe condition couldexist when parts are intermixed, unlessadequate precautions are taken, andbelieves that paragraph (b)(10), asmodified, in conjunction with§ 1926.451(a), provides for adequateprecautions to be taken by the employerto ensure against this eventuality.

Paragraph (b)(11) of the final ruleprovides that scaffold components madeof dissimilar metals shall not be usedtogether unless a competent person hasdetermined that galvanic action will notreduce the strength of any component toa level below that required by§ 1926.451(a). This provision, whileeffectively identical to proposedparagraph (b)(12), differs from§§ 1926.451(c) (1), (2) and (3) of OSHA’sexisting rule, which prohibit the usetogether of any dissimilar metals ontube and coupler scaffolds. Theproposed rule was intended to extendthe prohibition to all scaffolds, becausethe problem of dissimilar metals causinggalvanic action can occur on anyscaffold, not just tube and couplerscaffolds. However, the proposed rulewas not intended to prohibit all uses ofdissimilar metals because there aremany combinations which do notproduce significant galvanic reactions.

One commenter (Ex. 2–41) expressedskepticism as to the ability of acompetent person to discern thatgalvanic action has not reduced thestrength of any component. However,OSHA finds that any competent person,as defined by this subpart, would beable to identify the causes andsignificance of any deterioration in


scaffold components. In particular,OSHA expects the competent person,who is on site and required to inspectthe scaffold, to recognize deteriorationdue to galvanic reactions, and to takeprompt corrective action.

Paragraph 1926.451(c) Criteria forSupported Scaffolds

Final rule § 1926.451(c) sets criteriafor the use of supported scaffolds.Paragraph (c)(1) of the final rule requiresthat supported scaffolds with a height tobase width ratio of more than four toone (including outrigger supports, ifused) be restrained from tipping byguying, tying, bracing, or equivalentmeans. That provision is based onexisting § 1926.451(e)(1), which coversmanually-propelled mobile scaffolds.Any type of supported scaffold cantopple if its center-of-gravity is too high,and OSHA has therefore expanded thecoverage of this paragraph in the finalrule. Final rule paragraph (c)(1)(i)provides that guys, ties, and braces shallbe installed at locations wherehorizontal members support both innerand outer legs. In addition, paragraph(c)(1)(ii) requires, as follows:

(1) Guys, ties, and braces shall be installedaccording to the scaffold manufacturer’srecommendations or at the closest horizontalmember to the 4:1 height and be repeatedvertically at locations of horizontal membersevery 20 feet (6.1 m) or less thereafter forscaffolds 3 feet (0.91 m) wide or less andevery 26 feet (7.9 m) or less thereafter forscaffolds greater than 3 feet (0.91 m) wide;

(2) The top tie, guy or brace of a completedscaffold shall be placed no further than the4:1 height from the top; and

(3) Such guys, ties and braces be installedat each end of the scaffold and at horizontalintervals not to exceed 30 feet (9.1 m)(measured from one end [not both] towardsthe other).

This provision of the final rule isessentially the same as proposedparagraph (b)(13), except that themaximum vertical spacing has beenchanged to allow for the scaffolds to besupported at their strongest points.Proposed paragraphs (b)(13)(i) and(b)(13)(ii), which specified thehorizontal spacing for ties, guys, andbraces, were intended to replaceexisting §§ 1926.451 (b)(4), (c)(12), and(d)(7). These paragraphs of the existingrule required pole scaffolds, tube andcoupler scaffolds, and fabricated framescaffolds to be tied and braced atintervals no greater than 26 feetvertically (25 feet for wood polescaffolds) and 30 feet horizontally (25feet for wood pole scaffolds). Theseparagraphs have been misinterpretedover the years to mean that scaffoldsless than 26 feet high by 30 feet long (25by 25 for wood pole scaffolds) do not

need guys, ties, or braces. Proposedparagraph (b)(13)(ii) was intended toreplace the 26- and 25-foot vertical ruleand require all scaffolds required by the4 to 1 rule to have guys, ties, or bracesalso to have such connections installedat each end of the scaffold and athorizontal intervals not to exceed 30feet (measured from one end only).

The following are examples of howthis requirement is to be applied: (a) Ifa scaffold is five feet wide, 18 feet highand 50 feet long, no vertical orhorizontal ties and braces are requiredbecause the height is less than fourtimes the width and the four to one ruledoes not require connections; (b) if thescaffold is five feet wide, 50 feet high,and 25 feet long, ties and braces arerequired at least at the 20- and 40-footlevels at both ends of the scaffold (fourties and braces in all); (c) if the scaffoldis five feet wide, 50 feet tall, and 70 feetlong, ties and braces are required at leastat the 20- and 40-foot levels. Thesewould be installed starting from eitherend, at least at the zero, 30, 60, and 70-foot horizontal distances (eight ties andbraces in all).

The SSFI (Ex. 2–367) disagreed withthe 20-foot limit for bracing intervals inproposed paragraph (b)(13)(i) andsuggested a 20-foot limit for scaffolds 3feet wide or less, and a 26 foot limit forscaffolds more than 3 feet wide. Inaddition, this commenter suggested thatbracing be at bearing locations or asrecommended by the manufacturer.OSHA agrees with this commenter’ssuggested bracing intervals, because theAgency believes that properly erectedscaffolds more than 36 inches wide aremore stable than those which arenarrower, and has modified thisprovision of the final rule accordingly.

The SIA (Ex. 2–368) stated:We are in agreement with the proposed

wording used to define the location of guysand ties as a function of the scaffold basewidth dimension. This proposed wordingadequately defines where scaffolds must beguyed or tied to achieve proper scaffoldstability. To correctly transmit the stabilizingforces through the scaffold, however, theguys or ties must be placed at locationswhere horizontal members support both theinner and outer legs. Guying or tying ascaffold leg at mid span could buckle the legand cause an unexpected scaffold failure. Toavoid this danger, it is recommended that thetie be placed at the closest horizontalmember above the 4:1 base to height ratioand repeated vertically at locations ofhorizontal members every 20 to 26 feet inheight thereafter. The top tie shall be placedno further than a 4:1 base to height ratio fromthe top.

OSHA agrees that guys, ties, andbraces should be placed at points ofscaffold structural strength, and has

modified this provision of the final ruleaccordingly. Furthermore, the Agencyagrees with the SIA’s recommendationthat the top tie, guy, or brace be placedno more than the 4:1 height to base ratiofrom the top of the scaffold, and hasmodified the provision accordingly.However, OSHA does not agree with theSIA suggestion that guys, ties and bracesbe installed at the closest horizontalmember above the 4 to 1 base to heightratio, and has revised the language ofthis provision to reflect the Agency’sfinding that these components beinstalled at the closest horizontalmember to the 4:1 height, whetherabove or below, to maximize stability.

In addition, the SIA recommendedthat OSHA require employers toconsider loads due to wind and weatherwhen guying, tying, or bracing isinstalled, whenever scaffolds arepartially or fully enclosed. The Agencynotes that these matters are addressed inthe general capacity requirements offinal rule § 1926.451(a) and in§ 1926.451(f)(13), which requires thatwind screens not be used unless thescaffold has been secured against theforces imposed.

Another commenter (Ex. 2–38)suggested using the same language as inexisting § 1926.451(e)(1), which requiresthat the height of a manually propelledmobile scaffold not exceed four timesthe minimum base dimension, ‘‘becauseit is more understandable.’’ Also, acommenter (Ex. 2–40) stated ‘‘since thestandard does not address the issue ofcantilevered work platforms (or theireffect on stability), the allowable heightto base width ratio of equal to four orless seems high.’’

Another commenter (Ex. 2–23)recommended a ratio of 3 to 1, butprovided no rationale to support itssuggestion. OSHA notes that the finalrule 4:1 ratio is consistent with therequirement in ANSI A10.8–1988,paragraph 4.31, that free-standingscaffolds with height to base ratios ofmore than 4:1 be restrained from tippingby guying or other means.

Based on these concerns, in the finalrule OSHA has added paragraph(c)(1)(iii), which requires that scaffoldswith eccentric loads (such ascantilevered work platforms) berestrained from tipping through the useof ties, guys, braces or outriggers.

Final rule paragraph (c)(2) requiresthat supported scaffold poles, legs,posts, frames, and uprights bear on baseplates and mud sills or other adequatefirm foundation. In particular, final ruleparagraph (c)(2)(i) requires that suchfootings be level, sound, rigid, andcapable of supporting the scaffold in a


loaded condition without settling ordisplacement.

In addition, final rule paragraphs(c)(2) (ii) and (iii) provide that unstableobjects shall neither be used to supportscaffolds or platform units, nor be usedas working platforms, respectively. Thereason for these requirements is almostself-explanatory: every scaffold muststand on a firm footing if it is towithstand the load that employees,equipment, and materials place on it.

Final rule paragraph (c)(2)(iv)provides that front-end loaders andsimilar pieces of equipment shall not beused as scaffold supports unless theyhave been specifically designed by themanufacturer for such use. In addition,final rule paragraph (c)(2)(v) requiresthat fork-lifts not be used to supportscaffold platforms unless the entireplatform is attached to the fork and thefork-lift is not moved horizontally whilethe platform is occupied. Both theserequirements relate to the need for solidsupport for scaffold platforms andreflect the fact that front-end loaders,fork-lifts and other such equipment arenot generally designed for this purpose.

Paragraph (c)(2) of the final rule isidentical to proposed paragraph (b)(14),except for two provisions, final ruleparagraphs (c)(2) (iv) and (v), whichhave been added based on inputgenerated by responses to Issue 3 of thepreamble of the NPRM. Proposedparagraph (b)(14) consolidated existingrequirements that scaffold uprights restupon a stable, firm, level footing.

Issue 3 asked if OSHA should prohibitthe use of cranes, derricks, forklifts,front-end loaders, and similar pieces ofequipment for the support of scaffoldplatforms. In addition, OSHA askedwhat pieces of equipment should beprohibited and what other relatedprovisions would be necessary to ensureemployee safety.

Several commenters from theAssociated General Contractors ofAmerica (AGC) (Exs. 2–20, 2–55, and2–390) and the ACCSH (Tr. 6/9/87, pp.40–41) noted that OSHA hadundertaken rulemaking regarding theuse of cranes and derricks to hoistpersonnel platforms (NPRM publishedFebruary 17, 1984, 49 FR 6280). TheAGC commenters stated that theproposed regulations for cranesuspended work platforms alreadyaddressed the concerns raised inIssue 3.

Another commenter (Ex. 2–53) calledfor the development and issuance ofspecific crane suspended platformregulations, and one respondent (Ex.2–29) commented that the currentregulations on crane suspended workplatforms were acceptable.

On August 2, 1988 (53 FR 29116),OSHA issued a final rule (§ 1926.550(g))which regulates the use of cranes andderricks to hoist personnel platforms.Therefore, there is no longer a need forsubpart L to address that subject.

Regarding the use of front-endloaders, one commenter (Ex. 2–33)responded, in part, that ‘‘front-endloaders should not be used to hoistworker-loaded scaffold platforms’’ andadded that the ‘‘[u]se of forklifts for thispurpose should be limited inaccordance with * * * OSHA’s GeneralIndustry Standards for poweredindustrial trucks, 29 CFR1910.178(m)(12).’’ The same commenteralso stated ‘‘If large platforms are usedin this manner, consideration should begiven to requiring bracing of forks tosafeguard against tipping or slipping ofthe truck or its forks.’’

Another commenter (Ex. 2–70) statedsimply ‘‘[w]e do not utilize forms ofequipment to support platforms.’’ Twoother commenters (Exs. 2–367 and2–368) stated ‘‘the practice of usingcranes, derricks, fork-lifts, etc., [tosupport scaffold platforms] is unsafeand should be prohibited.’’

One commenter (Ex. 2–5), amanufacturer of heavy-duty materials-handling equipment, including forkliftsand cranes, stated that ‘‘[f]or years, wehave made the users of our equipmentaware that these are intended solely forthe handling of materials and not forpersonnel.’’ The commenter went on tosay their company recommends that‘‘OSHA develop rules prohibiting theuse of forklifts, front-end loaders andsimilar pieces of equipment for thesupport of scaffold platforms,’’ andprovided the following rationale:

This class of equipment depends on ahydraulic cylinder(s) to lift and hold theload[-]engaging means. When new, thecylinder has little leakage past the sealingmeans, usually packings, but it does haveleakage. After use, the leakage increases. Thisallows the load[-]engaging means to ’drift’downward, possibly endangering personnelon the scaffold platform. Additionally, theload[-]engaging means of a forklift are usuallysupported on bearings or sliding membersand chains. With use, wear occurs at thesepoints. If excellent maintenance is notperformed, and worn parts [are not] promptlyreplaced, sufficient wear can occur which isnot evident when handling heavy loads,since their gravitational mass overcomes thefriction and keeps the chain tight; however,when supporting a light load such as ascaffold platform, there is insufficient massto overcome the friction with the load[-]engaging means left suspended when themechanism is lowered, with a sudden dropof the load [-]engaging means when dislodged. We haveknowledge of this happening at least twotimes at Cape Kennedy when a work platform

was raised by a 15,000 pound[-]capacityforklift of our manufacture. Each time seriousinjury to the man on the platform occurred.

The ACCSH has recommended (Tr. 6/9/87, pp. 32–48) that OSHA prohibit theuse of front-end loaders and othersimilar earth-moving equipment forscaffold support. ACCSH alsorecommended that OSHA develop rulesallowing the use of forklifts as scaffoldplatforms only while the equipment isstationary and while proper fallprotection is provided.

Several commenters (Exs. 2–13, 2–20,2–22, 2–24, 2–54, 2–55, and 2–390)favored allowing the use of cranes,derricks, front-end loaders, and forkliftsto support scaffold platforms, in generalterms. Three other commenters (Exs. 2–29, 2–33, and 2–176) favored allowingthe use of forklifts, under specifiedconditions, to support scaffolds.

Three commenters from the AGC (Exs.2–20, 2–55, and 2–390) stated that, incertain instances, where access to awork area was difficult and the workassignment was of short duration, usingscaffold framing might be morehazardous than using equipment forwork platform support. They added thatappropriate personal protectiveequipment could be used for employeesafety in these situations.

Another commenter (Ex. 2–22)opposed the contemplated prohibition,stating ‘‘[t]here are a variety of fieldsituations in which the use of suchdevices is the only safe way to handlea particular problem. Not only is thereno diminution in the safety levelafforded to employees in suchsituations, but the level of safety mayactually be improved.’’

Also, a commenter (Ex. 2–24) termedthe ‘‘suggestion that cranes, forklifts,and other equipment could not be usedas platform supports’’ as ‘‘totallyunrealistic.’’ The commenter providedsome alternatives and examples (e.g.,long ladders) describing them asinvolving the use of generally dangerousequipment. The commenter also notedthat when using this equipment asscaffold support, additional protectivemeasures would be necessary. Thesemeasures would include having theoperator at the controls at all times,having railings on platforms used above10 feet in height, and providing safetytraining.

The Boston Cement Masons andAsphalt Layers Union (BCMALU) (Ex.2–54) indicated that the use of thisequipment to support scaffold platformsmight be practical in certaincircumstances. This commenter alsoadded that employers ‘‘should note theuse of this equipment in their DailyReport and explain why they used it.’’


A carpentry contractor (Ex. 2–176)said that forklift scaffold(s) withproperly constructed scaffold platformsshould be permitted, provided they areequipped with proper railings, andadded that ‘‘[i]f the workers workingfrom the scaffold do not ride up anddown, there is no danger of their fallingoff.’’

One commenter (Ex. 2–29) stated that‘‘[f]orklift[-]mounted work platformsmight also be acceptable providedsuitable requirements and restrictionsare specified.’’ Another commenter (Ex.2–13), expressing guarded support ofthe possible prohibition, stated thatsince this ‘‘equipment is readilyavailable at job sites * * * [it] willcontinue to be used to support workersat elevated working locations.’’ Thesame commenter further suggested thata minimum requirement for the safe useof such equipment would be to have acompetent engineer responsible for thedesign and safe use of the resultingscaffold.

After a careful review of the abovecomments, OSHA finds there isinsufficient reason to totally ban the useof forklifts, front-end loaders, and othersimilar equipment as scaffold supports.OSHA notes that the commenters are ingeneral agreement that all equipmentnot specifically designed to supportscaffold platforms must not be used.Accordingly, the Agency haspromulgated new paragraphs (c)(2) (iv)and (v) in the final rule to provideguidance for the safe use of specificequipment as scaffold supports. Inparticular, the added provision requiresthat, in the case of fork-lifts, the entirescaffold platform be secured to theforklift. All supported scaffolds,including those supported by forklifts,front-end loaders and similar pieces ofequipment, must comply with theapplicable requirements of § 1926.451for capacity, construction, access, use,and fall protection.

Paragraph (c)(3) of the final rulerequires that supported scaffold poles,legs, posts, frames, and uprights beplumb and braced to prevent swayingand displacement. This provision,which is identical to proposedparagraph (b)(15), consolidates existing§ 1926.451 (a)(15), (b)(1), (c)(6) and(e)(8), all of which require that uprightsbe secure, plumb, and braced to preventswaying and displacement of thescaffold.

Paragraph 1926.451(d) Criteria forSuspension Scaffolds

Final rule paragraph (d) sets criteriafor the use of suspension scaffolds.Paragraph (d)(1) of the final rulerequires that all suspension scaffold

support devices, such as outriggerbeams, cornice hooks, parapet clamps,and similar devices, rest on surfacescapable of supporting at least 4 timesthe loads imposed on them by thescaffold operating at the rated load ofthe hoist (or at least 1.5 times the loadsimposed on them by the scaffoldoperating at the stall load of the hoist,whichever is greater).

Proposed paragraph (b)(16) requiredall suspension scaffold support devicessuch as outrigger beams, cornice hooks,parapet clamps, and similar devices, torest on surfaces capable of supportingthe reaction forces imposed by thescaffold hoist operating at its maximumrated load. Both the proposed and finalrule are based on existing§ 1926.451(h)(9), which requires thatoutrigger beams rest on suitable woodbearing blocks. Final rule paragraph(d)(1) differs from the proposedprovision regarding the way in whichthe load to be sustained is expressed.The proposed rule used the term‘‘maximum rated load’’ instead of thefinal rule’s terms ‘‘rated load of thehoist’’ and ‘‘stall load’’ of the hoist.

Three commenters (Exs. 2–64, 2–367and 2–516) recommended a 4 to 1 safetyfactor based on the rated load of thehoist. Another commenter (Ex. 2–41)stated that reaction force should includeall forces, not just those from the hoist,and indicated that some safety factorwas needed. The Agency agrees that aclarification is warranted here, and hasmodified the final rule to reflect thisinput. In addition, the text has beenmodified to be consistent with final rule§§ 1926.451 (a)(2) and (a)(4). TheAgency concludes that this is necessaryin order to adequately address the issueof the hoist reaching its stall load whenthe scaffold strikes an obstruction.OSHA has determined that the hoiststall capacity needs to be greater thanthe hoist rated capacity so that therigging system will be able to supportthe loads imposed by obstructions aswell as the load being lifted. This matteris addressed in greater detail above, inrelation to final rule § 1926.451(a)(1).

Final rule paragraphs (d)(2), (d)(3) and(d)(4) set requirements for outriggerbeams used with suspension scaffolds.Paragraph (d)(2) of the final rulerequires that suspension scaffoldoutrigger beams, when used, be made ofstructural metal, or equivalent strengthmaterial, and be restrained to preventmovement. This is identical to proposedparagraph (b)(17), except as discussedbelow. The proposal was based onexisting §§ 1926.451(h)(4) and (k)(8).

The SIA (Ex. 2–368) stated that if theintent of proposed paragraph (b)(17) wasto prohibit the use of wood outrigger

beams, the Agency should simply sayso. The proposed language clearlyindicated that outrigger beams must bemade of structural metal. However,upon further consideration of thisprovision, OSHA believes that othermaterials should be allowed if theirstrength and other pertinentcharacteristics are equivalent to those ofstructural metal. The Agency hastherefore revised the proposed ruleaccordingly. This revision is in linewith the Agency’s policy to permitalternative materials or practices whichprovide equivalent protection toemployees. Also, OSHA has added thewords ‘‘when used’’ to indicate clearlythat the provision does not requireoutrigger beams to be used but onlyapplies when outrigger beams are used.

Final rule paragraph (d)(3) setsrequirements for the stabilization ofoutrigger beams. The introductorylanguage of the paragraph requires thatoutrigger beams be secured directly tothe supporting surface or be stabilizedusing counterweights, except thatmasons’ multi-point adjustablesuspension scaffolds shall not bestabilized by counterweights. The ruledoes not allow counterweights forstabilizing such masons’ suspensionscaffolds because, with the large loadsoften placed on masons’ multi-pointadjustable suspension scaffolds and thelarge counterweights that would benecessary to anchor such systems,OSHA is concerned that the supportingroof or floor would become dangerouslyoverloaded.

Final rule paragraph (d)(3) is identicalto proposed paragraph (b)(18), exceptfor a few minor editorial changes asdescribed below. The final rule clarifiesexisting §§ 1926.451 (h)(4) and (j)(5),which require simply that outriggers besecurely fastened or anchored.Counterweights are not addressed in theexisting standard. OSHA hasdetermined that it is necessary to setcriteria for counterweights in the finalrule, however, because counterweightsare often the only way to anchor anoutrigger beam without damaging thesupporting surface.

Paragraph (d)(3)(i) provides that directconnections shall be evaluated by acompetent person who affirms, based onthat evaluation, that supporting surfacescan support the anticipated loads. Inaddition, the paragraph requiresmasons’ multi-point adjustablesuspension scaffold connections to bedesigned by an engineer experienced insuch scaffold design. OSHA anticipatesthat compliance with these provisionswill ensure that roof or floor decks arecapable of supporting the loads to beimposed.


Final rule paragraphs (d)(3)(ii)through (d)(3)(v) require thatcounterweights be made of non-flowablematerial; be specifically designed foruse as scaffold counterweights; besecured to outrigger beams to preventaccidental displacement; and not beremoved from an outrigger beam untilthe scaffold is disassembled,respectively. These requirements arenecessary to ensure that counterweightsare used only for their intended purposeand are not displaced or removedprematurely.

Final rule paragraphs (d)(3)(vi)through (d)(3)(x) set requirements forsecuring outrigger beams. In particular,outrigger beams not stabilized by directconnections to the supporting surfaceshall be secured by tiebacks (paragraph(d)(3)(vi)). Tiebacks must be as strong asthe suspension ropes (paragraph(d)(3)(vii)), be secured to a structurallysound anchorage (paragraph (d)(3)(ix)),and be installed perpendicular to thestructure unless opposing angle tiebacksare installed (paragraph (d)(3)(x)). Inaddition, paragraph (d)(3)(viii) requiresthat outrigger beams be placedperpendicular to their bearing support,with the exception described more fullybelow.

With regard to proposed paragraph(b)(18)(i) (paragraph (d)(3)(i) in the finalrule), a commenter (Ex. 2–40) stated‘‘we believe that improper connectionsare almost always responsible for thefailure of scaffolds. Therefore, criteriafor torsion strength evaluation of bolted(direct) connections should be includedin the standard.’’ OSHA believes thatthe corresponding requirement in finalrule paragraph (d)(3)(i) for evaluation ofdirect connections by a competentperson will provide adequate assurancethat those connections are designed andmade appropriately, because thecompetent person must have the abilityto identify any problems with the directconnections and the authority to haveany problems corrected.

Proposed paragraph (b)(18)(ii)(paragraph (d)(3)(ii) in the final rule)required that counterweights be made ofnon-flowable solid material. That, ineffect, prohibited the practice of usingsandbags or water-filled buckets ascounterweights. The reason for theprohibition is that counterweights areeasily displaced and may leak. Finalrule paragraph (d)(3)(ii) is virtuallyidentical, except that the word ‘‘solid’’has been deleted, because that term isredundant with the term ‘‘non-flowable’’, and a sentence has beenadded that explicitly prohibits the useof sand, gravel and other similarmaterial as counterweights.

A commenter (Ex. 2–41) stated thatthe proposed paragraph would causeconfusion, inquiring whether, if five 70pound weights are considered ‘‘solid,’’350 one pound weights also would beconsidered ‘‘solid’’? The Agency wouldconsider five 70 pound weights asmeeting this requirement, becauseobjects of this weight would beunwieldy and less prone to dislocation.However, 350 one pound weights wouldnot meet this requirement because theirlight weight would make them moreprone to being dislocated, thus possiblycompromising their effectiveness as acounterweight. OSHA has added thesentence ‘‘Sand, gravel, and similarmaterials that can be easily dislocatedshall not be used’’ to indicate moreclearly what materials are not allowedfor use as counterweights.

Paragraph (d)(3)(iii) of the final rulerequires that counterweights bespecifically designed for use ascounterweights. This provision, whichwas not part of the proposed rule, hasbeen added in response to inputreceived regarding Issue 26 in thepreamble of the NPRM. That Issue askedif OSHA should require thatcounterweights be designed for no otherpurpose than to counterweight thesystem, thereby prohibiting the use ofconstruction materials, such as concretemasonry units, rolls of felt, etc., ascounterweights.

One commenter (Ex. 2–22) opposedrequiring that counterweights bedesigned for no other purpose than tocounterweight the system. Thiscommenter stated that such arequirement would be unnecessarilycostly. This commenter also stated ‘‘Solong as the material used meets theobjective of the safety requirement,there is no need to cause theexpenditure of money on specificmaterials that do not enhance the safetyof the employee * * *’’

Several commenters (Exs. 2–13, 2–29,2–43, 2–53, 2–54, 2–64, 2–367, 2–368and 2–465) supported a requirementthat counterweights be specificallydesigned for no other purpose than tocounterweight the system. Thesecommenters also supported a ban on theuse of construction material ascounterweights. The SIA (Ex. 2–368)added that such a requirement would bepractical, feasible, of negligible cost andwould prevent accidents which occurwhen construction materials used ascounterweights are removed for otherpurposes.

Another commenter (Ex. 2–13) stated:Counterweights should be designed for

their specific use and permanently markedwith their weight otherwise they areworthless. Construction material, of any

kind, should be banned for use ascounterweights. There is no assurance thatproper counterweighting is beingaccomplished with construction materials.Also, the material could be removed for useby others, thus providing an unstablecondition.

Two commenters (Exs. 2–64 and 2–367) stated that there should be arequirement that counterweights beidentified or marked. The SSFI (Ex. 2–367) recommended that ‘‘eachcounterweight be identified as to itsweight’’ and should also ‘‘have theability to be fastened directly to theoutrigger system.’’ Another commenter(Ex. 2–64) wanted counterweights to be‘‘clearly marked with their actual weight(stamped, painted, etc.), so that workerswill use the proper amount of weight.’’

In addition, a commenter (Ex. 2–8)stated ‘‘[c]onstruction materials shouldnot be use[d]. We have seen masonsremove block used as counterweight.’’

Also, the ACCSH (Tr. pp. 188–190, 6–9–87) recommended thatcounterweights be designed for no otherpurpose than to counterweight thesystem. One member stated ‘‘CertainlyOSHA should require counterweights bedesigned for no other purpose. It seemsto me that the same day I first read thisquestion I received from OSHA a copyof ‘Fatal Facts’ that involved this veryissue.’’

After carefully considering the abovecomments and the ACCSHrecommendation, OSHA has determinedthat it is reasonably necessary to requirethat counterweights be designed for noother purpose than to counterweight thesystem, and to prohibit the use ofconstruction materials ascounterweights. In addition, OSHA hasdetermined that it is appropriate torequire the marking of counterweightswith their weights because thatinformation is needed for the properdesign, selection and installation ofcounterweights.

Proposed paragraph (b)(18)(iii), whichrequired that counterweights beconnected to outrigger beams bymechanical means, is identical to finalrule paragraph (d)(3)(iv), except that thephrase ‘‘to prevent accidentaldisplacement’’ has been added to thefinal rule to clarify the Agency’sregulatory intent. The BCMALU (Ex. 2–54) recommended that the Agencyclarify the reason for this provision. TheAgency agrees and has revised theprovision accordingly.

Proposed paragraph (b)(18)(iv)required that counterweights not beremoved from a scaffold until thescaffold is disassembled. Final ruleparagraph (d)(3)(v) is identical to theproposed paragraph, except that the


final rule specifies that thecounterweights may not be removedfrom the ‘‘outrigger beam’’, rather thanfrom the ‘‘scaffold.’’ One commenter(Ex. 2–41) pointed out thatcounterweights used with suspensionscaffold outrigger beams are not placedon the scaffold, as stated in theproposed rule, but are installed on theoutrigger beam above. The Agencyagrees, and has revised the provisionaccordingly.

Proposed paragraph (b)(18)(v)required outrigger beams to be securedby tiebacks equivalent in strength to thesuspension ropes. This provision wasintended to provide a backup system incase the counterweights becamedisplaced. Although tiebacks alone maynot keep a scaffold from tipping, theywill keep the system from falling to theground and from causing a progressivefailure of nearby scaffolds and scaffoldsections. The intent of the proposedparagraph has been carried forward infinal rule paragraphs (d)(3)(vi) and (vii),which require the use of tiebacks whendirect connections are not used, andrequire tieback strength equivalent tothat of the suspension ropes,respectively.

The SSFI and the SIA (Ex. 2–367 and2–368) noted that outrigger beamswhich are bolted to the structurebecome part of the structure and do notrequire tiebacks. The Agency agrees thatonly counterweighted outrigger beamsneed to be secured with tiebacks andhas incorporated appropriate languageinto paragraphs (d)(3)(vi) and (d)(3)(vii)accordingly.

In addition, final rule paragraph(d)(3)(viii) requires that outrigger beamsbe placed perpendicular to the face ofthe structure, except that, where theemployer establishes that suchplacement is prevented by obstructions,the outrigger shall be placed as near tothe perpendicular as possible and shallbe secured using opposing angletiebacks. This provision has been addedas a partial response to a commenter(Ex. 2–41) who stated that requiringtiebacks to be installed parallel to thecenterline of the beam, as required byproposed paragraph (b)(18)(vii), is onlysafe when the beam is perpendicular tothe edge. OSHA agrees with thiscomment because a non-perpendicularbeam/tieback arrangement creates apendulum effect that could endangeremployees. However, the SIA (Ex. 2–368) has pointed out that there may becircumstances where obstructionsprevent the outrigger beam from beingplaced perpendicular to the edge. TheSSFI and the SIA (Exs. 2–367 and 2–368) suggested that, in such cases,opposing angle tiebacks be required.

OSHA agrees that opposing angletiebacks are appropriate whereobstructions prevent perpendicularplacement of outriggers, and has revisedthe final rule language accordingly.

Proposed paragraphs (b)(18) (vi) and(vii) required that tiebacks be secured tostructurally sound anchorages and thatthey be parallel to the outrigger beam.Those provisions correspond to finalrule paragraphs (d)(3) (ix) and (x).OSHA has revised this language,drawing on examples in the preamble ofthe NPRM, to provide more specificdirection regarding what constitutes astructurally sound anchorage.

Three AGC commenters (Exs. 2–20, 2–55 and 2–390) stated that the OSHAinterpretation of what is considered anacceptable point of anchorage (51 FR42686) was too strict and that theAgency should permit the use of anyavailable roof structural anchor pointssince they are only accommodating aback-up or secondary support system.The Agency disagrees with this positionbecause the secondary support systemmust be capable of providing adequatesupport in the event of rigging failure.The revised final rule paragraphspecifically identifies structuralmembers of the building or structure asappropriate anchor points, andidentifies standpipes, vents, otherpiping systems, and electrical conduit,as structural elements that do notprovide appropriate anchorages.

Proposed paragraph (b)(18)(vii)required that tiebacks be installedparallel to the centerline of the beam.The proposed language has been revisedin final rule paragraph (d)(3)(x) torecognize that opposing angle tiebacksare acceptable alternative means ofinstallation. In addition, OSHA hasreplaced the proposed term ‘‘parallel’’,with the term ‘‘perpendicular’’ for thesake of clarity.

A commenter (Ex. 2–29) stated ‘‘sincetieback anchorages are not alwaysavailable exactly where needed, perhapsthe wording of these requirementsshould be revised to allow tiebacks to beat an angle, e.g., not to exceed 10degrees from the centerline of theoutrigger * * *.’’ OSHA acknowledgesthat anchorages are not alwaysconveniently located and that there maybe circumstances where it is necessaryto install the tieback at an angle.However, OSHA believes that when thisis done, it is also necessary to require anopposing angle tieback to be used sothat the pivot radius of the beam isminimized. Consequently, singletiebacks installed at an angle are notallowed by the final rule.

Paragraph (d)(4) of the final rulespecifies the construction requirements

for outrigger beams used withsuspension scaffolds. This provisionrequires that suspension scaffoldoutrigger beams be: provided with stopbolts or shackles at both ends; securelyfastened together with the flangesturned out when channel iron beams areused in place of I-beams; installed withall bearing supports perpendicular tothe beam center line; and set andmaintained with the web in a verticalposition. In addition, when an outriggerbeam is used, the shackle or clevis withwhich the suspension rope is attachedto the outrigger beam shall be placeddirectly over the hoisting machine, i.e.,over the center line of the stirrup.(These requirements are found inparagraphs (d)(4)(i) through (d)(4)(v).)

These requirements are effectivelyidentical to those in proposed paragraph(b)(19). The SIA (Ex. 2–368)recommended that OSHA drop the word‘‘single’’ from proposed paragraph(b)(19)(v) because this requirementapplied to all outrigger beams, not justto ‘‘single outrigger beams’’. The Agencyagrees, and has revised this provision ofthe final rule accordingly.

Final rule paragraph (d)(5) setsrequirements for suspension scaffoldsupport devices other than outriggerbeams. These devices include cornicehooks, roof irons, parapet clamps, orsimilar devices. Under this provision,those devices must be: made of steel,wrought iron, or materials of equivalentstrength; supported by bearing blocks;secured against movement by tiebacksinstalled at right angles to the face of thebuilding or structure unless opposingangle tiebacks are installed and securedto a structurally sound point ofanchorage on the building or structure(sound points of anchorage includestructural members, but do not includestandpipes, vents, other piping systems,or electrical conduit); and tiebacks shallbe equivalent in strength to the strengthof the hoisting rope.

Final rule paragraph (d)(5) is identicalto proposed paragraph (b)(20), exceptthat some minor editorial changes havebeen made for the sake of clarity. Inparticular, OSHA has revised proposedparagraph (b)(20)(i), which specified‘‘mild steel, wrought iron, or equivalentmaterials,’’ by deleting the word ‘‘mild’’and changing ‘‘equivalent materials’’ to‘‘materials of equivalent strength.’’These revisions are based, in part, oninput from a commenter (Ex. 2–41), whoindicated that the term ‘‘mild steel’’ isnot defined in readily available sources.The other change was made to indicateclearly that the strength of the specifiedmaterials was the characteristic bywhich ‘equivalence’ would be gauged.


Proposed paragraph (b)(20)(iii)required the use of tiebacks, installed atright angles to the face of the structurewherever possible; secured to astructurally sound portion of thebuilding; and equivalent in strength tothe hoisting rope. As stated in thepreamble to the NPRM (51 FR 42686),vents, standpipes, other piping systems,and electrical conduits are notacceptable points of anchorage becausethey are often made of materials thatcannot support the loads that would beimposed on them if the support devicewere to fail. OSHA has revised theproposed provision so that final ruleparagraph (d)(5)(iii) allows opposingangle tiebacks, as well as tiebacks atright angles, and has incorporated theNPRM preamble list of unacceptableanchorage points to facilitatecompliance. In addition, the Agency hasrelocated the requirement for tiebackstrength equivalent to that of thehoisting rope to a separate provision(final rule paragraph (d)(5)(iv)).

Two commenters (Exs. 2–64 and 2–368) suggested a requirement thatdevices covered by proposed paragraph(b)(20) be marked to indicate theircapacity. OSHA has not done so becausethe Agency believes that such markingsare not necessary given the capacityrequirements set in final rule§ 1926.451(a).

Paragraph (d)(6) of the final rulespecifies the minimum length ofsuspension rope to be used withdifferent kinds of hoists. In particular,winding drum hoists are required tohave at least four wraps of suspensionrope at the lowest point of scaffoldtravel. All other types of hoists arerequired to have suspension rope longenough to lower scaffolds to the levelbelow, without having the rope end passthrough the hoist, or to have the ropeend configured or provided with meansso that the end does not pass throughthe hoist.

This provision, which is identical toproposed paragraph (b)(21), elicited onecomment. The BCMALU (Ex. 2–54)recommended that OSHA require thatthe rope be long enough to allow thescaffold to be lowered to the lowestpoint on the job-site without the ropepassing through the hoist or that thescaffold be initially set up at the highestpoint at which it will be used on thatjob-site. OSHA believes that theproposed provision adequatelyaddressed the issue of rope run-throughand, accordingly, has not made thesuggested revision in the final rule.

Final rule paragraph (d)(7) states ‘‘Theuse of repaired wire rope as suspensionrope is prohibited.’’ This provisiondiffers from proposed paragraph (b)(22),

which stated ‘‘The repairing of wiresuspension rope is prohibited.’’ Theproposed requirement was based onOSHA’s view that there is no way todetermine the strength capacity of arepaired wire rope without the danger ofover-stressing the repair and thusrendering the rope unsafe for use onscaffolds. The Agency recognizes thatthe proposed rule did not clearly stateOSHA’s intent. The act of repairing wiresuspension rope is not in itselfhazardous. OSHA is, however,concerned that repaired rope not beused to suspend a scaffold. Accordingly,OSHA has revised this provision toprohibit the use of repaired wire rope assuspension rope.

Paragraph (d)(8) of the final ruleprovides that wire suspension ropesshall not be joined together exceptthrough the use of eye splice thimblesconnected with shackles or coverplatesand bolts. This is virtually identical toproposed paragraph (b)(23). Thisprovision, which was not in OSHA’sexisting scaffold standard, reflectsOSHA’s determination that the specifiedmeasures are the only acceptable waysto connect wire ropes withoutsignificantly affecting rope strength.

The SSFI and the SIA (Exs. 2–367 and2–368) suggested revision of theproposed text to read ‘‘wire suspensionropes shall not be joined together exceptthrough the use of eyesplice thimblesconnected with shackles or cover platesand bolts.’’ OSHA agrees that thesuggested phrase ‘‘through the use ofeye splice thimbles connected’’expresses the Agency’s intent moreeffectively than the proposed phrase ‘‘byeyesplicing’’ and has revised thelanguage of the final rule accordingly.The SIA further indicated that thisrequirement should apply only to wiresuspension ropes used with manualhoists. However, the Agency concludesthat final rule paragraph (d)(8) isapplicable to the joining of all wiresuspension rope, not just that which isused with manual hoists, becausecompliance with that provision isnecessary to ensure that the wire ropeson all suspended scaffolds are riggedproperly. Therefore, OSHA is notmaking the suggested change.

Paragraph (d)(9) of the final ruleprovides that the load end of wiresuspension ropes shall be equippedwith proper size thimbles and securedby eye splicing or equivalent means.This provision is identical to proposedparagraph (b)(24), which was based onexisting § 1926.451(h)(10) and existing§ 1926.451(j)(7).

Final rule paragraph (d)(10) requiresthat ropes be inspected for defects by acompetent person prior to each

workshift and after every occurrencewhich could affect a rope’s integrity. Inaddition, paragraph (d)(10) providesthat wire rope shall be replaced if therope has any physical damage whichimpairs its function and strength; anykinks that might impair the tracking orwrapping of rope around the drum(s) orsheave(s); six randomly distributedbroken wires in one rope lay or threebroken wires in one strand in one ropelay; abrasion, corrosion, scrubbing,flattening or peening causing loss ofmore than one-third of the originaldiameter of the outside wires; evidenceof any heat damage resulting from atorch or any damage caused by contactwith electrical wires; or evidence that asecondary brake has been activatedduring an overspeed condition andengages the suspension rope(paragraphs (d)(10) (i) through (vi)).

Proposed paragraph (b)(25) providedsimply that ‘‘Defective or damagedropes shall not be used as suspensionropes or drop lines.’’ The proposedlanguage was based on existing§ 1926.451(w)(5), which prohibitsdamaged ropes from being used on floator ship scaffolds. The danger of a brokenline is a problem not confined to floator ship scaffolds, so OSHA has extendedthis provision in the final rule to coverall suspended scaffolds.

The one comment (Ex. 2–38) on theproposed provision pointed out thatguidelines indicating when rope wouldbe considered to be defective should beprovided. The Agency agrees thatemployers need to know what OSHAmeans by ‘‘defective or damaged rope’’.Accordingly, final rule paragraph (d)(10)incorporates the language of ANSIA10.8–1988, paragraph 6.7.10, becauseOSHA finds that those consensusprovisions represent good industrypractice.

Paragraph (d)(11) of the final rulerequires that swaged attachments orspliced eyes on wire suspension ropesnot be used unless they are made by thewire rope manufacturer or a qualifiedperson. This provision is essential toensure the strength and integrity of suchattachments as eyes and is identical toproposed paragraph (b)(26).

Paragraph (d)(12) of the final rulerequires that, when wire rope clips areused on suspension scaffolds, thereshall be a minimum of 3 wire rope clipsinstalled, with the clips a minimum of6 rope diameters apart; employers shallfollow the manufacturer’srecommendations when installing clips,retightening clips after initial loading,and inspecting and retightening clips atthe start of each workshift; U-bolt clips(a variety of wire rope clip) shall not beused at the point of suspension for any


scaffold hoist; and when U-bolt clips areused, the U-bolt shall be placed over thedead end of the rope, and the saddleshall be placed over the live end of therope.

Proposed paragraph (b)(27) simplystated ‘‘When wire rope clips are usedon suspension scaffolds, they shall beretightened after initial loading andshall be inspected and retightenedperiodically thereafter’’. OSHA believedat the time of the proposal that suchperformance language conveyed therequirements necessary to ensure thatclips were installed and retightenedproperly.

Two commenters (Exs. 2–23 and 2–54) recommended that OSHA specifythe minimum number of clips required.In particular, one commenter (Ex. 2–23)recommended a minimum of 3 clipsspaced at least 6 rope diameters apart,with the U-bolt over the dead end of thewire rope. This commenter added thatthe clips must not be staggered.

The SIA (Ex. 2–368) recommendedthat the clips be tightened to themanufacturer’s recommended torque.Another commenter (Ex. 2–64)suggested that only ‘‘J’’ type clamps beused on suspension scaffold lines andthat the clips be inspected andretightened at the start of each workshiftthereafter.

The Agency agrees that more specificrequirements are needed so thatemployers know how to install andretighten wire rope clips. OSHAbelieves that the requirements of ANSIA10.8–1988, paragraph 6.7.11.3,appropriately address the concernsraised by commenters, and hasincorporated those provisions intoparagraph (d)(12) of the final rule. Inaddition, the Agency agrees that aminimum of 3 clips spaced at least 6rope diameters apart is necessary forsafe rigging when wire rope clips arebeing used. OSHA notes that severaldrawings in ANSI A10.8–1988 whichdepict the proper rigging of suspensionscaffolds show three wire rope clips onthe suspension ropes.

Final rule paragraph (d)(13) requiresthat suspension scaffold power-operatedhoists and manually operated hoists beof a type tested and listed by a qualifiedtesting laboratory. This is virtuallyidentical to proposed paragraph (b)(28),except that OSHA has revised theproposed terms ‘‘mechanicallypowered’’ and ‘‘manually powered’’hoists to read ‘‘power operated hoistsand manually operated hoists’’ in thefinal rule. This revision bringsparagraph (d)(13) into line with thelanguage of ANSI A10.8–1988,paragraph 6. This provisionconsolidates existing provisions

§§ 1926.451 (h)(2), (i)(3), (j)(2), and(k)(1).

Paragraph (d)(14) of the final rulerequires that gasoline-poweredequipment and hoists not be used onsuspension scaffolds. This provision issimilar to proposed paragraph (b)(29),except that the final rule now prohibitsall gasoline-powered equipment orhoists, not just gasoline powered hoists.

The proposed provision was based onexisting § 1926.451(k)(2) which allowsunits to be either electrically or airmotor driven. OSHA has determinedthat gasoline hoists pose unacceptablefire hazards, given the confined area ofa suspended scaffold and the difficultiesemployees would face trying to escapethe scaffold if the hoist wasincapacitated and on fire.

The BCMALU (Ex. 2–54) stronglyrecommended that OSHA prohibit theuse of all gasoline-powered equipmentand hoists on suspension scaffoldsbecause of the high potential for fire.The commenter cited an example of anaccident in which two employees wereseverely burned using a gasoline-powered water blaster. The Agencyagrees with this concern and has revisedthe provision in the final ruleaccordingly.

Paragraph (d)(15) of the final rulerequires that gears and brakes of poweroperated hoists used on suspensionscaffolds be enclosed. This is virtuallyidentical to proposed paragraph (b)(30),except a change in terminology has beenmade (‘‘mechanically powered’’ to‘‘power operated’’), consistent with thechanges made and discussed aboveunder paragraph (d)(13). The proposedrule was based on existing§ 1926.451(k)(3).

Final rule paragraph (d)(16) providesthat, in addition to the normal operatingbrake, suspension scaffold poweroperated hoists and manually operatedhoists shall have a braking device orlocking pawl which engagesautomatically when a hoist makes eitherof the following uncontrolledmovements: an instantaneous change inmomentum or an accelerated overspeed.This provision is different fromproposed paragraph (b)(31), whichrequired a brake or pawl toautomatically engage ‘‘when the normalspeed of descent of the hoist isexceeded.’’ The proposed provision wasbased on existing § 1926.451(k)(4) butdiffered from the existing standard inthat it applied to manual as well as topowered hoists.

One commenter (Ex. 2–8) stated thatOSHA should modify the proposedprovision to specifically address aninstantaneous change in momentum andan accelerated overspeed. OSHA agrees

that the suggested revision isappropriate, noting that ANSI A10.8–1988, paragraph 6.3.4.1 addresses bothinstantaneous stopping type secondarybrakes and deceleration type secondarybrakes. The Agency has revised the finalrule’s language accordingly.

The SSFI and the SIA (Exs. 2–367 and2–368) recommended that OSHA applythis requirement only to powered hoists.OSHA disagrees with these commenters,noting that, as written, the provisionrequires a braking device (for poweredhoists) or a locking pawl (for lesssophisticated or manual hoists). TheAgency concludes that theseprecautions are necessary on allsuspension scaffold hoists and,accordingly, has not made the suggestedrevision.

Paragraph (d)(17) of the final ruleprovides that ‘‘Manually operated hoistsshall require a positive crank force todescend.’’ This is the same requirementas proposed paragraph (b)(32), exceptthe term ‘‘manually operated hoists’’replaces the proposed term ‘‘manually-powered hoists’’ for the same reasons asdiscussed above in relation to final ruleparagraphs (d)(13) and (d)(15).

Issue 27 in the preamble to the NPRMsought comments regarding proposed§ 1926.451 (b)(32) (paragraph (d)(17) ofthe final rule) which addresses means ofpreventing ‘‘free-running’’ of hoistsduring descent. OSHA’s view was thatcompliance with the proposedparagraph would preclude thisdangerous condition.

One commenter (Ex. 2–31), whoseremarks related solely to pumpjackscaffolds, stated that ‘‘[u]nder ordinarycircumstances, free[-]running does notoccur during descent of a pumpjack.’’

The ACCSH recommended requiring apositive crank force to lower a scaffold(Tr. 190–191, 6/9/87). The SSFI (Ex. 2–367) and the SIA (Ex. 2–368)commented that the proposed provisionwould preclude the use of a ‘‘boatwinch’’ type system. The SIA furthernoted that, to their knowledge, free-running hoists are ‘‘rare in themarketplace.’’ They added that therequirement was feasible and practicaland would involve negligible additionalcost. NIOSH (Ex. 2–40) agreed with theproposed provision. The BCMALU (Ex.2–54) stated that although a positivecrank force might be slower than a free-running hoist, it would be safer which‘‘is the name of the game, safety.’’

One commenter (Ex. 2–29) stated thata positive crank force should berequired for hoists used to lowermanually-powered scaffolds. Anothercommenter (Ex. 2–53) stated that theproposed requirement is needed. Inaddition, a commenter (Ex. 2–64) stated


that a positive crank force is essentialunless the descent speed can becontrolled by some other means.

After carefully considering the abovecomments and the ACCSH’srecommendation, OSHA has determinedthat this requirement is necessary toeliminate the dangerous condition of‘‘free-running’’ hoists during descentand to ensure employee safety.

Final rule paragraph (d)(18) providesthat two-point and multi-pointsuspension scaffolds shall be tied orotherwise secured to prevent them fromswaying, as determined necessary basedon an evaluation by a competent person.This paragraph requires, in addition,that window cleaners’ anchors not beused for the purpose of preventingswaying. This prohibition is based onthe fact that window cleaners’ anchorsare not designed for the load that couldbe imposed. This provision was not partof the proposed rule.

Issue 7 in the preamble of the NPRMasked if the existing § 1926.451(i)(9) andproposed § 1926.452(p)(5) requirementthat employers secure two-pointadjustable suspension scaffolds toprevent swaying should be extended tocover all suspended scaffolds.

Six commenters (Exs. 2–13, 2–22, and2–43, 2–471, 2–494, and 2–516)expressed some measure of support forthe idea of extending this provision tocover all suspended scaffolds.

One commenter (Ex. 2–13) stated asfollows:

All exterior scaffolds should be stabilizedat each work location or provide a method ofstabilization as described in OSHA 1910.66[powered platform standard for GeneralIndustry] or by Intermittent Stabilization, ascontained in OSHA STD 1–3.3. In addition,all new buildings over 35 feet in heightshould be provided with a permanentengineered methods or means of rigging.

The vast majority of suspended scaffoldaccidents that do occur are due to deficientrigging.

A later comment from the sameindividual (Ex. 2–494) stated ‘‘[w]ithprior planning, there are ways that allscaffolds can be stabilized * * *Unstabilized scaffolds are a hazard tothe occupants, other workers, andpedestrians below.’’

Another commenter (Ex. 2–471) statedas follows:

Any shear wall, with the technologyavailable since November 1982, as describedin OSHA Instruction STD 1–3.3, can be madesafe by the installation and the use ofIntermittent Stabilization Building Anchors,to prevent a suspended scaffold from beingdisplaced by wind forces.

Merely providing perimeter protection andseparate safety lines will not prevent thescaffold and its occupants from being blownabout, being upset, or violently contacting

the structure being serviced, all of whichcould cause death or injury.

Two commenters (Exs. 2–64 and 2–368) stated that it is neither possible norpractical to tie in all suspendedscaffolds. They stated that there aremany job situations (e.g., sheer or glasswalls, or no wall at all) wherestabilization would not work becausethere are no points where tie-ins can bemade. OSHA acknowledges that thereare circumstances where suspensionscaffolds used in construction have nostructure against which to be secured.The present rulemaking takes intoaccount the likelihood that ‘‘permanentengineered methods’’ or ‘‘intermittentstabilization building anchors’’ will notbe in place during constructionoperations. The applicability of§ 1910.66 and OSHA STD. 1–3.3 islimited because they apply to postconstruction scaffold activities (such aswindow washing and light buildingmaintenance).

The BCMALU (Ex. 2–54) simplyexpressed support for the existingrequirement that two-point suspensionscaffolds be secured to prevent swaying.

Three commenters from the AGC (Exs.2–20, 2–55, and 2–390) said that single-point suspension scaffolds do not havea tendency to sway. They explained that‘‘[s]waying generally occurs on two-point suspensions because ofuncoordinated movements by two orthree employees working on theplatform as well as the fact that largerplatforms permit movement byemployees. This is not the case insingle-point suspensions.’’

Another commenter (Ex. 2–29) statedthat ‘‘[s]ingle-point boatswains’platforms should not be included [underthis provision] * * * since this wouldgreatly restrict their use.’’

OSHA agrees with the AGCcommenters that single-point scaffoldsshould not be covered by this provisionbecause, by their nature, they do nothave a tendency to sway. Single-pointscaffolds generally consist of a seat or asmall cage which prevents employeemovement and scaffold swaying, andtherefore, do not pose the same hazardas multi-point scaffolds.

One commenter (Ex. 2–41) stated‘‘based on much research, it is myopinion that the primary purpose forsuspended scaffold restraint on aplatform which has no open sides is toprevent the walking-working surfacefrom becoming unstable during normalwork activities. The restraint also closesthe open side during work activities* * *’’ In addition, the SIA (Ex. 2–368)noted that ‘‘[w]here the work platform isprovided with guardrails on all sides

and workers are protected by * * *safety lines, the protection should beadequate.’’ Another commenter (Ex. 2–516) noted that ‘‘[t]here may be limitedsituations where suspended scaffoldsfor construction cannot be tied into thebuilding or structure. However, this isnot a reason for not having [fall]protection. Any suspended platform nottied in then definitely needs guardrailson all four sides.’’

In response to Issue 7, the ACCSHrecommended (Tr. 79–87, June 9, 1987)that, where determined necessary by acompetent person, all suspendedplatforms be secured to preventswaying. The Advisory Committeeindicated that the expertise of thecompetent person would enable theemployer to determine the situationswhere it was appropriate to securesuspended scaffolds against swaying.

After careful consideration of thecomments received, OSHA has decidednot to require the use of tie-ins toprotect single-point suspended scaffoldsfrom swaying. As noted above, this typeof scaffold generally consists of a seat orsmall cage which limits employeemovement and swaying. However, theAgency does agrees with the ACCSHthat the expertise of a competent personwill enable the employer to determinewhen it is appropriate to secure two-point and multi-point suspendedscaffolds and has worded the final ruleaccordingly.

In addition, Issue 18 in the preambleof the NPRM asked if there should be aheight limit above which single andtwo-point adjustable suspensionscaffolds may not be used, and if so,what the height should be, and why.

Four commenters (Exs. 2–20, 2–55,2–69, and 2–390) responded by asking‘‘what type of equipment could be usedabove the limit that would be safe,practical, feasible and economical?’’One commenter (Ex. 2–69) added thatthe hoist lifting capacity is the onlyheight limitation for this type ofscaffold. Another commenter (Ex. 2–13)agreed with that point and stated thatOSHA should not try to limit theworking height of suspension scaffolds.Two other commenters (Exs. 2–22 and2–64) simply agreed that there shouldnot be a height limitation. One of thosecommenters (Ex. 2–22) added thatfollowing ‘‘the safety standards’’eliminates unsafe conditions.

Some Issue 18 commenters (Exs. 2–41, 2–54, 2–312) felt that the height ofa suspended scaffold was not a problem.One commenter (Ex. 2–41) stated that a‘‘height limit in construction should notbe a factor in the safe use ofequipment.’’ As an example, heobserved that ‘‘single-point scaffolds


have been used in 950 foot elevatorshafts for elevator installation * * *’’The BCMALU (Ex. 2–54) indicated thata greater height would make workersmore aware of hazards and thus morecautious. The commenter also stated‘‘[i]t seems most employers andemployees are more safety conscious inhigh places and careless at 5 to 10 feetfrom the ground.’’ In addition, hecommented that he did not see howOSHA could restrict use of thisequipment because there are situationswhere these types of scaffolds are theonly equipment that can be used. Also,a commenter (Ex. 2–312) stated that‘‘[w]e have outfitted chimney workersfor years so they could work onchimneys that stood 800 to 1000 feet inheight. Never a single accidentreported.’’ The commenter explainedthat descent devices and the chair boardsystems use ‘‘one friction principle’’ andfor these, more rope means more frictionwith which to slow descent. In addition,the commenter recommended thatsubpart L require that all rope [for thesesuspended scaffolds] be continuouslength of line, without splices. Thecommenter further noted that thisrequirement would limit the heightsomewhat.

The SSFI and the SIA (Exs. 2–367 and2–368) expressed opposition to a heightlimitation for suspended scaffolds andrecommended that ‘‘the equipmentshould be designed by competentpersons who will take intoconsideration all the hazards involved,thereby providing safe equipment forthe specific job function.’’ In addition,the SIA (Ex. 2–368) stated thatsuspended scaffolds are practical andfeasible at any height when properlyinstalled and used, and that the heightlimitation ‘‘would be the ability of thehoist(s) to raise and lower the workplatform.’’ Another commenter (Ex. 2–465) stated that this equipment shouldbe designed by a competent person‘‘who is thoroughly familiar with thehazards involved.’’ That commenter alsostated that suspended scaffolds are themost feasible and safest methods to usefor work on smoke stacks, towers, andwater tanks.

At its meeting of June 9, 1987, theACCSH responded to Issue 18 byreiterating the position they previouslyadopted under Issue 7 regarding two-point suspended scaffolds. (Issue 7 isdiscussed above in reference toparagraph (d)(18) of the final rule.)While the ACCSH did not favoradopting a height limitation for single-and two-point adjustable suspendedscaffolds, they did recommend thatthese types of scaffolds be secured toprevent swaying where necessary, as

determined by a competent person (Tr.6/9/87, pp. 148–150). One ACCSHmember stated ‘‘I would move that ifswaying is prohibited, as discussed inQuestion Number 7, that no height limitfor suspended scaffolds need beincluded.’’

Based on the input received, OSHAhas determined that suspendedscaffolds which comply with thepertinent requirements of subpart L willbe safe regardless of the height at whichthey are used. Therefore, the Agency hasnot added a height limitation to the finalrule.

Final rule paragraph (d)(19) (proposed§ 1926.451(b)(3)) requires that singlefunction emergency escape and rescuedevices not be used as workingplatforms. This paragraph also providesthat the prohibition does not apply tosystems which are designed to functionboth as working platforms and asemergency systems.

Proposed paragraph (b)(3) simplyprohibited the use of emergency descentdevices as working platforms becausesuch devices are not normally designedfor repeated in-place use. However, asstated in the preamble to the NPRM (51FR 42685), the proposed provision wasnot intended to preclude the use ofscaffold systems which have as anadditional feature the capacity tofunction as an emergency descentdevice.

The proposed provision generated anumber of comments (Exs. 2–8, 2–27, 2–29, 2–87 and 2–312) whichrecommended that OSHA define‘‘emergency descent device.’’ Most ofthese commenters interpreted theregulatory language as prohibiting allemergency descent devices from beingused as work platforms despite theclarification provided in the preamble.Therefore, OSHA has revised the finalrule to indicate clearly that only deviceswhose sole function is to provideemergency escape and rescue are not tobe used as working platforms.

Paragraph 1926.451(e) Access

Final rule paragraph (e) sets therequirements for safe access to scaffolds.This paragraph clarifies therequirements of existing§ 1926.451(a)(13), which requires onlythat ‘‘an access ladder or equivalent safeaccess shall be provided.’’ Theintroductory text states that employersmust provide scaffold access whichcomplies with paragraph (e) for eachaffected employee. It also specifies thatthe access requirements for employeeserecting or dismantling supportedscaffolds are prescribed in paragraph(e)(9).

Proposed paragraph (c) began with anote which stated that the proposedparagraph did not apply to employeeserecting or dismantling scaffolds. In thepreamble to the NPRM (51 FR 42687),OSHA stated that requirements for safeaccess ‘‘often are not feasible until ascaffold has been erected and properlybraced.’’ OSHA relied on the samerationale for the proposed exemption oferectors and dismantlers from the fallprotection requirements of proposedparagraph (e).

OSHA received no comments on thisproposed exemption directly. However,many of the comments on Issue 8,which requested input regarding theneed to exempt employees erecting anddismantling scaffolds from the fallprotection requirements of proposedparagraph (e) (promulgated as paragraph(g) of this final rule) stated thatemployees erecting and dismantlingscaffolds should not be exempted fromprotection. In particular, as discussedbelow in relation to final rule paragraph(g), commenters stated that it was oftenfeasible to provide fall protection foremployees erecting or dismantlingscaffolds.

Given the evidence that employerscan often protect erectors anddismantlers from fall hazards, OSHAconcluded that it was also appropriateto consider if there are circumstanceswhere safe access can be provided forthose employees. Accordingly, theAgency reopened the subpart Lrulemaking record to solicit inputregarding the proposed exemption (58FR 16509, March 29, 1993). Inparticular, OSHA sought commentsabout employers’ ability to provide safeaccess for erectors and dismantlers, thehazards that could be created by effortsto provide safe access, and the criteriato be satisfied by employers seeking toqualify for an exception from theproposed requirements for safe access.

Three commenters (Exs. 34–8, 34–22,and 34–29) supported an accessrequirement for scaffold erectors anddismantlers. One commenter (Ex. 34–8)said that its support depended onadding the words ‘‘or equivalent means’’to such a requirement. OSHA notes thatboth proposed § 1926.451(c)(1) and finalrule § 1926.451(e) contain the words ‘‘orequivalent means.’’ That commenteralso stated that in utility boilerinstallations ‘‘ladders and/or stairwaysare incorporated into scaffolding.Planking and ladders, where feasible,are used to support erection ordismantling. New access can beprovided by cutting out sections of theboiler wall, but the cost for it in someareas may be prohibitive.’’ Thecommenter added that safe access can


be provided on supported scaffolds100% of the time in non-boilerinstallations.

Another commenter (Ex. 34–22) statedthat where safe access cannot beprovided, fall protection can be used. Inaddition, a commenter (Ex. 34–29)responded that safe access is practicallyalways feasible, and presented ladders,lifts, and crane personnel baskets asexamples. OSHA agrees that safe accesscan be provided for erectors anddismantlers in most instances throughthe use of various types of equipment,including (but not limited to) ladders,scaffold stairs, manlifts, and fallprotection equipment. However, theAgency notes that the use of a ladder orfall protection equipment would requirea significant degree of scaffold stability,which may not be present in anincomplete scaffold. Additionally, thesafe use of stair towers, manlifts orcrane personnel platforms is dependenton site conditions and the availability ofthe equipment and additionally requiresthe employer to comply with theregulations covering that equipment.

Scaffold Consultants (Ex. 34–5)described a hypothetical situationinvolving a scaffold 100 feet long by 50feet high and planked on all levels.They raised the following points:

1. How many ladders are to be installed?If there is a ladder in the middle of thescaffold, certainly an erector will not walk 50feet to a ladder and then back another 50 feetto relocate.

2. Ladders cannot be installed on theinterior of the scaffold because of thecontinuous, fully planked decking.

3. If more than one ladder is to be installed,then it would of necessity be on the outsideof the scaffold, forcing the erector to gooutside the scaffold on each succeeding level,exposing the worker to a fall potential.Traditionally, each ladder section is installedafter that level of scaffold has beencompleted, and the worker no longer hasneed to return to a lower level. You cannotinstall a ladder section for the next level upuntil the scaffold frames, bracing andplanking have been erected.

The code already states (1926.451(a)(13))that an access ladder or equivalent safeaccess shall be provided.

OSHA notes that providing safeaccess for erectors and dismantlers doesnot necessarily mean that all levels of ascaffold must be fully planked. Inaddition, the Agency cannot specify thenumber of ladders or other means ofaccess that must be provided in allcases, because of the wide range ofsituations being addressed by thisstandard.

Regarding access for employeeserecting or dismantling suspendedscaffolds, two commenters (Exs. 34–32and 34–39) stated that access is not

required because suspended scaffoldsare usually erected at ground level andthe rigging is performed at the rooflevel. Another commenter (Ex. 34–8)stated that OSHA should considerdeleting the proposed exemption as itrelates to suspended scaffolds. OSHAagrees that if a scaffold is erected atground level and rigging is performed atthe roof level, employees are deemed tohave safe access to and from thescaffold. However, erection and riggingnot performed in this manner requiresafe access to be provided, inaccordance with final rule paragraph (e).

Five commenters (Exs. 34–31, 34–32,34–37, 34–39, and 34–43) opposed, ingeneral, an access requirement forerectors and dismantlers. Onecommenter (Ex. 34–43) stated that themeans of access would have to beremoved from a scaffold beforedismantling can proceed. In addition,four commenters (Exs. 34–9, 34–10, 34–12, and 34–17) stated that, whilesectional ladders attached at the ends ofthe scaffold can be used for access onceadequate support is available, portableladders on the work platform may createa greater hazard. Furthermore, threecommenters (Exs. 34–32, 34–37, and34–39) stated that providing such accessis not practicable on supported scaffoldson the grounds that not all scaffoldsrequire an attached access and whenone is required ‘‘it is installed after thelift is installed,’’ and ‘‘it is not availablefor the erectors.’’

In particular, the SIA (Ex. 34–37)stated that supported scaffold erectorsaccess the scaffold as the erection/dismantling process progresses in eitherdirection. Although acknowledging thaterectors also access the scaffold fromstructures or ladders when convenient,the SIA added that access systemscannot be installed until the scaffold isstructurally sound, which they stateddoes not occur in most cases until thescaffold is complete. OSHA finds,however, that there are manycircumstances where outriggers, braces,ties, guys, and similar equipment can beused as the erection or dismantlingprocesses proceed in order to secure,stabilize, or reinforce the lower levels ofthe scaffold so that safe access can beprovided to these completed levels.

OSHA realizes that there may beinstances where safe access cannot beprovided to the actual level whereemployees are erecting or dismantlingsupported scaffolds. However, theAgency has determined that it isnecessary and appropriate to providethese employees with safe access to andegress from the levels that have beencompleted.

Another commenter (Ex. 34–11) wrotethat most jobs would not meet therequirements of proposed § 1926.451(c)without an exemption for erectors anddismantlers. This commenter called fora study to determine what proceduresare needed to provide safe access.OSHA finds, however, that therulemaking record provides thenecessary support for promulgation ofaccess requirements for these employeesand, accordingly, has not adopted thiscommenter’s suggestion. OSHA intendsto monitor the effectiveness andcompatibility of final rule paragraphs (e)and (g) carefully for the next severalyears, to make sure they are providingthe necessary protection forconstruction workers. Based on theresults of that monitoring, the Agencywill determine if any further action iswarranted.

Several commenters responded toOSHA’s request for information aboutany hazards that would be createdthrough efforts to comply with proposedparagraph (c). One commenter (Ex. 34–8) stated ‘‘[i]n utility boiler installationshazards may outweigh benefits.Employees may attempt to use a ladderthat is not properly secured. Wouldhave to install more access doors andthis is not always feasible. In otherapplications of supported scaffoldproblems are not anticipated.’’

Four commenters (Exs. 34–9, 34–10,34–12 and 34–17) stated:

Use of ladders, etc. to provide access tolevels that are in the process of beingdismantled would increase the potential tofalls. This is [due] to the fact that the scaffoldwould no longer be stable enough to supportthe access equipment properly. The levels ofscaffold [that] have been completely erectedor not yet dismantled should retain thepermanent access equipment intended toprovide access throughout the length ofintended service. The risks involved duringthe erection and dismantling process can belessened by strict adherence to allprocedures.

As discussed above, OSHA hasdetermined that safe access can beprovided to levels that have beencompletely erected or to levels thatremain intact during dismantlingoperations.

Three commenters (Exs. 34–32, 34–37and 34–39) stated ‘‘[t]hese hazardscannot be eliminated during scaffolderection.’’ In addition, two of thecommenters (Exs. 34–32 and 34–39)stated ‘‘[t]he erector travels bothhorizontally and vertically and may notbe in the vicinity of an access systemwhen descent is necessary. He may notbe able to get safely to the access areaif, for instance, planks have beenmoved. Most scaffolds are not fully


planked and planks are moved aserection progresses.’’

On the other hand, two commenters(Exs. 34–11 and 34–29) said thatproviding safe access for erectors anddismantlers would not create hazards.

One commenter (Ex. 34–8) stated thatemployers should have their scaffoldsevaluated by a competent person andthat OSHA should consider erection anddismantling processes and procedures,accident statistics, and the type of workto be done on the scaffold beforedetermining in a given situation thatsafe access is feasible.

Four commenters (Exs. 34–9, 34–10,34–12 and 34–17) stated ‘‘[c]ertainly thepotential for greater risk should be thegreater consideration. The circumstancethat bears the most consideration is ‘atwhat point is the scaffold capable ofsupporting a ladder or other accessdevice’. At the point that this occurspermanent access ladders will be able tobe attached to provide access.’’ Thosecommenters also stated that anemployer seeking exemption should beable to demonstrate that compliancewith proposed paragraph (c) wouldcreate a greater hazard, betechnologically infeasible, or beeconomically infeasible.

Three commenters (Exs. 34–32, 34–37, and 34–39) stated that providing ameans of access to a scaffold underconstruction should not be requiredbecause scaffold erectors are trained tosafely climb scaffolds and becauseworker access to a completed scaffoldmay be directly from the structure itself.The commenters further stated thiswould make adding an access systemexpensive and unnecessary. Thosecommenters also contended that arequirement to prove infeasibility wouldbe expensive and time consuming, andis not supported by accident data.

In response to comments asserting alack of accident data to supportimposing burdens on employers whoseemployees erect or dismantle scaffolds,NIOSH (Ex. 34–40) stated ‘‘[t]he lack of‘accident statistics’ to scaffold erectorsis likely to be due to insufficient detailin injury surveillance data, and notnecessarily to a lack of injuries.’’ Inaddition, NIOSH reviewed the accidentdata (Ex. 21) and concluded that ‘‘[t]hefatality rate for scaffold erectors duringscaffold erection and dismantlingexceeds that for the entire U.S.construction industry.’’ A review ofconstruction accident reports shows that10–20% of scaffold deaths and injuriesoccur during erection and dismantling;OSHA finds that many of these will beprevented by the final rule’s fallprotection requirements for these

operations (see the Benefits Chapter ofthe Economics Analysis for this rule).

The Agency notes that theOccupational Safety and Health ReviewCommission has held (HoffmanConstruction Company, 6 OSHRC 1274,January 4, 1978) that the safe accessrequirement of the existing standard (29CFR 1926.451(a)(13) does not becomeoperative until the scaffold is completedor use is imminent, and, therefore, doesnot apply to scaffold erection anddismantling operations.

OSHA has determined that althoughscaffold erectors and dismantlers areexposed to significant access-relatedhazards, requiring employers to providesafe access for erectors and dismantlersin all cases would often create a greaterhazard or be infeasible. For example,commenters have described factors (e.g.,instability of scaffold and lack ofadjacent support) which can precludethe provision of safe access. The Agencyagrees that there are some situationswhere an exemption from final ruleparagraph (e) would be appropriate.However, other commenters haveindicated that employers who carefullyevaluate their scaffold operations canprovide safe access or at least minimizeemployee exposure to hazards duringthese operations. Therefore, OSHA findsthat it is appropriate for employers to beable to obtain relief from the accessrequirements when such relief has beendetermined, on a case by case basis, tobe necessary. Accordingly, the Agencyhas added final rule paragraph (e)(9),discussed below, which requires(paragraph (e)(9)(i)) that employers havea competent person assess pertinentworkplace conditions and decide whatmeans of access is appropriate to use toprotect the safety of erectors anddismantlers on any particular job.

Final rule paragraph (e)(1) providesthat access to and between scaffoldplatforms more than two feet (0.6 m)above or below the point of access shallbe by portable ladders, hook-on ladders,attachable ladders, scaffold stairways,stairway-type ladders (such as ladderstand), ramps, walkways, integralprefabricated scaffold access, orequivalent means, or by direct accessfrom another scaffold, structure,personnel hoist, or similar surface. Inaddition, the final rule requires thatcrossbraces not be used as a means ofaccess. This provision is identical toproposed paragraph (c)(1), except forsome minor changes in terminologymade in order to be consistent withexisting industry terms, and theinclusion of scaffold stairways asanother acceptable means of access. Thefinal rule consolidates and updatesexisting § 1926.451(e)(5), which requires

that ladders or stairways be providedand used on mobile scaffolds; existing§ 1926.451(q)(3), which requires thatconnecting runways with substantialguardrails be used for access toplasterers’, decorators’, and large areascaffolds; and existing § 1926.451(y)(9),which requires that ladders be used forpumpjack scaffold access.

The SSFI and the SIA (Exs. 2–367 and2–368) recommended the inclusion ofscaffold stair/towers (scaffold stairways)as a recognized acceptable means ofaccess. The Agency acknowledges thatscaffold stairways are used regularly forscaffold access and agrees that thosestairways should be addressed bysubpart L. Accordingly, OSHA hasincorporated regulatory text addressingscaffold stairways into final ruleparagraph (e)(4), discussed below.

Paragraph (e)(2) of the final rule setsrequirements for portable, hook-on andattachable ladders. A note to thisparagraph indicates that additionalrequirements for the properconstruction and use of portable laddersare contained in subpart X of this part—Stairways and Ladders—of theconstruction standards.

In particular, final rule paragraph(e)(2)(i) provides that portable, hook-on,and attachable ladders shall bepositioned so as not to tip the scaffold.

In addition, final rule paragraphs(e)(2)(ii)-(vi) provide that hook-on andattachable ladders shall have bottomrungs positioned not more than 24inches (61 cm) above the scaffoldsupporting level; have rest platforms at35 foot (10.7 m) maximum verticalintervals on all supported scaffoldsmore than 35 feet (10.7 m) high; bespecifically designed for use with themanufactured type of scaffold to beused; have a minimum rung length of11–1/2 inches (29 cm); and haveuniformly spaced rungs with amaximum spacing between rungs of 16–3/4 inches, respectively. Proposedparagraph (c)(2) was effectivelyidentical, except that the maximuminterval between rest platforms has beenincreased in the final rule from 20 feetto 35 feet and the maximum rungspacing has been increased from 12inches to 16–3/4 inches, as discussedbelow.

Issue 28 in the preamble of the NPRMrequested public comment on whetherlanding platforms should be required at35-foot maximum intervals as requiredby existing § 1926.451(e)(5), or at 20-footmaximum intervals as required byproposed § 1926.451(c)(2)(iii). Threecommenters (Exs. 2–13, 2–38, and 2–54)responded in support of the proposedrule’s 20-foot maximum. Onecommenter (Ex. 2–13) favored the 20-


foot interval because it would ‘‘allow aperson to catch one’s breath.’’ He addedthat he could personally appreciate thisrequirement as he has climbed laddersfor years. In addition, a commenter (Ex.2–38) stated that ‘‘[l]adders should beoffset with landings every 20 feet toprevent falling more that 20 feet.’’Another commenter (Ex. 2–54)responded that the interval in theproposed rule ‘‘would make it soworkers were not always huffing andpuffing and place less strain on laddersand how many workers might be on itat the same time.’’

On the other hand, a commenter (Ex.2–22) responded that the 35-foot heightwas ‘‘an acceptable level for the safetyof employees and * * * a practical fieldrequirement.’’ Another commenter (Ex.2–53) stated ‘‘[l]anding platforms shouldbe required at 35 foot intervals. No needto change regulations.’’ The SSFI andSIA (Exs. 2–367 and 2–368) stated thatthe proposed change to the 20-footheight was too restrictive andunnecessary. In particular, the SIA (Ex.2–368) stated that, since most of thescaffolds which require access from thebase have work platforms less than 28feet from their base, ‘‘the 20 foot intervalrequirement would place a rest platformtoo close to the work platform andwould be unnecess[a]ry.’’ Thiscommenter added that there are noaccident statistics to justify changing theheight requirement from 35 ft. to 20 ft.

The ACCSH (Tr. 191–195, 6–9–87)discussed Issue 28 and recommendedthat OSHA adopt the proposed 20-footrequirement. One member stated‘‘[b]ecause employees are often carryingtools or equipment, the 20-footrequirement is reasonable.’’ OSHAproposed to require landing platforms at20-foot maximum intervals in anattempt to be consistent with existing§§ 1910.27 (d)(1)(ii), (d)(2) and (d)(5) ofthe general industry standards.

After a careful review of the evidencein the record as a whole, OSHA findsthat requiring landing platforms at 20-foot intervals is not supported byevidence that such a change is neededfor employee safety. In addition,evidence was submitted to show thatmany scaffolds already have workplatforms only a few feet higher than the20-foot level and further thatestablishing a new height, i.e., 20 feet,would interfere with widely acceptedfield practice. Accordingly, the finalrule retains the 35-foot maximumintervals for landing platforms, becauseit adequately protects the safety ofemployees who are accessing scaffolds.

The SSFI (Ex. 2–367) took ‘‘strongobjection’’ to proposed paragraph(c)(2)(vi), which required that there be a

maximum spacing between rungs of 12inches, because portable, hook-on, andattachable ladders have been producedfor many years with uniformly spacedrungs that do not meet this requirement.The commenter recommended thatOSHA replace this requirement with arequirement that rungs be uniformlyspaced within each section.

The proposed paragraph was based onexisting § 1910.26(a)(1)(iii), whichprescribes maximum rung spacing forportable metal ladders used in generalindustry. The Agency notes that prior tothe proposal there were no existingOSHA construction regulationsaddressing hook-on or attachableladders, and the proposal was intendedto recognize that these types of laddersare acceptable means of access.

OSHA agrees with the commenter thatthe rungs should be uniformly spaced toprevent misstepping. In addition, OSHAbelieves that the 163⁄4 rung spacingallowed on integral prefabricatedscaffold access frames (end frames)(final rule § 1926.451(e)(6)(v)) should beapplied to hook-on and attachableladders as well, since these ladders arecommonly used with end frames andthis will provide uniform rung spacingfor this application. OSHA has revisedthe language of the final rule paragraph(c)(2)(vi) accordingly.

Paragraph (e)(3) of the final rule setsrequirements for stairway-type ladders.In particular, paragraphs (e)(3)(i)through (v) require that stairway-typeladders be positioned so that the bottomstep is not more than 24 inches (61 cm)above the scaffold supporting level; beprovided with rest platforms at 12 foot(3.7 m) maximum vertical intervals;have a minimum step width of 16inches (41 cm) (except for mobilescaffold stairway-type ladders, whichare permitted to have a minimum stepwidth of 111⁄2 inches); and have slip-resistant treads on all steps andlandings. These provisions are identicalto the corresponding provisions inproposed paragraph (c)(3), except thatan exception has been added in a newfinal paragraph (e)(3)(iii) to theminimum rung width in proposedparagraph (c)(3)(iii). This change hasbeen made to recognize that a minimumstep width of 111⁄2 inches is acceptablefor mobile scaffold stairway-typeladders, as discussed below.

Proposed paragraph (c)(3)(iii), whichwas based on § 1910.29(a)(3)(ii),required a minimum step width of 16inches. The SIA (Ex. 2–368) stated thatit is necessary to distinguish betweenstairway-type ladders and mobilescaffold stairway-type ladders where thestairway-type ladder is a secondaryfeature of the platform. The commenter

noted that reduced step width isnecessary on this type of equipment dueto space constraints, and pointed outthat the reduced step width is consistentwith normal ladder minimum widths.OSHA agrees, noting that this type ofequipment has been demonstrated to besafe over decades of use, and hasrevised the final rule accordingly.

Final rule paragraph (e)(3)(iv) requiresslip-resistant treads on all stairs andlandings. This rule is based on generalindustry rule § 1910.29(a)(3)(iv), whichrequires the steps to be fabricated fromslip-resistant treads.

Final rule paragraph (e)(4), which hasbeen added based on the response to theNPRM and the February 1, 1994 noticeof reopening (59 FR 4615), setsrequirements for scaffold stairwaytowers used for access to scaffolds andother elevated work surfaces. OSHA hasdetermined that compliance with theprovisions described below will enableemployees to use scaffold stairwayssafely.

The SSFI and the SIA (Exs. 2–367 and2–368) suggested that OSHA recognizescaffold stairway/towers as acceptablemeans of access. They noted thatreference to these types of access unitshad been omitted from the proposaleven though they are in common useand are a safe method of obtainingaccess to scaffold units. Bothcommenters recommended that OSHArevise the rule to add requirements forinside and outside handrails; 19-inchminimum length landing platforms; 19-inch minimum width for stair units; andslip-resistant surfaces for treads andlandings.

In addition, a commenter (Docket S–041, Ex. 3–414) to the Notice ofProposed Rulemaking for part 1910subpart D (Walking and WorkingSurfaces) stated:

As in the case of guardrails, the stair railssection is based on the use of this productin permanently installed locations inbuildings or industrial structures. It does notconsider stair rails used in conjunction withscaffold applications.

Scaffold suppliers utilize step units whichhave been fabricated specifically to be usedas access to scaffold platforms. These stepunits are manufactured with hand railswhich are sold as a component of these stepunits. The OSHA standard should state thatthese fabricated step units are acceptable forscaffold access. This will eliminate theconfusion of the compliance officers inattempting to enforce permanent stair railstandards for scaffold access components.

On February 1, 1994, OSHA reopenedthe subpart L rulemaking record (59 FR4615) to solicit comments andsuggestions regarding the regulation ofscaffold stairways, chimney bracketscaffolds and tank builders’ scaffolds. In


particular, the Agency requested inputon the provisions suggested bycommenters. In addition, althoughOSHA did not intend subpart X to applyto stair towers, the Agency wasinterested in determining if, in fact, anyof the provisions from part 1926,subpart X or from proposed part 1910,subpart D, would be appropriaterequirements for scaffold stair towers.

The Agency was interested inreceiving more input on the need forspecific regulations for scaffoldstairways, chimney bracket scaffoldsand tank builders’ scaffolds, withspecial emphasis on fall protectionrequirements, including requirementsfor handrails and guardrail systems forthe unprotected sides and edges ofstairway landings. The provisions offinal paragraph (e)(4) are the product ofspecific questions raised in the February1 notice and OSHA’s review of theresponses to those questions.

Two commenters (Exs. 43–24 and 43–32) recommended that the Agency adoptthe suggested provisions, although thefirst of these two commenters suggestedthat existing products that do notcomply be accepted. Several othercommenters (Exs. 43–6, 43–11, 43–13,43–14, 43–22, 43–26, and 43–37)supported the adoption of variousmodified versions of the suggestedprovisions. For example, suggestedminimum heights above the tread nosefor handrails (or stairrails) ranged from27 inches (68.6 cm) to 36 inches (91cm).

A number of commenters (e.g., Exs.43–4, 43–6, 43–9, 43–10) contended thatfor many years scaffold stairways havebeen designed and used in the samemanner as they currently are, and havealways provided a safe and effectivemeans of access. These commentersopposed the promulgation of anyprovisions that would alter the criteriaunder which scaffold stairways arecurrently designed and used. Most ofthese commenters also reported thatthey know of no accidents that haveoccurred due to the use of scaffoldstairways.

In addition, many commenters (Exs.43–13, 43–14, 43–24, 43–26, 43–37, and43–44) specifically opposed applyingeither the requirements of subpart X orthe general industry standards(§ 1910.25 and § 1910.28) to scaffoldstairways. These and other commentersmentioned above indicated that such anapplication would, in effect, ‘‘outlaw’’scaffold stairways since they cannotmeet the requirements of subpart X dueto the fact that scaffold stairways mustbe designed and constructed to fitwithin the confines of 5 foot (4.5 m) by7 foot (6.3 m) or 5 foot (4.5 m) by 10 foot

(9.1 m) scaffold bays. As a result,according to these commenters, manyemployers would simply stop usingmost scaffold stairways, and would relyinstead on other means of access thatare not as safe as scaffold stairways.However, one commenter (Ex. 43–8)recommended that scaffold stairwayscovered by subpart L be consistent withsubpart X and the general industrystandards. Another commenter (Ex. 42–33) supported standardizing the existingstairway standard’s requirements,including hand clearances, end railprojections, type of surface, andguarding of the open sides of landings.

Scaffold stairways can provide a safeand effective means of access, and theAgency has no intention of prohibitingthe use of all existing scaffold stairways.However, the Agency does believe thatsome provisions governing theconstruction and use of scaffoldstairways must be included in finalsubpart L, and that the provisionsshould be as consistent as possible withsubpart X and the general industrystandards, in order to ensure the safetyof the employees who use scaffoldstairways. Accordingly, OSHA haspromulgated the provisions discussedbelow.

The introductory language of finalrule paragraph (e)(4) requires that theseunits be positioned so that the bottomstep is not more than 24 inches (61 cm.)above the scaffold supporting level.

Final rule paragraph (e)(4)(i) requiresthat a stairrail consisting of a toprail anda midrail be provided on each side ofeach scaffold stairway. Furthermore,final paragraph (e)(4)(ii) requires thatthe toprail of each stairrail system shallbe capable of serving as a handrail,unless a separate handrail is provided.

Six commenters (Exs. 43–6, 43–11,43–14, 43–26, 43–37, and 43–44)indicated that inside and outsidehandrails should incorporate midrails.Several commenters (Exs. 43–8, 43–13,43–14, 43–24, 43–26, and 43–37) statedthat scaffold stairways shouldincorporate handrails, stairrails andmidrails. One commenter (Ex. 43–45)stated that scaffold stairways shouldhave stairrail systems with midrails.Another commenter (Ex. 43–22) statedthat inside and outside handrails shouldbe constructed so that they function asboth stairrails and handrails.

OSHA agrees that handrails, stairrails,and midrails are necessary for adequateemployee protection. However, theAgency also believes that adequateprotection can be provided whentoprails of stairrail systems are capableof serving as adequate handrails.Paragraph (e)(4)(ii) of the final rulerecognizes the capability of toprails to

serve as handrails, but also requires thata separate handrail be provided whentoprails are not capable of serving as ahandrail.

Final rule paragraph (e)(4)(iii)requires that handrails, and toprails thatserve as handrails, provide a handholdfor employees grasping them to avoidfalling. This provision is identical to§ 1926.1052(c)(9), except for the explicitinclusion of toprails. Monsanto (Ex. 43–45) stated that handrails should havethe shape and dimension necessary toprovide a firm handhold, but providedno specific shapes or dimensions thatwould meet that suggested requirement.OSHA agrees that handrails must beshaped and sized in such a manner thata proper handhold is provided.

Final rule paragraph (e)(4)(iv) requiresthat stairrail systems and handrails besurfaced in a manner that preventsinjury to employees from punctures orlacerations, and to prevent snagging ofclothing. This provision is essentiallythe same as § 1926.1052(c)(8). Monsanto(Ex. 43–45) suggested that stairrailsystems ‘‘be free of projection and/orpuncture/abrasion hazards.’’ OSHAagrees that handrails should not presentsuch hazards, and the final rule’slanguage reflects this concern.

Final rule paragraph (e)(4)(v) requiresthat the ends of stairrail systems andhandrails be constructed in a mannerthat does not constitute a projectionhazard. This provision is essentiallyidentical to § 1926.1052(c)(10).

Final rule paragraph (e)(4)(vi) requiresthat scaffold stairway handrails, andtoprails that are used as handrails, havea minimum clearance of 3 inches (7.6cm) between the handrail or toprail andother objects. This provision isessentially the same as§ 1926.1052(c)(11). As mentioned above,one commenter (Ex. 42–33) stated thathand clearances for scaffold stairwaysshould be the same as those forstairways covered by subpart X. OSHAagrees with this commenter and notesthat inadequate hand clearances canrender handrails essentially useless.

Final rule paragraph (e)(4)(vii)requires that stairrails be no less than 28inches (71 cm) or more than 37 inches(94 cm) from the upper surface of thestairrail to the surface of the tread, inline with the face of the riser at theforward edge of the tread. Thisprovision differs from the stairrailheight requirements of subpart X, whichwas never intended to apply to scaffoldstairways. Paragraph (e)(4)(vii) of thefinal rule is based on the followingcomments.

One commenter (Ex. 43–11) suggestedstairrail height ranging from 27 inches(68.6 cm) to 37 inches (94 cm) vertically


above the nose of each step. Anothercommenter (Ex. 43–20) recommended arange of 22 inches (56 cm) to 41 inches(104 cm). One other commenter (Ex. 43–45) recommended stairrail systems ‘‘noless than 36 inches (91 cm) high.’’However, several other commenters(Exs. 43–6, 43–13, 43–14, 43–26, and43–37) recommended that stairrails beno less than 28 inches (71 cm) and nomore than 37 inches (94 cm) above thenose of each step.

OSHA notes that § 1926.1052(c)(3)requires that stairrail systems installedbefore March 15, 1991, be no less than30 inches (76.2 cm) high, and that thoseinstalled after March 15, 1991, be noless than 36 inches (91.4 cm) high. TheAgency recognizes that this subpart Xrequirement may not have beenappropriate for stairrails on somescaffold stairtowers, because theconstruction of stairtowers differssignificantly from that of stairtowersaddressed by subpart X. In particular,stairtowers are fashioned from scaffoldcomponents, must fit within the framingof scaffold units, and rise more steeplythan other stairways. As a practicalmatter, the steeper the stairway, thecloser the stairrail will be to the stairsurface. Therefore, OSHA hasconcluded that it is appropriate andadequately protective for stairtowerstairrails to be at least 28 inches, ratherthan 30 inches, high. Accordingly, arequirement that employers retrofitscaffold stairtowers with 30-inch highstairrails, or that employers phase in 30-inch high stairrails at some future time,would be unreasonable. OSHA believesthat existing equipment and designs cancomply with the 28-inch heightrequirement and should continue to beallowed in use. In addition, OSHAobserves that stairtowers with 28-inchhigh stairrails are safer than ladders andthat requirements to retrofit or redesignstairtowers could lead cost-averseemployers to use ladders instead ofstairtowers.

Final rule paragraph (e)(4)(viii)requires that scaffold stairways beprovided with landing platforms thatare at least 18 inches wide and at least18 inches (45.7 cm) long at each level.This provision provides adequateprotection for employees withoutimpeding the use of most scaffoldstairways now in use.

Several commenters (Exs. 43–6, 43–13, 43–20, 43–22, 43–24, and 43–33)who addressed the issue of landingplatforms supported requiring landingplatforms at least 19 inches (48.3 cm)wide at every level. Three othercommenters (Exs. 43–14, 43–26, and43–37) recommended that landingplatforms at least 18 inches (45.7 cm)

wide be required at each level. Four ofthose commenters (Exs. 43–6, 43–14,43–26, and 43–37) also suggestedadding to such a provision thealternative of providing a platform atleast 30 inches long (76.2 cm) in thedirection of travel at ‘‘every 14 feet (4.5m) maximum of stair elevation.’’ Thosecommenters stated that this would‘‘allow the continued use of framescaffolds spaced 61⁄2 feet (2.1 m)vertically and system scaffolds whichare based upon 7 foot (2.25 m)maximum vertical bearer spacing.’’

In addition, two commenters (Exs.43–11 and 43–45) recommended aminimum landing width of 24 inches(61 cm). Another commenter (Ex. 43–22)recommended that ‘‘landing platformsextend the entire width of the scaffoldinstead of only one-half the width asthey do now.’’

OSHA believes that employee safetymandates that a landing meeting therequirements and specifications of thisprovision must be provided onstairtowers. The Agency also believesthat landings must be as wide as thestairway itself (at least 18 inches (45.8cm)) in the direction in which thestairway is measured and at least 18inches long in the other direction aswell.

Final rule paragraph (e)(4)(ix) requiresthat each scaffold stairway be at least 18inches (45.8 cm) wide betweenstairrails. Several commenters (Exs. 43–6, 43–8, 43–11, 43–13, 43–14, 43–20,43–22, 43–24, 43–26, 43–32, and 43–37)supported a minimum stair width of 19inches (48.2 cm). However, the recordprovides no basis for OSHA to requirethat stairs be wider than their landings.In addition, 18 inches is the minimumwidth allowed for normal scaffolds.

Final rule paragraph (e)(4)(x) requiresthat treads and landings have slip-resistant surfaces. This provision isconsistent with existing§ 1926.1052(a)(7), which requires thatslippery conditions on stairways beeliminated before the stairways are usedto reach other levels.

Several commenters (Exs. 43–6, 43–8,43–11, 43–13, 43–14, 43–20, 43–22, 43–24, 43–26, 43–32, 43–37, and 43–44)supported a requirement that treads andlandings have slip-resistant surfaces.The Agency agrees with thosecommenters, and notes that scaffolds areoften used in conditions that can createslippery surfaces.

Final rule paragraph (e)(4)(xi) requiresthat scaffold stairways be installedbetween 40 degrees and 60 degrees fromthe horizontal. Existing§ 1926.1052(a)(2) requires that stairs beinstalled at between 30 degrees and 50degrees from horizontal. OSHA believes

that a minimum and a maximum anglemust be specified in order to adequatelyprotect employees from fall hazards.However, the Agency believes thatcompliance with existing§ 1926.1052(a)(2) will not be feasible forstairways regulated under subpart L,because scaffold stairways must fit intothe confines of scaffold framing.

Six commenters (Exs. 43–6, 43–13,43–14, 43–24, 43–37, and 43–44)opposed the specification of a minimumand a maximum angle from thehorizontal for scaffold stairways.However, five of these commenters (Exs.43–6, 43–13, 43–14, 43–37, and 43–44)provided suggested values in caseOSHA should decide to specify aminimum and a maximum angleanyway. Four (Exs. 43–6, 43–13, 43–14,and 43–37) of those commenterssuggested a minimum angle of 40degrees and a maximum angle of 55degrees since the stairs must fit into 7-foot (2.25 m) or 10-foot (3.2 m) bayswith landing platforms. The fifthcommenter (Ex. 43–44) recommendedangles of 35 degrees and 55 degrees.Three (Exs. 43–6, 43–14, and 43–37) ofthose commenters stated that once theangle approaches 80 degrees, thestairway becomes a ship’s ladder.Another commenter (Ex. 43–11) agreedwith that concept but placed the angleat 60 degrees.

One commenter (Ex. 43–11)recommended that the limits be set at 40degrees and 80 degrees, while anothercommenter (Ex. 43–22) recommended amaximum angle of 50 degrees butprovided no minimum value. Anothercommenter (Ex. 43–32) recommended aminimum angle of 30 degrees and amaximum angle of 50 degrees in orderto make subpart L consistent withsubpart X.

OSHA has determined that scaffoldstairways installed in the range of 40degrees to 60 degrees from thehorizontal will provide safe employeeaccess and will still be capable of fittinginto the confines of the scaffold frames.Paragraph (e)(4)(xi) of the final rulereflects this determination.

Final rule paragraph (e)(4)(xii)requires that guardrails meeting therequirements of 1926.451(g)(4) beprovided on the open sides and ends ofeach landing.

OSHA asked in the February 1, 1994reopening notice if guardrails installedon scaffold stairways should complywith both subpart M (fall protection)and this subpart L.

One commenter (Ex. 43–8)recommended that such guardrails meetthe requirements of subpart M for thesake of consistency. Another commenter(Ex. 43–13) suggested that only the


provisions of subpart L should apply.Two other commenters (Exs. 43–14 and43–37) opposed any requirement forguardrails on landing platforms, unlesswork was to be performed from them,on the grounds that ‘‘(n)o hazard oraccident data supports thisrequirement.’’

OSHA believes that employees onlanding platforms must be adequatelyprotected from fall hazards while on alanding whether they are working fromthe landing or not. However, the Agencyrecognizes that providing guardrails thatmeet the requirements of subpart Mwould be inappropriate for use onscaffolds and scaffold stair towersbecause they are built to otherrequirements. Instead, OSHA hasdetermined that scaffold guardrails, asrequired in subpart L, are appropriatebecause employers build scaffoldstairways using scaffold components,which are designed for 36 to 45-inchhigh guardrails. In addition, the Agencynotes that scaffold stairways have beenin use for many years and that guardrailsystems that comply with subpart Lhave provided adequate safety foremployees using these stairways.Accordingly, final rule paragraph(a)(4)(xii) requires guardrails between 36and 45 inches in height be used on theopen sides and ends of each landing.

Final paragraph (e)(4)(xiii) requiresriser heights within each flight ofscaffold stairs to be uniform within 1⁄4inch.

Four commenters (Exs. 43–8, 43–32,43–44, and 43–45) recommended thatOSHA require uniform riser height forall steps within each flight of stairs. Sixcommenters (Exs. 43–6, 43–11, 43–13,43–14, 43–24, and 43–37) respondedthat a uniform riser height within 1⁄4inch (0.6 cm) is possible to achieve,except for the first step and the last stepwhere variations in decking thicknessand the use of screw jacks at groundlevel make achieving this degree ofuniformity difficult. OSHA believes thata uniform riser height within 1⁄4 inch(0.6 cm) for all steps in each flight ofstairs is necessary in order to minimizethe possibility that employees will slip,trip, and fall while they are on thestairs.

OSHA recognizes that there aresituations where the level of the groundor of the structure to which the stairtower is connected will cause thespacing of the top or bottom step of thestairway system to deviate fromuniformity with the other steps by morethan 1⁄4 inch. The Agency hasdetermined that such deviation will notcompromise employee safety, so long asthe stair tower otherwise complies withthe requirements of paragraph (e)(4).

Final paragraph (e)(4)(xiv) requiresthat tread depth be uniform, within 1⁄4inch, for each flight of stairs. Thisprovision is consistent with existing§ 1926.1052(a)(3), which requires treaddepth uniformity in other types of stairsused in construction.

Monsanto (Ex. 43–45) supportedrequirements providing for uniformityof riser height and tread depth withineach flight of stairs. OSHA believes thattread depth uniformity, within 1⁄4 inch,as required in existing subpart X, is alsoappropriate for scaffold stairways.Uniform tread depth reduces thepossibility that employees will slip andfall due to uneven footing.

Final rule paragraph (e)(5) setsrequirements for ramps and walkwaysused to access scaffolds. Final ruleparagraph (e)(5)(i) provides that rampsand walkways six (6) feet (1.8 m) ormore above lower levels shall beprovided with guardrail systems inaccordance with the provisions of part1926, subpart M—Fall Protection. Inaddition, final rule paragraph (e)(5)(ii)provides that ramps and walkways shallnot exceed a slope of one (1) vertical tothree (3) horizontal (20 degrees abovethe horizontal). Finally, final ruleparagraph (e)(5)(iii) also requires that ifthe slope of a ramp or walkway issteeper than one (1) vertical in eight (8)horizontal, the ramp or walkway musthave cleats not more than fourteen (14)inches (35 cm) apart which are securelyfastened to the planking to providesecure footing.

The corresponding proposedparagraph simply required that rampsand runways be provided withguardrails in accordance with theprovisions of proposed §§ 1926.501 and1926.502 (Subpart M). As discussedabove in relation to the final rule term‘‘ramps’’, OSHA has replaced the term‘‘runways’’ with the term ‘‘walkways’’,since the term ‘‘walkway’’, unlike theterm ‘‘runways’’, is defined in this finalrule.

A commenter (Exs. 2–37 and 2–103)stated ‘‘[r]amps and walkways are usedextensively * * * as a means of egressto an elevated surface. Ramps are alsoused for material handling equipment.Since no standard angle of elevation isaddressed, an extreme angle of elevationand slippery surfaces would result infall-type accidents and muscle strains.’’The commenter also stated thatinadequately guarded walkways posefall hazards. The commenterrecommended language that wouldaddress the angle of elevation of rampsand would require cleats on ramps withslopes steeper than one (1) vertical ineight (8) horizontal to provide a safefoothold.

OSHA recognizes the need to indicateclearly what would be an appropriateslope for ramps used as access toscaffolds and has incorporated thislanguage into the final rule asparagraphs 1926.451(e)(5)(ii) and (iii).

The Agency notes that final rule§ 1926.451(f)(8) requires that employeesbe prohibited from working on scaffoldscovered with snow, ice, or otherslippery material except as necessary forremoval of such material. OSHAconsiders scaffold access ramps andwalkways to be part of the scaffold andwill also apply § 1926.451(f)(8) to thoseramps and walkways.

Final rule paragraph (e)(6) setsrequirements for integral prefabricatedscaffold access frames. Final ruleparagraph (e)(6)(i) provides that suchframes shall be specifically designedand constructed for use as ladder rungs.Also, final rule paragraph (e)(6)(ii)requires that the frames have a runglength of at least 8 inches (20 cm). Finalrule paragraph (e)(6)(iii) prescribes thatrungs less than 111⁄2 inches in lengthshall be used for access only and not aswork platforms unless fall protection, ora positioning device, is used. Inaddition, final rule paragraphs (e)(6)(iv)through (vi) require that integralprefabricated scaffold access frames beuniformly spaced within each framesection; provided with rest platforms at35 foot (10.7 m) maximum verticalintervals on all supported scaffoldsmore than 35 feet (10.7 m) high; andhave a maximum spacing between rungsof 163⁄4 inches (43 cm), respectively. Inaddition, final rule paragraph (e)(6)(vi)provides that non-uniform rung spacingcaused by joining end frames together isallowed, provided the resulting spacingdoes not exceed 163⁄4 inches (43 cm).These provisions are similar to those inproposed paragraph (c)(5).

Regarding the proposed introductorytext, the SSFI (Ex. 2–367) recommendedusing the words ‘‘access frames’’ insteadof the word ‘‘rung.’’ OSHA agrees thatthe suggested language more clearlystates the Agency’s regulatory intent andhas revised this paragraph in the finalrule accordingly.

Paragraph (e)(6)(i) of the final rule isidentical to proposed paragraph (c)(5)(i)except that the Agency has editoriallyrevised the provision to express OSHA’sintent more clearly. OSHA recognizesthat the proposed language could havebeen misinterpreted to require only thatthe access frames be designed asscaffold rungs, with no requirement forthem to be constructed in accordancewith that design. OSHA anticipates thatthese rungs will be designed andconstructed through consultationbetween the manufacturer and the end


user in order to satisfy the pertinentrequirements of the final rule.

Final rule paragraph (e)(6)(ii) requiresa minimum rung length of eight inches.In addition, final rule paragraph(e)(6)(iii) prohibits the use of rungs lessthan 111⁄2 inches long as workplatforms, unless affected employees areusing personal fall arrest systems orpositioning devices that comply with§ 1926.502 (paragraphs (d) and (e),respectively). These two provisionsevolved from proposed (c)(5)(ii), whichrequired a minimum rung length of 111⁄2inches (29 cm). Morgen ManufacturingCompany (Ex. 2–303) commented thatscaffolds with integral prefabricatedscaffold rungs which are only eightinches long also ‘‘provide safe access [toa work platform] equivalent to that of aladder.’’ Further, the commenter statedthat the 8-inch rungs ‘‘provide surerfooting and a better climb than does orcan a ladder.’’

Another commenter (Ex. 2–23) statedthat all ladders should have a minimumrung length of 12 inches in order toavoid confusion.

To evaluate this point, Issue L–6 ofthe hearing notice asked if OSHAshould revise proposed§ 1926.451(c)(5)(ii) to allow rung lengthsless than 111⁄2 inches where the rungswere used for access only. The SIA (Ex.10; Tr. 3/22/88, p. 159) supported the111⁄2-inch width requirement explaining‘‘[i]t’s our understanding that the 111⁄2-inch width was required * * * to allowthe workman to stand on a rung withboth feet * * * [A]n 8-inch rung wouldnot be wide enough.’’ Similarly, theSSFI (Ex. 5a–19) commented that itsmembers would not support reducing‘‘the minimum rung width from 111⁄2inches to * * * eight inches.’’ Theyadded that practical usage indicates that111⁄2-inch ladder rungs are appropriate.

Bristol Steel and Iron Works, Inc. (Ex.13) stated that scaffold rungs that wereless than 111⁄2 inches long wereacceptable ‘‘if they provide safe accessequivalent to that of a ladder.’’

Morgen Scaffold’s notice of intentionto appear at the hearing (Ex. 5a–10),testimony at the hearing (Tr. 20–32, 3–22–88), and post-hearing comments (Ex.15), stated that OSHA should eitherrevise the proposed rule as provided inIssue L–6 or grandfather the existingMorgen scaffolds to permit continueduse of the 8-inch integral rung system.

Morgen contended (Ex. 5a–10, p. 2)that its scaffold tower’s integral rungsprovide a safe and stable footing andhandhold for workers using the towersfor access to connection points forinstallation and removal of bracing andaccessories. Morgen’s post-hearingcomments (Ex. 15, p. 3) further

contended that the Morgen integral-rungsystem was safer than those requiringthe use of a ladder and offered thefollowing rationale:

Morgen feels that the tower provides amore secure area from which to install andremove the bracing and accessories thanwould a ladder. When using a ladder withany type of scaffolding, the worker isgenerally further from the connection pointand must shift his weight off the ladder toinstall bracing.

At the hearings, Morgenacknowledged that at no time areworkers able to put both feet on thesame eight-inch rung (Tr. 3/22/88, p.25). However, Morgen also stated that‘‘the size of the Morgen tower allows theworker to hug the tower, which is moresecure than merely standing with bothfeet on one rung’’ (Ex. 15, p. 3). Morgenalso asserted that worker activities,rather than an arbitrary dimension,should be the main consideration (Ex.15, p. 7). OSHA believes that the 111⁄2-inch dimension is not an ‘‘arbitrarydimension’’, because this rung size isgenerally recognized as necessary toprovide workers with level footing ofsufficient size to enable them to standon both feet, thus avoiding the need tobalance on one foot.

Morgen recognized (Tr. 28) that it isappropriate for employees to usepersonal fall arrest or positioningdevices while transporting or installingscaffold components. Morgenrecommends that personal fall arrestsystems be used to protect employeeswhen tower inserts are being added‘‘because the worker must keep bothhands free to guide the inserts intoposition’’ (Ex. 15, p. 6). These samesystems can be easily used during otherscaffold erection and disassemblyprocedures.

Morgen also stated (Ex. 15, p. 8) asfollows:

Morgen has no objection to the institutionof an industry wide requirement for the useof body belts while installing bracing, stiffarms, accessories and planking from integralladder rungs. Morgen’s objection to thelanguage currently proposed is that it singlesout Morgen and implies that the Morgendesign is not safe. Morgen objects to thatcharacterization and feels that its scaffold isamong the safest in the industry. Thecharacteristics which OSHA wants toaddress, concerning the safe installation ofscaffold elements while in the air, are notunique to the Morgen scaffold and do notdepend upon a specified rung length.

OSHA agrees that the concernsaddressed are not unique to Morgenscaffolds. However, OSHA disagreeswith the position that there is nopractical difference between an eight-inch rung where an employee can stand

only on one foot and must hug the towerto maintain balance and an 111⁄2-inchrung where both feet may be placed ona single rung. OSHA also notes that§ 1926.1053(a)(4)(ii) specifies 111⁄2inches as the appropriate minimumrung length on portable ladders.

After a careful evaluation of all thecomments received, OSHA hasdetermined that rungs which are at least8 inches long but less than 111⁄2 incheslong can be used safely for scaffoldaccess, because while climbing ordescending the employee will normallyhave only one foot on a rung at anygiven time and the 8 inch rungs willaccommodate this. However, employeeswho are assigned to use such rungs aswork platforms must be providedadditional protection by the use ofpersonal fall arrest systems, or bypositioning device systems, whichcomply with § 1926.502. This additionalsafeguard will ensure that employeesrequired to work from rungs less than111⁄2 inches in width will be adequatelyprotected from falling. This provision ofthe final rule has been revisedaccordingly.

Final rule paragraph (e)(6)(iv) isidentical to proposed paragraph(c)(5)(iii), except that the term ‘‘frame’’has been revised in the final rule to read‘‘each frame section,’’ so that theprovision clearly addresses situationswhere end frames are joined together,producing non-uniform spacing in thearea where the frames are joined. OSHAwas concerned that the proposal couldhave been misinterpreted to requireabsolutely uniform spacing for theentire height of the scaffold. That wasnot OSHA’s intent, as evidenced byproposed (c)(5)(v) (final rule paragraph(e)(6)(vi)) which prescribed maximumspacing of rungs, but allowed for non-uniform spacing caused by the joiningof end frames.

Proposed paragraph (c)(5)(iv) differedfrom final rule paragraph (e)(6)(v) inthat the proposal required rest platformsat 20-foot intervals instead of 35-footintervals. This revision is based on theresponse to Issue 28, as discussed abovein relation to final rule paragraph(e)(2)(iii).

Proposed paragraph (c)(5)(v) differedfrom final rule paragraph (e)(6)(vi) inthat the proposal required 161⁄2-inchinstead of 163⁄4-inch maximum spacingof rungs. This change reflects input fromthe SSFI (Ex. 2–367), which informedOSHA that 163⁄4 inches is the currentindustry guideline for rung spacing. Inproposing 161⁄2 inches OSHA intendedto recognize the large number of framesalready in existence without requiring asignificant program of framemodification. Therefore, based on the


comment indicating that 163⁄4 inches,not 161⁄2 inches, is the prevalentspacing, and because the additional one-fourth-inch spacing is not believed to besignificant, OSHA has modified thefinal rule to recognize the 163⁄4 inchspacing limit.

Final rule paragraph (e)(7) providesthat all steps and rungs of all ladder andstairway type access shall line upvertically with each other between restplatforms. Proposed paragraph (c)(6)was identical except that the final rulehas added the phrase ‘‘of all ladder andstairway type access’’ so that the finalrule more clearly expresses the Agency’sintent.

Final rule paragraph (e)(8) providesthat direct access to or from anothersurface shall be allowed only when thepertinent surfaces are not more than 14inches (36 cm) apart horizontally andnot more than 24 inches (61 cm) apartvertically. It is identical to proposedparagraph (c)(7) except for the additionof the phrase ‘‘to or from anothersurface’’ and some other minor editorialchanges. The 14-inch dimension waschosen to be consistent with proposed§ 1926.451(b)(4) (promulgated as finalrule § 1926.451(b)(3)).

The 24-inch dimension is consistentwith final rule paragraphs (e)(1),(e)(2)(ii) and (e)(3)(i), as discussedabove.

Paragraph (e)(9) of the final rule setsaccess requirements for employeeserecting or dismantling supportedscaffolds. The introductory language ofparagraph (e)(9) requires employers tocomply with final paragraphs (e)(9)(i)–(iv) starting on September 2, 1997.OSHA has delayed implementation ofthis paragraph (as well as paragraph(g)(2)) so that affected employers havesufficient time to develop andimplement the necessary measures. Inaddition, the delayed implementationallows time for OSHA to complete workon non-mandatory Appendix B,discussed below, which will provideexamples of considerations thatemployers complying with paragraphs(e)(9) and (g)(2) would take intoaccount. Paragraph (e)(9)(i) providesthat the means of access for erectors ordismantlers shall be determined by acompetent person, based on specific siteconditions and the type of scaffoldbeing erected. As discussed in relationto the introductory text of final ruleparagraph (e), while the Agencyoriginally proposed to exempt erectorsand dismantlers working on supportedscaffolds from requirements for safeaccess, careful review of the record hasled OSHA to the conclusion that acompetent person is the appropriateindividual to decide what the

appropriate means of access for scaffolderectors and dismantlers is on anyparticular job, based on specific siteconditions.

As discussed below in relation to finalrule § 1926.451(f)(7) (effectivelyidentical to existing rule§ 1926.451(a)(3) and proposed ruleparagraph (d)(7)), employers arerequired to have the erection,dismantling or alteration of a scaffoldconducted under the supervision anddirection of a competent person who isqualified in the pertinent subject matter.

OSHA is developing non-mandatoryAppendix B, which will be added at alater date, to provide examples ofcriteria for the competent person toconsider when evaluating the feasibilityand safety of the options for providingsafe access. This final rule reservesAppendix B to enable OSHA to provideguidance on the feasibility of providingsafe access and fall protection duringerection and dismantling. Once thatlanguage has been added, accessprovided in accordance with non-mandatory Appendix B will beconsidered to meet the requirements ofthis provision.

Paragraph (e)(9)(ii) of the final rulerequires that hook-on or attachableladders be installed as soon as practicalafter the scaffold erection hasprogressed to the point permitting theirinstallation and use. OSHA hasincluded this provision because therulemaking record (Exs. 34–9, 34–10,34–12, and 34–17) indicates thatsectional ladders can be used for accessonce adequate support is available.

Paragraph (e)(9)(iii) of the final rulerecognizes that the end frames oftubular welded frame scaffolds thatmeet certain requirements can be safelyused as a means of access for scaffolderectors and dismantlers. Theserequirements are based on section1637(n)(2)(C) of the California code, assuggested by one of the commenters (Ex.2–23).

Paragraph (e)(9)(iv) of the final ruleprovides that crossbracing is not anacceptable means of access on tubularwelded frame scaffolds, becausecrossbraces are designed to providediagonal stability to the scaffold and arenot designed to withstand the forcesthat could be applied by employeesclimbing up and down on them. Thisprovision is consistent with ANSIA10.8, section 4.18, and with thegeneral prohibition in final ruleparagraph (e)(1), discussed above. Thisrequirement is being repeated here toensure that the users are aware that theprohibition applies to scaffold erectorsand dismantlers as well as to scaffoldusers. The Agency invites interested

parties to provide OSHA withsuggestions and information regardingappropriate guidance for the competentperson.

Paragraph § 1926.451(f) UseParagraph (f) of the final rule

addresses safe work practices for the useof scaffolds and the activities whichtake place on scaffolds.

Paragraph (f)(1) of the final ruleprovides that scaffolds and scaffoldcomponents shall not be loaded inexcess of their maximum intended loadsor rated capacities, whichever is less.This is identical to proposed paragraph(d)(1), except for the clarifying phrase‘‘whichever is less.’’ This provisionclarifies and consolidates existing§§ 1926.451(h)(1), (i)(8), (j)(1), (s)(6),(t)(4), (w)(1), (x)(3) and (y)(1)(iii). Thisfinal rule also complements§ 1926.451(a)(1), which requires thatscaffolds be capable of supporting fourtimes the maximum intended loadwithout failure. Compliance with thisrule ensures that the scaffold’s capacityis not exceeded.

A commenter (Ex. 2–64) suggesteddeleting the term ‘‘maximum intendedload.’’ OSHA has not done so because,as discussed above in relation to thedefinition of this term, the Agencybelieves it is appropriate to take intoaccount the ‘‘expected’’ burden as wellas the burden a scaffold ‘‘can’’ supportwithout failure.

Paragraph (f)(2) of the final ruleprohibits the use of shore or lean-toscaffolds. The final rule is identical toproposed paragraph (d)(2), which wasbased on existing § 1926.451(a)(20).Such scaffolds are not properlydesigned nor properly constructed, andpose a serious threat to anyone workingon them. The two commenters (Exs. 2–23 and 2–308) who addressed thisprovision simply agreed with thecontinued prohibition of shore and lean-to scaffolds.

Paragraph (f)(3) of the final rulerequires that scaffolds and scaffoldcomponents be inspected for visibledefects by a competent person prior toeach work shift and after any occurrencewhich could affect a scaffold’s structuralintegrity. Final rule paragraph (f)(3) isidentical to proposed paragraph (d)(3),which was based on existing§§ 1926.45(i)(7) and (k)(5). Thoseexisting provisions require inspectionsof certain types of suspension scaffolds.Given the importance of detectingdefects in scaffolds and scaffoldcomponents, OSHA concludes that allscaffolds need to be inspected at thetimes specified in the final rule.

Issue 16 requested comment on theproposed frequency of scaffold


inspections for visible defects ‘‘prior toeach workshift.’’ Two commenters (Exs.2–13 and 2–69) stated that only certaintypes of scaffolds can be fully orpartially inspected prior to eachworkshift. Those commenters agreedthat two-point suspension scaffolds canbe fully inspected, but they indicatedthat such an inspection could not bedone for ‘‘tubular welded frame scaffoldcovering a multi-story building.’’ One ofthem (Ex. 2–13) added that proposed§ 1926.451(d)(3) should specify thetypes of scaffolds to be completelyinspected prior to each workshift andoffered suspension and small supportedscaffolds as examples. The other (Ex. 2–69) stated that inspecting a multi-storyscaffold system could take the majorityof the work shift.

OSHA acknowledges that the amountof time needed to perform visualinspection may depend on the type andsize of the scaffold being inspected.However, OSHA believes that it isappropriate for the proposed inspectionrequirement to cover all types ofscaffolds, because any scaffold (orscaffold component) can have ordevelop defects which would posehazards for employees if allowed toremain in service without beinginspected. In addition, OSHA believesthat the time to conduct a carefulinspection for ‘‘visible defects’’ willinvolve a reasonable amount of timewhen considered in relation to the scaleof the work in question.

Another commenter (Ex. 2–64) statedthat suspended scaffolds (‘‘andassociated equipment’’) should beinspected according to themanufacturer’s recommendations. Inaddition, this commenter provided acopy of the company’s recommendedinspection schedule for particularsuspension scaffold components. Thiscommenter also stated that ‘‘impropermaintenance was the most frequentcause of product incidents.’’

One commenter (Ex. 2–43) stated thatthe ‘‘[i]nspection procedures for swingstages are adequate’’ but that ‘‘[w]eeklyor monthly inspections on rolling orstationary scaffolds should bemandated.’’ Another commenter (Ex. 2–31) responded that the daily inspections(prior to each workshift) were‘‘appropriate for the pumpjackscaffolding user.’’

Eight commenters (Exs. 2–15, 2–22,2–53, 2–70, 2–367, 2–368, 2–407, and 2–465) supported specifying scaffoldinspection frequency, without regard tothe type or size scaffold inspected. Inparticular, a commenter (Ex. 2–22)stated that the inspection frequencyshould be no more ‘‘than once per dayor after an occurrence.’’ Another

commenter (Ex. 2–53) was of theopinion that scaffolds and scaffoldcomponents should be inspected forvisible defects prior to each use. TheACCSH recommended that scaffoldinspection should take place prior touse, and added that a competent personshould handle the inspection (Tr.6/9/87, 136–138).

The SIA (Ex. 2–368) also supportedhaving a competent person perform theinspection but stated that a fullinspection was not ‘‘feasible every timea worker gets on a scaffold.’’ Thecommenter stated that ‘‘[i]nspection is acritical factor in accident prevention’’and agreed that the daily inspection,prior to each workshift, wasappropriate. The SIA also discussedspecific occurrences that might alter thecondition of a scaffold, explaining thatthese ‘‘would include unexplainedshifting, movement, or malfunction ofequipment where [the] scaffold is amechanical device.’’

In addition, the SSFI (Ex. 2–367)indicated that the recommendation fordaily inspection coincided with theproposed ANSI A10.8 requirements forinspection. They added that a scaffoldshould be inspected when it ‘‘has beenaltered, either by accident or design.’’

The BCMALU (Ex. 2–54) supportedthe inspection of scaffolds and theircomponents but did not indicate apreferred interval for such inspections.

After a careful review of thesecomments, OSHA has determined thatinspections conducted by a competentperson before each shift and after anyoccurrence that would affect thescaffold’s integrity will adequatelyprotect employees working on scaffoldsand ensure that defects are detected ina timely fashion. Given the variety ofscaffolds and situations that ariseregarding their use, the Agency believesthat specifying the inspection frequencywould unnecessarily limit employers’flexibility.

One commenter (Ex. 2–308) statedthat all inspection results should be inwriting and be signed by a ‘‘competentperson.’’ This commenter pointed outthat the duration of a ‘‘workshift’’needed to be defined if inspection wasrequired before each shift. OSHAbelieves that such documentation isunnecessarily burdensome, especially inlight of § 1926.451(f)(4) of this final rule,which requires immediate repair,replacement, bracing, or removal fromservice of any scaffold part that does notmeet the strength requirements of§ 1926.451 (a) or (g). In addition, theAgency recognizes that the length ofworkshifts varies and has determinedthat the protection afforded by thisprovision is needed whatever the length

of the workshift. Accordingly, OSHAhas not added the suggested revisions.

Several commenters (Exs. 2–37, 2–38,and 2–103) stated that there was a needto define ‘‘competent person.’’ OSHAnotes that a general definition of thisindividual that applies to allconstruction work already exists in§ 1926.32. Although the definition ofcompetent person in that section appliesto all construction work, OSHA believesthat it is reasonable to repeat thisdefinition of ‘‘competent person’’ in thefinal rule, as a matter of convenience forthe user. However, the Agency notesthat the criteria for a ‘‘competentperson’’ depend on the situation inwhich the competent person is working.For example, a ‘‘competent person’’ forthe purposes of this provision musthave had specific training in and beknowledgeable about the structuralintegrity of scaffolds and the degree ofmaintenance needed to maintain them.The competent person must also be ableto evaluate the effects of occurrencessuch as a dropped load, or a truckbacking into a support leg that coulddamage a scaffold. In addition, thecompetent person must beknowledgeable about the requirementsof this standard. A competent personmust have training or knowledge inthese areas in order to identify andcorrect hazards encountered in scaffoldwork.

Final rule paragraph (f)(4) requiresthat any part of a scaffold whosestrength has been reduced to less thanthat required by §§ 1926.451(a) shall beimmediately repaired or replaced,braced to meet those provisions, whereappropriate, or be removed from serviceuntil repaired. This paragraph applieswhenever a scaffold component, for anyreason, lacks the required strength. Inparticular, under this provisionemployers must follow through toaddress problems identified pursuant toparagraph (f)(3) of this section. Proposedparagraph (d)(4) was effectivelyidentical to final rule paragraph (f)(4),except that the proposal required actiononly when a competent persondetermined that the strength of a parthad been compromised, and providedonly for bracing of a part or its removalfrom service. This provision of the finalrule thus clarifies and consolidatesexisting §§ 1926.451 (a)(8) and (o)(6).The proposed paragraph also recognizedbracing as an acceptable means ofcompliance because OSHA foresawcircumstances where the removal of adamaged component could be extremelydifficult or hazardous due to itslocation. However, provision forreplacement of a damaged componentwas inadvertently left out of the


proposal. OSHA has included it in thefinal rule so that the text clearlyexpresses the Agency’s intent.

Final rule paragraph (f)(5) providesthat scaffolds shall not be movedhorizontally while employees are onthem, except that mobile scaffolds maybe moved if the provisions of§ 1926.452(w) for mobile scaffolds arefollowed, and then only if they havebeen designed by a registeredprofessional engineer specifically forsuch movement. Final rule paragraph(f)(5) is very similar to the proposedparagraph (d)(5) except that ‘‘laterally’’has been changed to ‘‘horizontally’’ forthe sake of clarity. In addition, theproposed exception did not includescaffolds designed by registeredprofessional engineers specifically forsuch movement. The proposed rule wasintended to consolidate and reconcileexisting §§ 1926.451(a)(3) (any scaffoldmovement must be conducted under thesupervision of a competent person), (e)(6)–(8) (criteria for moving mobilescaffolds) and (p)(1) (needle beamscaffolds shall not be moved while inuse).

Two commenters (Exs. 2–13 and 2–367) suggested that the Agency prohibit,in all instances, the moving of mobilescaffolds when employees are on them,but gave no specific rationale for theircomments. The Agency is not acting onthese suggestions because it hasdetermined that the provisions of finalrule paragraph § 1926.451(f)(7) requiringa competent person to supervise anddirect any movement of a scaffold, andthe requirements of § 1926.452(w),which specifically address themovement of mobile scaffolds, willprovide adequate protection foremployees. In addition, the Agencybelieves that making employees climbup and down the scaffold every time itis moved could actually expose them togreater risk of falling than remaining ona scaffold that is being moved under thedirection of a competent person inaccordance with the requirements of§ 1926.452(w).

The SIA (Ex. 2–368) recommendedthat OSHA add another exception forsome suspension scaffolds which aredesigned to be moved horizontallywhile occupied. The commenter cited asan example scaffolds used for theconstruction of bridges and othersimilar steel structures where it isimpossible to move the scaffold at theground level. The final rule allows thistype of scaffold to be movedhorizontally if the scaffold has beendesigned for such movement by aregistered professional engineer.

Paragraph (f)(6) of the final ruleaddresses the use of scaffolds near

exposed and energized power lines. Inparticular, this paragraph requiresemployers to maintain clearancebetween power lines and scaffolds,including any conductive materials onthe scaffold. The minimum clearance forall uninsulated lines and for insulatedlines of more than 300 volts is 10 feet.The minimum clearance for insulatedlines of less than 300 volts is 3 feet. Inaddition, final rule paragraph (f)(6)(i)provides that scaffolds and materialsmay be closer to power lines thanspecified above only where necessary todo the work, and only after the utilitycompany or electrical system operatorhas been notified of the need to workcloser and the utility company orelectrical system operator hasdeenergized the lines, relocated thelines, or installed protective coveringsto prevent accidental contact with thelines.

The final rule provisions in paragraph(f)(6) are very similar to those inproposed paragraph (d)(6), except thatthe final rule addresses materials usedon scaffolds; provides an exception forsituations where the employer hascontacted the utility company to havepower lines de-energized, relocated orcovered to prevent accidental contact;and sets three feet, rather than two feet,as the minimum clearance betweenscaffolds and insulated lines of less than300 volts. OSHA has also editoriallyrevised this provision for the sake ofclarity.

The first two changes noted abovewere made based on input received inresponse to Issue L–5 of the hearingnotice (53 FR 2051). First, the ACCSH(Tr. 6/9/87, p. 204) suggested that OSHArevise proposed § 1926.451(d)(6) toreflect concern that conductive materialhandled on a scaffold might contactexposed and energized lines even if thescaffold itself did not. To this end, theACCSH recommended that theintroductory language of proposed§ 1926.451(d)(6) read as follows:

Scaffolds shall not be erected, used ormoved in such a way that they or anyconductive material handled on them cancome closer to exposed and energized powerlines than as follows: * * * .

The Edison Electric Institute (EEI)testified (Tr. 190, 3–22–88) in favor ofthe suggested language, stating ‘‘[w]ealso support your contention that anyconductive extension or persons movingon that scaffold, the platform, shouldalso comply [with] 10 feet.’’

Second, a commenter (Ex. 2–103)suggested that the Agency requireemployers to notify the power companywhen scaffolds are to be erected nearenergized power lines and request that

the power company de-energize the lineor provide protective covering toprevent accidental contact.

In Hearing Notice Issue L–5, OSHAindicated its expectation that adding thesuggested language would provideprimary employee protection fromelectrical shock hazards. The Agencyfurther indicated that proposedparagraph (d)(6) would apply if theaffected employer could not obtainassurances from the utility companythat the lines had been de-energized oradequately protected from contact.

The SIA testified (Tr. 158, 3–22–88)that the suggested Issue L–5 wordingwas too vague and recommended thatspecification-type language, rather thanperformance-oriented terminology,‘‘may be more practical and enforceablewhen you are dealing with exposure ofthis type.’’ The SIA further stated:

We certainly do have the hazard there,particularly in people erecting the scaffoldsand people working on them. There’s a greatproblem when people go out to erect ascaffold around a building, there is highvoltage wire close by. The question hasalways been, well how close can we get toit? Based on California in their table in someinstances they say 6 feet. Some people saythat is too close and I don’t know but I thinkthat is really something you need to addressto get input from people who are experts inthat area (Tr. 169).

EEI testified (Ex. 11; Tr. 180, 3/22/88)that OSHA should promulgate theproposed ten-foot minimum clearancebetween a scaffold and energized andexposed power lines; that theinstallation of protective devices on thepower lines be done by ‘‘trained utilityline technicians’’; that the ten footproximity rule should apply to ‘‘anyconductive extension or persons’’ on ascaffold (Tr. 190–191); and that theHearing Notice Issue L–5 languageregarding protective coverings forenergized lines was ‘‘not a safe standard* * *’’

In addition, EEI supported requiringemployers to notify utilities beforeerecting scaffolds in proximity toenergized lines, so that the utilitiescould determine how to protect scaffoldworkers. EEI also stated (Tr. 181):

Any final standard must make it clear thatthe 10 foot or more clearances are to beobserved unless the line is deenergized orunless the utility plainly advises theemployer that it is safe for the particularcondition involved to erect a scaffold incloser proximity to the lines than the 10 feetallowed.

It must also be made clear in the finalstandard that the utility will have noobligation to be [de]energized or to take stepsto protect lines and that, if the utility deemsit appropriate to do neither, that the 10-footclearance distance as a minimum * * * mustbe observed.


The EEI described the procedures bywhich employers contact utilities whenemployees need to work in proximity toenergized lines, as follows:

In Wisconsin as part of a one-call systemthat originated for digging in the ground toavoid contact with buried facilities. We haveincorporated notification for all electricfacilities. So contractors in Wisconsin whoare approaching a job where they detect thepresence of overhead conductors can use theone-call system to notify the utility of theirintent to work. And within 72 hours theutility comes out and inspects and tells themwhat they are proposing is reasonable or not.I am sure there are other states with similarprovisions (Tr. 187).

In response to a question about howwork could proceed when a scaffoldmust be erected within ten feet of anenergized line and the utility refuses tode-energize the line, EEI testified (Tr.198) that the architects and planners forthe structure should consider the linewhen planning the project. Otherwise,he added, there ‘‘* * * would have tobe a delay until some appropriateprotection or alternate feed for thatfacility was established.’’

Bristol Steel (Exs. 5a–3 and 13)supported focusing attention on thesafeguards necessary to addressproblems associated with power lines,stating that the proposed language torequire maintaining a safe distance frompower lines or de-energizing the lines toprotect employees from the lines waswarranted.

The SSFI (Ex. 5a–19) expressedsupport for the proposed requirementthat an appropriate distance bemaintained between scaffolds andenergized power lines.

The third substantive change made inthe final rule to proposed paragraph(d)(6) was the revision of proposedparagraph (d)(6)(iii) to increase theminimum clearance between scaffoldsand lines to 3 feet instead of 2 feet. Thischange was based on the 1990 editionsof two national consensus standards, theNational Electrical Safety Code (NESC)and the National Electrical Code (NEC).

NESC Rule 234C specifies clearancesfrom the nearest conductive surface tothe nearest surface of a building or itsprojections or its attachments(scaffolds). The required horizontalclearance to buildings is intended toprovide adequate working spacebetween the conductors or cables andthe building surface to permit workerswith small hand tools to conductmaintenance on a building or otherstructure. Trained workers usingspecialized maintenance tools wouldalso be provided with adequateclearance.

Specifically, NESC Rule 24C3c(2)states the following:

Service-drop conductors shall not bereadily accessible, and when not in excess of750 volts, they shall have a clearance of notless than 3 feet in any direction fromwindows, doors, porches, fire escapes, orsimilar locations.

Section 24C3c(2) was added in the1984 edition of the NESC to beconsistent with Article 230–24(c) of theNEC. Article 230 of the NEC coversservice conductors.

In the NEC, Article 230–24(c) coversclearances of all overhead service-dropconductors, and simply refers to Article230–9, ‘‘Clearances from BuildingOpenings.’’ Article 230–9, based on nowind loading, states the following:‘‘Service conductors installed as openconductors or multiconductor cablewithout an overall outer jacket shallhave a clearance of not less than 3 feetfrom windows, doors, porches, fireescapes, or similar locations.’’

With no wind loading, the horizontalclearance from the scaffold to theservice conductors must be at least 3feet. Where wind loading might causethe conductor to be displaced, theoriginal clearance distance must beexpanded to assure that at least 3 feet ofclearance is maintained between thescaffold and the displaced conductor.

Paragraph (f)(7) of the final ruleprovides that scaffolds shall only beerected, moved, dismantled, or alteredunder the supervision and direction ofa competent person. That paragraphfurther provides that the listed activitiesshall be performed only by experiencedand trained employees selected for suchwork by the competent person. Thisprovision is similar to proposedparagraph (d)(7), which was effectivelyidentical to existing § 1926.451(a)(3).

OSHA received one comment (Ex. 2–23) which recommended the addition of‘‘and direction’’ between the words‘‘supervision’’ and ‘‘of’’ because itwould otherwise infer that thesupervision need not be at the scenedirecting the work. OSHA believes suchdirect supervision is necessary, and hasrevised the final rule to clarify thispoint. This commenter also suggestedthat a qualified person rather than acompetent person be required by thisprovision. The commenter defined aqualified person as ‘‘a person designatedby the employer who by reason ofexperience or instruction is familiarwith the operation to be performed andthe hazards involved.’’ OSHAacknowledges that the proposedlanguage does not clearly address thequalifications of a competent personcharged with directing scaffold work.

Therefore, the Agency has revised thelanguage to indicate clearly that thecompetent person must be ‘‘qualified’’(as defined in § 1926.32(m)) in thesubject matters for which that personhas responsibility.

The Agency has also clarified that theactual work be performed byexperienced and trained employees,selected by the competent person. Thischange is based on an ACCSHrecommendation (Tr. 88–92, 6–9–87). Inparticular, a member of the AdvisoryCommittee stated ‘‘it needs to beemployees that are properly trained andexperienced being the only onesallowed to do this kind of work.’’ OSHAagrees with this recommendationbecause, unlike other individuals on afinished scaffold, erectors anddisassemblers are exposed to thehazards of working on a partiallycompleted structure, and a competentperson is needed to select the properindividuals to do this work.

Paragraph (f)(8) of the final ruleprovides that employees are prohibitedfrom working on scaffolds covered withsnow, ice, or other slippery materialexcept as necessary for removal of suchmaterials. This provision is identical toproposed paragraph (d)(8), which wasintended to clarify existing§ 1926.451(a)(17). The existing standardsimply required that ‘‘slipperyconditions on scaffolds shall beeliminated as soon as possible after theyoccur.’’

The Agency recognizes that thesituation addressed by this provisiondiffers from situations where workerscould be required to work on scaffoldsduring storms or high winds, which isaddressed by § 1926.451(f)(12)(discussed below). OSHA notes thatsnow and ice removal can be done fromground level on one level built-upscaffolds (approximately 6 feet) and onsuspended scaffolds, since they areusually accessed at ground level. Whendealing with a two or more level built-up scaffold, removal of slippery materialwould be conducted above the 10-foottrigger height requiring normal fallprotection precautions. On the otherhand, work on scaffolds during stormsor high winds poses a much greater riskof falling for workers, especially on tallscaffolds where wind velocity can bemuch greater than at ground level. Inthese situations, materials handling, oreven normal activities such as walking,are adversely affected to the point whereguardrails alone might not besufficiently protective. Under thesecircumstances, the Agency intends thecompetent person to determine if thework can be done safely, and theemployer to ensure that those


employees are provided extra protectionthrough the use of personal fall arrestsystems or wind screens. This provisionis discussed further below.

Paragraph (f)(9) of the final rulerequires that, where swinging loads arebeing hoisted on, to, or near scaffoldssuch that the loads could contact thescaffold, tag lines or equivalentmeasures shall be utilized to stabilizethe loads. This provision is effectivelyidentical to proposed paragraph (d)(9).The proposed rule was based on§ 1910.28(a)(15), which requires taglines only when loads are being hoistedonto the scaffold. The provision coversall hoisting operations in proximity toscaffolds, because a swinging load canpose a hazard regardless of itsdestination. OSHA has made a minoreditorial revision to the proposed rulefor the sake of clarity.

Final rule paragraph (f)(10) requiresthat support ropes used with adjustablesuspension scaffolds have sufficientdiameter for functioning of the brakesand the hoist mechanism. As discussedabove in relation to final rule§ 1926.451(a), OSHA has relocated thisprovision, which is effectively identicalto proposed paragraph (a)(4)(i), toconsolidate the requirements for ropeused with suspension scaffolds.

Paragraph (f)(11) of the final rulerequires that suspension ropes beshielded when a heat-producing processis performed. When acids or othercorrosive substances are used on ascaffold, the ropes shall be shielded,treated to protect against the corrosivesubstances, or shall be of a materialwhich is not adversely affected by thesubstance being used. This provision isidentical to proposed paragraph (d)(10).The proposal was essentially the sameas existing § 1926.451(a)(18), whichprohibits the use of any heat producingprocess on scaffolds supported by fiberor synthetic rope and requires that onlytreated or protected fiber or syntheticropes be used near corrosive substances.Unlike the existing rule, the revisedstandard allows the use of heatproducing processes, as long as theropes are shielded. The provisions forprotection of scaffolds and theircomponents from corrosive substancesand from heat-producing processes areconsistent with ANSI A10.8–1988,Sections 4.27 and 4.28, respectively.

Final rule paragraph (f)(12) prohibitswork on or from scaffolds during stormsor high winds unless a competentperson has determined that it is safe foremployees to be on the scaffold andthese employees are protected by apersonal fall arrest system or windscreens. Wind screens shall not be usedunless the scaffold is secured against the

forces imposed. The proposed rule(paragraph (d)(11)) was based on generalindustry regulation § 1910.28(a)(18),which provides that employees shall notwork on scaffolds during storms or highwinds.

Proposed paragraph (d)(11) prohibitedwork on scaffolds during storms orwhen wind speeds exceeded 40-mph,unless body belt or harness systemswere used or wind screens were erected.The proposed rule, like the final rule,provided that wind screens could onlybe used if the scaffold was securedagainst the forces imposed. Issue 6 ofthe NPRM requested comments onwhether the proposed 40-mph limit wasappropriate and on how to measure thewind speed.

Two commenters (Exs. 2–22 and 2–53) supported the proposed 40-mphlimit. Two other commenters (Exs. 2–13and 2–41) stated that 25 mph would bea more appropriate limit. Othercommenters (Exs. 2–54 and 2–64) statedthat 40 mph is too high a limit, becauseof the dangers high winds present, butdid not suggest an alternative limit. Twocommenters (Exs. 2–64 and 2–368)stated that no specific limit should beset because of the variations in windspeed from ground level to higherelevations, and from building side tobuilding side. Several commenters fromthe AGC (Exs. 2–20, 2–55, 2–70, 2–390,and 2–516) stated that contractors arepresently using ‘‘good judgement’’ indetermining when work should ceaseand that there are no statistics to showotherwise.

The SSFI and the SIA (Exs. 2–367 and2–368) stated that the most recent draftlanguage used in the ANSI A10.8standard should be used. As adopted,ANSI A10.8–1988, Section 4.22,provides ‘‘[w]orkers shall not work onscaffolds during storms or high winds.’’In particular, the SSFI (Ex. 2–367) stated‘‘[t]here are too many variables for aspecific wind speed to be determined bya governmental agency.’’ Thatcommenter also recommended thatOSHA use the term ‘‘high wind’’without specifying a wind speed, andthat the Agency let individual workersdetermine if the work should beperformed under those conditions. TheSIA (Ex. 2–368) stated ‘‘a set limit ofmph can be misleading and dangerousin that the wind velocity can be 15 mphor lower, yet the side of the building themen are working on can have gusts inexcess of 40 mph. * * * Wind will varyon each side of a building.’’

The ACCSH (Tr. 65–79, 6/9/87)recommended that the determination ofwind hazard should be made by a‘‘competent person.’’ OSHA agrees thatdesignating a competent person to

evaluate wind conditions is theappropriate way to ensure that all therelevant information and the uniqueaspects of work locations areconsidered. OSHA believes this is amore appropriate way to address theproblem than simply specifying a speedlimit without regard to other factors.Accordingly, the Agency has revised thefinal rule to reflect the ACCSHsuggestion to use a competent personand the suggestions to use the ANSIlanguage.

Final rule paragraph (f)(13) providesthat debris shall not be allowed toaccumulate on platforms, where it couldpose a slip, trip, or fall hazard toemployees on or below the platform.This provision is identical to proposedparagraph (d)(12), which was based onexisting § 1910.28(a)(20). This provisionis consistent with ANSI A10.8–1988,Section 4.24.

Final rule paragraph (f)(14) providesthat makeshift devices, such as but notlimited to boxes and barrels, shall not beused on top of scaffold platforms toincrease the working level height ofemployees. The Agency has concludedthat these makeshift devices will notmeet the pertinent criteria of this finalrule, in terms of strength and stability.

Final rule paragraph (f)(15) prohibitsthe use of ladders on scaffolds toincrease the employee’s working levelexcept when the employees are on largearea scaffolds and the ladder is used inaccordance with the applicableprovisions of final rule paragraph(f)(15)(i)–(iv), discussed below.

The corresponding paragraph in theproposal provided simply that laddersand makeshift devices not be used toincrease scaffold working heights. Thisprovision was intended to ensure thatworkers were provided with a securework platform, and to eliminate thehazard of tipping caused by portableladders exerting a sideways thrust onscaffold systems. The pertinentprovisions are consistent with thecorresponding language in ANSI A10.8–1988, Section 4.29.

NPRM Issue 29 requested publiccomment on the need for the proposedprohibition against the use of ladders onscaffolds. Three commenters (Exs. 2–40,2–53, and 2–69) favored the use ofbody/safety belts in such situations. Ofthese three, both NIOSH (Ex. 2–40) andanother commenter (Ex. 2–69) notedthat there would be no need to preventthe tipping of a scaffold from sidewaysthrust exerted by a ladder if the scaffoldwere secured laterally. Thosecommenters added that employeesworking above the guardrail systemcould be guarded from falls by using abody belt. In addition, NIOSH (Ex. 2–40)


provided examples, noting that tiebacks,guys, or braces would be used to securea scaffold. NIOSH also suggested thatOSHA consider requiring ‘‘formscaffolds’’ to be near the top of concreteforms. The commenter indicated thatthis would ‘‘eliminate the need forworkers to be above the scaffold fallprotection system.’’ However, NIOSHstated that no data exist to support thisrecommendation concerning formscaffolds. The other commenter (Ex. 2–53) who supported the use of personalfall arrest systems stated ‘‘safety beltsmust be used’’ when ladders or otherdevises are used on top of scaffolds toincrease the working level heights ofemployees.

One commenter (Ex. 2–15) favored theproposed prohibition of the use ofladders or makeshift devices to raise theworking level of employees, providedthat the prohibition pertains only toscaffolds subject to tipping that do notcompletely cover an enclosed area. Inparticular, this commenter stated thatthe proposed prohibition should notapply to scaffolds built from wall towall with the entire floor area coveredand with a completely decked top (ineffect, a large area scaffold) from whichseveral trades could use ladders or smallscaffolds to do their work. In addition,two commenters (Exs. 2–1 and 2–54)who addressed proposed paragraph(d)(13), rather than Issue 29, indicatedthat ladders can be used on large areascaffolds when additional precautionsare taken.

One commenter (Ex. 2–64) supportedapplying the proposed prohibition tosuspended scaffolds but did not addressother scaffolds. Another commenter (Ex.2–13) stated that no ladder or makeshiftdevice ‘‘should be used to increase theheight of a scaffold.’’

In addition, four commenters (Exs. 2–29, 2–43, 2–367 and 2–368) explicitlyand unconditionally supported theproposed prohibition. Two commenters(Exs. 2–29 and 2–43) very briefly statedthat the use of ladders and makeshiftdevices on top of scaffolds to raiseworking levels should be prohibited.The SSFI (Ex. 2–367) supported theproposed prohibition and stated that theuse of ladders and makeshift devices ontop of scaffolds makes scaffold systemsunstable. The SIA (Ex. 2–368) supportedthe proposed prohibition and stated thataccident statistics ‘‘reveal a number ofinjuries and fatalities due to workersimprovising ladders and makeshiftdevices to obtain greater workingheights from scaffolds.’’

After carefully considering the abovecomments and the recommendationfrom the ACCSH, OSHA has determinedthat the proposed prohibition of the use

of ladders and makeshift devices on topof scaffolds is necessary to ensureemployee safety. However, the Agencyhas also determined that the use ofladders on large area scaffolds isconsistent with efforts to ensureemployee safety. As noted above in thediscussion of the definition for ‘‘Largearea scaffold’’, these scaffolds coversubstantially the entire work area, andare basically equivalent to working on afloor or large deck of a structure, whereladders can be used safely. Therefore,the final rule prohibits the use ofmakeshift devices on all scaffolds andprohibits the use of ladders on scaffoldsother than large area scaffolds.

Furthermore, the OSHA hasdetermined that the requirements inproposed § 1926.451(d)(13), whichaddressed the use of both ladders andmakeshift devices in one provision,should be separated into two paragraphsso that the final rule clearly expressesthe Agency’s regulatory intent. Theproposed rule has been revisedaccordingly.

Final rule paragraph (f)(15)(i)provides that when a ladder is placedagainst a structure which is not a partof the scaffold, the scaffold must besecured against the sideways thrustexerted by the ladder. This provisionwas suggested by NIOSH and othercommenters on Issue 29. In addition,paragraphs (f)(15) (ii) through (iv)require that the platform units besecured to the scaffold to prevent themfrom moving; that the ladder legs are allon the same platform unit unless othermeans have been provided to stabilizethe ladder against platform unitdeflection; and that the ladder legs besecured to prevent them from slippingand being pushed off the platform unit.These provisions are based onsuggestions made by commenters onIssue 29, as discussed above.

The Agency believes that compliancewith these provisions will prevent thetipping and instability hazards that ledOSHA to propose a prohibition againstthe use of ladders on all scaffolds, andhas revised the final rule accordingly.

Final rule paragraph (f)(16) providesthat platform units shall not deflectmore than 1/60 of the span whenloaded. This provision is identical toproposed paragraph (d)(14), and isintended to limit the amount platformunits can deflect under load withoutbecoming overstressed and withouttheir ends being pulled from theirsupports.

Final rule paragraph (f)(17) requiresemployers to reduce the possibility ofwelding current arcing throughsuspension wire rope while employeesare performing welding from suspended

scaffolds by insulating the suspendedplatform and its rigging. OSHA isadding this new provision to protectemployees from the electrocution andplatform collapse hazards posed byarcing welding current. In particular,the Agency requires that employers rigaffected scaffolds with insulatedthimbles (paragraph (f)(17)(i)), insulatedwire rope (paragraph (f)(17)(ii)), andinsulated hoist mechanisms (paragraph(f)(17)(iii)). This paragraph also specifiesprecautions for grounding the scaffoldto the structure on which welding isbeing performed (paragraphs (f)(17) (iv–vi)). These provisions are consistentwith ANSI A10.8–1988, Section 6.2.9.

Issue 2 of the NPRM requestedcomment on the need to regulatewelding equipment used on suspendedscaffolds and solicited input regardingregulatory text then being considered bythe ANSI A10.8 Committee. That text,divided into six items, was effectivelyidentical to the language OSHA haspromulgated in paragraph (f)(17).

Four commenters (Exs. 2–20, 2–55, 2–69, and 2–390) stated that this subjectshould be covered by the weldingstandards for construction (part 1926,subpart J), since the hazards involved inthese operations related directly towelding. The National ConstructorsAssociation (NCA) (Ex. 2–53) wentfurther, saying ‘‘[t]here is no need toregulate electric welding equipment onscaffolds. NCA member companies donot have any experience that wouldindicate additional regulations.’’

One respondent (Ex. 2–8) stated thatOSHA needed to define the term‘‘suitable’’ as used in describing aninsulated thimble (Item (a) of Issue 2,promulgated as paragraph (f)(17)(i)),because ‘‘[s]omeone might think thatputting electric tape on a metal thimbleis ‘‘suitable’’ insulation.’’ OSHA agreesthat the term ‘‘suitable’’ could beinterpreted in a way that would resultin inadequate insulation and hasadopted regulatory text requiring an‘‘insulated thimble’’ that providesappropriate protection for theequipment in use.

Another commenter (Ex. 2–13) stated‘‘[t]he only rule that could possibly helpprevent accidents from welding onsuspended scaffolds is to ground thescaffold. All the scaffold componentsare conductors and all could possibly begrounded through the suspension ropes.A secondary path, of lesser resistance,could possibly help.’’

In addition, a commenter (Ex. 2–22)stated that requiring employers to covereach hoist with protective covers madefrom insulating material (Item (c) ofIssue 2, promulgated as paragraph(f)(17)(iii)) would have a prohibitive


cost without having an impact on safety,noting that a ‘‘great number’’ of hoistsare used on scaffolds. The commenteradded that the provision requiring agrounding conductor to be connectedfrom the unit to the structure (Item (d)of Issue 2, promulgated as paragraph(f)(17)(iv)) may not be practicable‘‘because in actual field situations themachines are constantly and frequentlymoved.’’ In addition, the commenterstated that the requirement to turn offthe welding machine if the unitgrounding lead is disconnected at anytime (Item (e) of Issue 2, promulgated asparagraph (f)(17)(v)) may be impractical,because ‘‘in actual field situations themachine may be 50 or more feet fromthe scaffold.’’ Another commenter (Ex.2–29) suggested that ‘‘[r]equirementsshould be more performance-oriented toallow alternative methods to protect theemployees working with electricwelding equipment on suspendedscaffolds.’’

Several commenters (Exs. 2–43, 2–54,2–64, 2–367, and 2–368) expressedconcern over the hazards of usingelectric welding equipment onsuspended scaffolds and indicated thatthey favored promulgation of themeasures raised in Issue 2. Onecommenter (Ex. 2–64) noted that OSHAhad used the term ‘‘unit’’ instead of theterms ‘‘scaffold’’ or ‘‘platform’’ in Items(d) and (e) of Issue 2 and stated that oneof those other terms should be usedinstead of ‘‘unit’’, for the sake of clarity.OSHA agrees that the term ‘‘scaffold’’more clearly expresses the Agency’sintent.

In addition, the SSFI (Ex. 2–367) andthe SIA (Ex. 2–368) stated ‘‘the specificrecommendations developed by OSHAregarding electric welding equipmentare felt to be practical and feasible asseveral manufacturers are already usingor specifying many of the methodsoutlined within the suggested rules.’’

Also, on June 9, 1987 (Tr. 26–30), theACCSH recommended that OSHAregulate electric welding equipment onsuspended scaffolds under subpart L. Inparticular, a member of the AdvisoryCommittee stated ‘‘[t]here’s a verydistinct possibility that you can arcwithin the suspended cables, burn thecable and drop the scaffold. That’sexactly why it needs to be addressed.’’

Another commenter (Ex. 2–516)expressed concern regarding theprotection provided by insulatedthimbles, because ‘‘[a]n insulatedthimble does not prevent the wire ropefrom hitting the conducting aluminumskin on the structure and closing theloop. It doesn’t stop the huge currentfrom burning out the power cord andmelting the insulation on the ‘hot’

power leads.’’ The commenter alsostated that using more than one groundlead can allow current to ‘‘get loose’’,blowing out adjacent electrical systemsand damaging platforms and theirrigging. In particular, the commenterstated ‘‘[p]art of our problem is that thecurrent from welding machines is highenough to cause heat damage in metal.The damage manifests itself as meltedmetal at the material surface or interfacebetween materials. This damageseriously reduces strength. Strength isneeded to keep the platform fromfalling.’’

The Agency acknowledges thatinsulated thimbles, alone, do notprevent arcing, and that grounding mustbe undertaken with great care tominimize stray currents. OSHA hasdetermined that compliance with theprovisions of paragraph (f)(17), takentogether, will minimize the hazards ofelectric arcing during weldingoperations on suspended scaffolds. TheAgency has concluded that it isappropriate to address the hazard ofarcing welding current during weldingoperations on suspended scaffolds inthe final rule for scaffolds, rather thanin the welding standards, because theprecautions in question relate to thescaffold rigging, not to weldingprocedures, and because placing thepertinent regulatory text in the rule willfacilitate compliance.

Paragraph 1926.451(g) Fall Protection.Paragraph (g) of the final rule sets fall

protection requirements for employeesworking on scaffolds, including criteriafor guardrail systems. As discussedabove, fall hazards account for a highpercentage of the injuries and fatalitiesexperienced by scaffold workers. OSHAhas determined that compliance withthis paragraph will effectively protectemployees from those hazards.

Final rule paragraph (g)(1) sets 10 feetas the threshold height above which fallprotection is required and indicates(paragraphs (g)(1)(i)—(vii)) what fallprotection measures are required forparticular types of scaffolds. In addition,the introductory text referencesparagraph (g)(2), which addresses thefall protection requirements foremployees erecting and dismantlingsupported scaffolds. Finally, a note hasbeen added at the end of paragraph(g)(1), to indicate clearly that the fallprotection requirements for employeesinstalling suspension scaffold supportsystems on floors, roofs, and otherelevated surfaces are set forth in subpartM (Fall protection) of the constructionstandards.

Proposed paragraph (e)(1), dealingwith fall protection, was similar, except

that it explicitly excluded erectors anddismantlers from coverage. As with theproposed access provision (proposedparagraph (c)), OSHA believed at thattime that fall protection requirementswould only be feasible when a scaffoldwas fully erected and properly braced.The following paragraphs first discussthe issue of height requirements for fallprotection on scaffolds and thendescribe the issues surrounding fallprotection for erectors and dismantlers.

The issue of the appropriate height atwhich to require fall protection foremployees working on scaffolds iscomplex, involving analyses of accidentstatistics, economic issues, strongly heldopinions, and most importantly,concern for employee protection. OSHAhas been involved with this issue sinceits inception in 1971, when the Agencyadopted, under Section 6(a) of the Act,a requirement that scaffolds used inconstruction require fall protection foremployees working at heights greaterthan 6 feet. By 1972, however, it hadbecome apparent that this heightrequirement was proving onerous andcausing disruption for scaffold users inthe construction industry, and theAgency accordingly revised the heightrequirement to 10 feet (37 FR 25712,December 2, 1972). This changerecognized the fact that the relevantconsensus standard, ANSI A10.8–1969,Section 3.3 had set the threshold heightfor scaffold fall protection at 10 feet, andthat this had become the industrystandard of practice. OSHA’s action alsounderscored the need for consistency inheight requirements for general industryand construction unless there arecompelling reasons for a different heightrequirement (the general industrystandard’s height threshold had alreadybeen set at 10 feet, in accordance withthe ANSI standard). An example of asituation where a different heightrequirement is appropriate is the fallprotection height requirement forscaffolds used in shipyards (29 CFR1915). This height threshold differs fromthat in general industry andconstruction because shipyard work isless transient and less dynamic thanconstruction work. For example, it isnot uncommon for a scaffold to beerected in the shipyard environmentand to remain in place for several yearsas employees work on various vesselsthat are brought to the scaffold ‘‘workstation’’ to be repaired. In addition,shipyard facilities are completed,finished structures, unlike constructionsites, where activities and crews changedaily. Finally, the 5-foot threshold forfall protection on scaffolds has a longhistory in this industry: it has been


standard industry practice since wellbefore OSHA was established.

The fall protection height requirementin the final rule continues the heightrequirement that has been in place inOSHA’s construction standards since1972; this height threshold is also thecurrent recommendation of the relevantANSI standard, A10.8–1988. OSHA’sdecision on this issue is based on theAgency’s professional judgment and itsexperience in enforcing this fallprotection requirement in the existingscaffold standards, a review of theavailable accident statistics and studies,and an analysis of the record on thisissue. The following paragraphs discussthis information in greater detail.

First, OSHA has been enforcing thislimit for almost a quarter of a centuryand has found that employers workingin all areas of construction, fromcommercial building to the specialtytrades, recognize and comply with thislimit. In addition, construction workersare familiar with and have been trainedto use fall protection on scaffolds atheights of 10 feet and above. Thus, thisheight requirement reflects currentindustry practice and is widelyobserved by employers and employeesalike.

Second, the accident data on fallsamong construction workers suggestthat several other areas of constructionsafety—such as scaffold stability,protection from electrocution hazards,and protection from falling objectswhile working on scaffolds—may havea greater impact on injuries andfatalities than fall protection height. Anunpublished BLS study, entitled WorkInjury Report on Scaffolds, analyzedwork injury reports related to scaffoldssubmitted from May to November 1978.The study showed that many causescontribute to scaffold-related injuriesand fatalities (Ex. 3–1). For example,one-quarter of the accidents related toscaffolds occurred while workers wereascending or descending a scaffold orstepping onto or off a scaffold, and 72percent of these accidents occurredwhen the planking or support collapsedor slipped (Ex. 3–1).

A recent OSHA review of theAgency’s Integrated ManagementInformation System (IMIS) records offalls in the construction industry in theperiod from April 1984 to June 1994provided information regarding 32fatalities and 60 injuries related to workon scaffolds that occurred during thisinterval. Of these, only three fatalitiesand six injuries involved heights in the6 to 10-foot range.

OSHA received many comments onthe height threshold for fall protectionfor work conducted on scaffolds (Exs. 2–

3, 2–9, 2–13, 2–14, 2–15, 2–21, 2–22, 2–29, 2–31, 2–40, 2–41, 2–43, 2–45, 2–54,2–57, 2–69, 2–70, 2–367, 2–368, 2–407,2–465, 2–595, 5a-3, 5a-5, 5a-17, and, 5a-19). These commenters argued either forchanging the existing rule’s heightthreshold or for retaining it. Those infavor of a different limit argued for fallprotection at all heights (Tr. 115–116, 6–8–87, ACCSH transcript), 4 feet (Exs. 2–14, 2–40, 2–45, 2–54, and 2–465), 5 feet(Ex. 2–29), and 6 feet (Exs. 2–15, 2–57).OSHA’s Advisory Committee forConstruction Safety and Health(ACCSH) urged the Agency to requirefall protection on all scaffolds,regardless of elevation (Tr. 115–116, 6–8–87); however, at least one otherrulemaking participant (Ex. 2–594)argued that such a requirement wouldbe unrealistic. OSHA solicited othercomments and data on this ACCSHrecommendation in Issue L–2 of thehearing notice (53 FR 2050), andreceived several comments that such arequirement would not be appropriate(Exs. 5a-3, 5a-5, 5a-17, 5a-19). Thisgroup of commenters urged OSHA toretain the 10-foot requirement.

Those commenters favoring fallprotection heights in the 4- to 6-footrange gave many reasons for their views.For example, one commenter (Ex. 2–14)stated that falls from heights of four tofive feet could cause serious injuries‘‘especially if the fall occurs on a hardsurface with debris scattered about.’’According to the Research & TradingCorporation (Ex. 2–45):

[f]our feet is consistent with current[general industry] standards for scaffoldguarding [Sec.1910.23(c)]. Four feetaccording to the NBS study on nets (NBSIR85–3271) is the height beyond which aworker is most likely to hit his head whenan accidental fall occurs, which is to beprevented if possible. Six feet is useful as auniversal compromise for OSHA from itscurrent slew of height requirements.However, it should be no more than six (6)feet.

Another commenter (Ex. 2–29) arguedfor five feet on the grounds thatguarding any height above one sectionof scaffold, which is about five feet,would be protective. Both the ANSIZ359 committee and Saf-T-Green (Exs.2–57 and 2–15) favored a 6-foot fallprotection threshold. Saf-T-Greenreasoned that an even lower limit mightbe preferable but acknowledged thatthere is ‘‘some validity to the claim thatone can jump clear of a small, lowrolling tower as it tips if there is noguardrail. However, if the tower doesnot tip, a guardrail would protectagainst the employee falling over theedge.’’ Another commenter (Ex. 5a-3)argued that consistency with the fall

protection requirements of subpart M(Fall Protection) would suggest that a 6-foot threshold was appropriate forscaffolds.

Many commenters urged the Agencyto retain the 10-foot fall protectionthreshold for scaffolds (Exs. 2–3, 2–9, 2–13, 2–21, 2–22, 2–39, 2–43, 2–69, 2–70,2–367, 2–368, 2–407, 2–595, 5a-3, 5a-5,5a-17, 5a-19). According to thesecommenters, it is important to establishthe height at which fall protection isand is not required (Ex. 2–595) and the10-foot threshold has proved bothprotective and cost-effective. Forexample, one commenter (Ex. 2–41)stated:

. . . My investigations led me to believethat work at over ten foot elevated surfaceswas at the very least four times as hazardousas work at grade, and the injuries were farmore serious. I did not feel that any data Isaw warranted a conclusion that theincreased injury was due to anything but [a]higher population working at the [higher]level.

PPG Industries (Ex. 2–43) commented:PPG has no problem with the 10 foot

height as it stands. The problem lies in thedesign of the equipment and the failure ofworkers to follow safe practices.

OSHA has carefully analyzed all ofthe comments and data available in therecord and has determined that it isappropriate to maintain the 10-foot fallprotection threshold in the final scaffoldstandard, as proposed. This is also theheight requirement recommended bythe current national consensus standard,ANSI A10.8–1988. This level differsfrom the 6-foot threshold for fallprotection set in subpart M (FallProtection) for other walking/workingsurfaces in construction becausescaffolds, unlike these other surfaces,are temporary structures erected toprovide a work platform for employeeswho are constructing or demolishingother structures. The same features thatmake scaffolds appropriate for short-term use in construction, such as easeof erection and dismantling also makethem less amenable to the use of fallprotection at the time the first level isbeing erected. For example, there maybe no secure place on the first level forthe installation of guardrails or personalfall arrest systems. Also there is often nostructure adjacent to a scaffold when thefirst level has been erected that can beused to anchor a personal fall arrestsystem, because the adjacent structure isin the process of being built ordemolished.

This scaffold standard contains manyupdated and strengthened requirementsfor safe erection and maintenance ofscaffolds. In particular, the final rule


sets clear, performance-orientedrequirements for scaffold capacity(§ 1926.451(a)); erection (§§ 1926.451(b), (c) and (d)); access (§ 1926.451(e);and use (§ 1926.451(f)). The Agency hasdetermined that compliance with theabove-noted requirements will preventmany of the fall-related injuries andfatalities that would otherwise resultfrom structural collapse or instability,including those occurring on scaffoldsless than 10 feet in height, becauseproperly erected scaffolds will notcollapse during use.

In addition, OSHA intends to monitorthe extent to which compliance withthese revised subpart L requirements forstructural integrity effectively protectsemployees on scaffolds from fallhazards when they are working betweensix and 10 feet above lower levels. Atthis time, the data are insufficient topersuade the Agency that the existing10-foot threshold needs to be changed.OSHA will carefully review andexamine its enforcement data over thenext several years, together with anyinvestigative reports and otherinformation on incidents that involvefall hazards. The Agency also intends towork closely with NIOSH in performingsuch data collection and analysis.Should it appear that compliance withthis final rule is not providing adequatefall protection for employees workingon scaffolds between six and 10 feetabove lower levels, the Agency willreevaluate the standards and determinewhat changes, if any, are warranted.

Paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (vii) of thefinal rule specify the types of fallprotection to be used on particular typesof scaffolds. These provisions areessentially the same as thecorresponding proposed provisions,except as discussed below. Theproposed and final rule provisionseffectively clarify and consolidate thefall protection requirements in existing§ 1926.451(a)-(y), § 1926.500(c)(2), and§ 1926.1910.29(a)(3)(vii).

Paragraph (g)(1)(i) of the final rule,like proposed paragraph (e)(1)(i),recognizes that personal fall arrestsystems, not guardrails, are appropriatefor use on boatswains’ chairs, catenaryscaffolds, float scaffolds, needle beamscaffolds, and ladder jack scaffolds. Thisprovision consolidates the followingparagraphs of the existing rule§§ 1926.451(1)(4)—boatswains’ chairs;(p)(9)—needle beam scaffolds; (w)(6)—float scaffolds; and § 1926.752(k)—floatscaffolds for steel erection. Thisrequirement is being applied to catenaryscaffolds and ladder jack scaffolds forthe first time.

Paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of the final rule,like proposed paragraph (e)(1)(ii),

requires personal fall arrest systems andguardrail systems for all single-pointadjustable suspension scaffolds (exceptboatswains’ chairs), and for all two-point adjustable suspension scaffolds.The requirement to have guardrails andpersonal fall arrest systems on two-pointscaffolds, which carries forwardlanguage in § 1926.451(i)(8) of theexisting rule, is based on the fact that aguardrail system alone does not provideadequate fall protection when asuspension rope fails and causes thescaffold to tip or hang from only oneend. Personal fall arrest systemprotection is also necessary for single-point systems, because the fall hazardrelated to suspension rope failure is asserious as it is with the two-pointscaffold. However, because personal fallarrest systems would be the primarymeans of fall protection on single-pointand two-point systems, the provisionallows a lower minimum strengthguardrail system to be used. Thisapproach is consistent with that takenin the proposed rule.

Paragraph (g)(1)(iii) of the final ruleprovides that ‘‘Each employee on acrawling board (chicken ladder) shall beprotected by a personal fall arrestsystem, a guardrail system (withminimum 200 pound toprail capacity),or by a three-fourth inch (1.9 cm)diameter grabline or equivalenthandhold securely fastened beside eachcrawling board.’’ This provision, likeproposed paragraph (e)(1)(iii), isessentially the same as paragraph1926.451(v)(2) of the existing rule,except that the existing rule permitsgrablines (lifelines) or equivalenthandholds if they are securely fastenedalongside crawling boards.

Paragraph (g)(1)(iv) of the final rule,like proposed paragraph (e)(1)(iv),provides that employees on self-contained scaffolds be protected by bothpersonal fall arrest systems andguardrail systems when the platform issupported by ropes (as when thescaffold is being raised or lowered onsome systems) and by guardrail systemswhen the platform is supported directlyby the scaffold frame.

Paragraph (g)(1)(v) of the final rule,similar to proposed paragraph (e)(1)(v),requires guardrails to be used alongscaffold walkways and to be locatedwithin 91⁄2 inches horizontally of atleast one side of the walkway. OSHAoriginally proposed that the walkwaysbe located within 8 inches horizontallyof the side of the walkway. However, forconsistency with final rule§ 1926.451(b)(1)(ii), the provision hasbeen revised to allow an open space ofup to 91⁄2 inches. The provision thatguardrails need only to be provided

along one side applies only when theplatform is used solely as a means ofaccess to get from one point on thescaffold to another. If work activitiesother than access are performed on orfrom the walkway, then the platform isnot considered to be a walkway (seedefinition of ‘‘walkway’’), and otherprovisions of paragraphs (g)(1), asappropriate, would apply.

Paragraph (g)(1)(vi) of the final ruleprovides that fall protection (i.e., apersonal fall arrest system or guardrail)be provided on all open sides and endsof scaffolds from which employees areperforming overhand bricklayingoperations and/or related work, exceptthose sides and ends next to the wallbeing laid. This requirement replaces anote that followed proposed paragraph(e)(1)(v), which stated that the fallprotection requirements for employeesperforming overhand bricklaying fromsupported scaffolds are provided in§ 1926.501, Fall protection (subpart M).OSHA has deleted the note from thefinal rule because the Agency hasdetermined that, except for some systemcriteria which are referenced fromsubpart M, it is appropriate to cover allscaffold fall protection in this final rulefor scaffolds in construction (subpart L).

Paragraph (g)(1)(vi) of the final rule isconsistent with § 1926.501(b)(9), whichaddresses fall protection for employeesperforming overhand bricklaying whileon elevated surfaces other thanscaffolds.

Final paragraph (g)(1)(vii) requiresthat employees on scaffolds notaddressed elsewhere in paragraph (g)(1)be protected either by guardrails orpersonal fall arrest systems. Thisprovision is essentially the same as thefall protection requirement of proposedparagraph (e)(1), except that the term‘‘body belt/harness systems or Type 1guardrail systems’’ has been replaced by‘‘personal fall arrest systems or guardrailsystems’’ for the reasons discussedabove.

Paragraph (g)(1) does not apply wherethere are no ‘‘open sides or ends’’ on thescaffold (see definition in§ 1926.451(b)). For the scaffold to beconsidered completely enclosed, noperimeter face of the scaffold may bemore than 14 inches from a wall. Therequirements for fall protection willapply at openings such as hoistways,elevator shafts, stairwells, or similaropenings in the scaffold platform, oropenings in the walls of the structuresurrounding the platform.

Proposed paragraph (e)(2) stated thateach employee on a platform (except fora self-contained adjustable scaffold or ascaffold type covered by § 1926.452),less than 45 inches (1.1 m) wide, and 4


feet (1.2 m) or more above lower levels,shall be protected from falling to thoselower levels by the use of a personal fallarrest system or guardrail system (withminimum 200 pound toprail capacity).Proposed paragraph (e)(2) also provideda blanket exemption for erecting/dismantling activities and referred tothe use of a ‘‘Type I guardrail system.’’

This provision, based on existing§ 1926.451(a)(4), has been dropped inthe final rule because further analysis ofthe requirement showed that there wasno real definable target for therequirement and that 99% of scaffoldswould be excluded by the proposedprovision.

Paragraph (g)(2) of the final ruleaddresses fall protection for employeeserecting or dismantling supportedscaffolds. Based on the rulemakingrecord, developed through NPRM Issue8 discussed below, OSHA hasdetermined that it is appropriate todelay the implementation of paragraph(g)(2) until September 2, 1997. Thedelay will allow affected employerssufficient time to implement theappropriate procedures for addressingthe fall protection needs of employeeserecting or dismantling scaffolds. Inaddition, deferring compliance willallow time for the Agency to completenon-mandatory Appendix B, which willprovide examples of considerations thata competent person would take intoaccount when evaluating fall protectionoptions for scaffold erectors anddismantlers. As discussed above inrelation to final rule paragraph (e)(9),the Agency has also deferredrequirements for safe access for scaffolderectors and dismantlers untilSeptember 2, 1997.

Final paragraph (g)(2) requires thatemployers whose employees erect ordismantle supported scaffolds afterSeptember 2, 1997 ensure that acompetent person determines thefeasibility and safety of providing fallprotection for such employees. Thisparagraph further requires that affectedemployers provide fall protection foremployees erecting or dismantlingsupported scaffolds where theinstallation and use of such protectionis feasible and does not create a greaterhazard.

NPRM Issue 8 solicited commentsconcerning the proposed exemption ofemployers whose employees performscaffold erection and dismantlingoperations from the fall protectionrequirements of proposed§ 1926.451(e)(1). The Agency noted that,while supported scaffolds often do nothave a place to which personal fallarrest systems can be properly attached,suspended scaffolds are often located

such that personal fall arrest systemscan be used.

On March 29, 1993, based on theresponse to Issue 8, OSHA reopened thepublic record for proposed subpart L (58FR 16509) to obtain more information.The Agency stated that the rulemakingrecord supported deleting the proposedexemption of suspended scaffolds andindicated that a blanket exemption forsupported scaffolds might beinappropriate. In particular, OSHAasked if employers should be requiredto provide fall protection for employeeserecting or dismantling supportedscaffolds, except where an employer candemonstrate that providing fallprotection was either ‘‘impracticable’’ or‘‘would create a greater hazard.’’ TheAgency also sought information aboutcurrent efforts and the ability to providefall protection for employees erecting ordismantling scaffolds. In addition,OSHA asked if it was appropriate torequire fall protection for those portionsof a supported scaffold that have been,or remain, fully assembled, whileexempting those areas where erecting ordismantling is underway.

The responses to NPRM Issue 8, andthe March 29, 1993, reopening of therecord on this Issue fell into two broadgroupings. The first group eithersupported an across-the-boardexemption from fall protectionrequirements for all erectors anddismantlers (Exs. 2–3, 2–9, 2–12, and 2–21); or supported an exemption forerectors and dismantlers of supportedscaffolds only (Exs. 2–13, 2–15, 2–30,2–69, 2–367 and 2–368); or specificallyopposed a fall protection requirementfor erectors and dismantlers, even withan exception for impracticability orgreater hazard, favoring instead trainederectors and dismantlers, a hazardawareness program, controlled accesszones, or a standardized procedure forerecting and dismantling scaffolds (Exs.34–5, 34–9, 34–10, 34–12, 34–17, 34–17,34–20, 34–31, 34–32, 34–37, and 34–43).

The second group either supported arequirement for fall protection at alltimes, including during erecting anddismantling (Exs. 2–22, 2–43, 2–45, 2–53, 2–497, 34–4, 34–11, and 34–35) orsupported a requirement for fallprotection except where the employerdemonstrates that it is infeasible,unsafe, or creates a greater hazardduring erecting and dismantlingoperations (Exs. 2–29, 2–54, 2–57, 2–70,34–2, 34–18, 34–19, 34–22, 34–26, 34–29, 34–34, and 34–46). Each of thesearguments is discussed below, alongwith OSHA’s response to the pointsraised by the commenters.

Commenters that supported theproposed total exemption of erectingand dismantling operations from the fallprotection requirements argued (Ex. 2–3) ‘‘[t]his is a situation where someonemust be exposed in order to do the job* * *’’; or felt that fall protection wouldbe detrimental to employee safety (Exs.2–12 and 2–21). OSHA disagrees withthese commenters and notes that therecord describes many situations whereit is feasible to provide fall protectionfor erectors and dismantlers.

Commenters that supported a fallprotection requirement for erectors anddismantlers of suspended scaffolds, butnot supported scaffolds (Exs. 2–13,2–15, 2–30, 2–69, 2–367, and 2–368)argued that it is feasible and practical torequire such protection for suspendedscaffolds, but not for supportedscaffolds, due to the lack of anappropriate tie-off area, and thepossibility of drop lines becomingentangled during climbing and movingprocedures which could pull the erectoroff the supported scaffold. The Agencyagrees with these commenters that it isvirtually always feasible to provide fallprotection for workers erecting ordismantling suspended scaffoldsbecause structures that are capable ofsupporting a suspended scaffold are alsocapable of providing a safe anchor pointfor personal fall protection equipment.On the other hand, OSHA finds that therecord does not support an across-the-board exception from the requirementsfor fall protection for erectors anddismantlers of supported scaffolds.

Another group of commentersopposed a fall protection requirementbut emphasized the importance oftraining in maintaining safety duringerecting and dismantling operations. Forexample, some commenters (Exs. 34–9,34–10, 34–12, and 34–17) recommendedthe following:

1. A formal hazard awareness programshall be implemented.

2. Enforce ‘‘controlled access zones’’allowing only those people trained in theerection and dismantling of scaffolds to bepresent.

3. Develop and strictly enforce standardprocedures for the erection and dismantlingof scaffolding. These procedures may includebut not be limited to the following:

a. Fully planking each level before movingon to the next highest level.

b. Fully securing each level with theproper guardrails prior to moving to the nexthigher level.

c. Providing proper access to all completedlevels.

d. Develop methods for placingcomponents on upper levels without placingunnecessary risks on employees.

e. Only those employees actually involvedin the erection or dismantling shall beallowed on the scaffolding.


The Agency recognizes theimportance of training and hazardawareness programs to employee safety,but finds that these precautions aloneare not adequately protective becausesite conditions change and mistakes aremade. The Agency finds that providingappropriate fall protection, whenever itis feasible or will not create a greaterhazard, is the best way to ensure thaterectors and dismantlers areappropriately protected from fallhazards.

The second group consisted ofcommenters that supported fallprotection for erectors and dismantlersunder some (Exs. 2–29, 2–54, 2–57, 2–70, 34–2, 34–19, 34–22, 34–26, 34–29,and 34–46) or all conditions (Exs. 2–22,2–43, 2–45, 2–53, and 2–497). Forexample, some commenters argued thatif a fall hazard exists, lifelines or someother fall arresting system should be inplace. R&TC (Ex. 2–45) stated:

The use of lightweight outrigger scaffoldsections with guard rails, which can bepushed up the vertical scaffold poles prior tothe new upper level height exposure duringerection, seems to be promising as a fallprotection means * * * Furthermore, manystructures can provide overhead anchoragepoints for workers during scaffold erectionand dismantling without such specialscaffold platforms. For these situations,regular lifelines can easily be used forvertical and horizontal movement.

R&TC later added (Ex. 2–497) ‘‘[w]henan overhead anchorage is available, abucket truck, manlift or other elevatingplatform can be used to install lifelineswithout a fall hazard.’’

Commenters to the Reopening Notice(Exs. 34–4, 34–11, 34–18, and 34–35)also supported a fall protectionrequirement for erectors anddismantlers.

Some, such as Dynamic ScientificControls (DSC) (Ex. 34–18) providedinput on ways to provide fall protectionfor erectors and dismantlers. Inparticular, DSC provided a videoshowing a scaffold being erected by anemployee who uses a retractable lanyardattached to the scaffold for fallprotection. DSC stated that this methodhas been improved by crossbracing thefirst frame, tying-in to the structure,using the pulley bracket more often forattaching lifelines in order to reduce thelifeline angle to less than 45 degrees,and pinning legs before attaching thelifeline to a higher level. DSC added thatusing horizontal lifelines within eachframe and extending the length of thescaffold can provide protection toworkers as well. This commenter noted,however, that any fall arrest systemattached to a scaffold should be anengineered system modelled for that

type of scaffold, or should be designedby a skilled professional engineer.

In addition, the United Brotherhoodof Carpenters and Joiners (Ex. 34–11)stated that the ability to provide fallprotection can be greatly increasedthrough modified erection, engineeredattachment points designed intostructures, additional scaffold bracing,guying, and outrigging.

Finally, DBI/SALA (Ex. 34–4) offeredthe following choices for fall protection:‘‘(1) Provide for or suggest a means fora feasible anchor; (2) If the current stateof the art doesn’t allow scaffolds to beused as anchors, maybe a redesignincorporating outriggers or whatever isrequired is appropriate.’’

The Agency agrees that, if fallprotection can be provided, it is theemployer’s responsibility to take theactions necessary to protect employees.However, OSHA has determined, basedon the information in the record, that insome situations, it is not possible toprovide fall protection for erectors anddismantlers of supported scaffolds.

Two commenters, Dynamic ScientificControls (DSC) (Ex. 34–18) and the Stateof Hawaii (Ex. 34–34) commented thatthe employer should be required toshow that fall protection is infeasible orcreates a greater hazard for the scaffolderector in order to avoid providing fallprotection. Another commenter (Ex.2–54) added that employers ‘‘shouldnote in their Daily reports why theycan’t take [the] necessary precaution[s].’’

OSHA agrees that employers musthave valid reasons for not providing fallprotection to scaffold erectors anddismantlers, but does not agree that theemployer must put these reasons inwriting. Compliance officers cansubstantiate employer claims ofinfeasibility or greater hazard throughon-site observations and discussionwith the competent person and otherworkers.

Many commenters (Exs. 2–29, 2–54,2–57, 2–70, 34–2, 34–19, 34–22, 34–26,34–29, and 34–46) supported a fallprotection requirement for scaffolderectors and dismantlers, if feasible, orunless it would create a greater hazard.These commenters also provided insightinto the potential problems of providingfall protection for erectors anddismantlers, and into the factors thatmust be considered when determining iffall protection is feasible in a particularsituation or if the use of fall protectionwould create a greater hazard.

For example, the ANSI Z359Committee (Ex. 2–57) stated:

It is recognized that fall protection may, ingeneral, be difficult or impractical to providein erection and dismantling of supportedscaffolds. This may be due to absence of

suitable anchorages whether independent orintegral to the scaffold. However, there arenotable exceptions when independentoverhead anchorages exist which may beused for vertical or horizontal lifelines.Further, some supported scaffolds can berigged to provide integral fall protectionwithout undue encumbrance of the work.There is concern that granting a broadexemption from fall protection requirementsfor supported scaffold erection/dismantlingwould reduce the protection even where it istoday feasible. Such exemptions could alsodiscourage future development of fallprotection means to address this subject.

Miller & Long (Ex. 2–70) commented‘‘If there is an area where employees cantie off they should do so.’’

The Boeing Company (Ex. 34–19)stated that fall protection for erectorsand dismantlers could be providedthrough the use of boom supportedelevated work platforms, scissors lifts,forklift platforms, temporary guardrails,fall arrest/restraint systems or otherscaffolds.

The Scaffold Training Institute (STI)(Ex. 34–20) indicated that 100% fallprotection for erectors is not achievablefrom a practical standpoint due to a lackof suitable anchorages. The Institutealso stated that lifelines would becomeentangled in pipes, lines, platformstubes, braces or other obstructions. STIwas particularly concerned that snaggedlifelines would restrict the motion ofemployees and could lead to falls forerectors whose work requires that theyhave freedom of motion in order to carryand to maneuver into place large, bulkycomponents. The commenter added thatthe use of lanyards and lifelines canlead to increased fall hazards, and thata pendulum effect is created if anerector falls while attached to a lifelinethat is anchored several feet away.

Duke Power (Ex. 34–29) stated ‘‘[f]allprotection harnesses tend to snag onthings, butt straps hinder climbing . . .Fall protection also slows peopledown.’’

SINCO (Ex. 34–22) stated that theeffect on the mobility of employeesvaries with conditions and the type offall protection equipment used, butstated that the effect can be limited byproper pre-planning and projectmanagement. In addition, both SINCOand Professor Ralph E. Bennett ofPurdue University (Ex. 34–26) suggestedthat the scaffold must be properly tiedor braced, with all components pinnedtogether, and, that intermediate planklevels be provided to limit fall heightduring erection of the uppermost levels.

In addition, SINCO recommendedthat OSHA require affected employers tosatisfy the following criteria forexemption:


• A qualified person has determinedthat fall protection creates a greaterhazard than falling freely to the groundor the closest possible level;

• Tests prove that a scaffold orstructure would definitely fail if used asan anchorage;

• There are no other means of fallprotection available;

• Employees have been trained in therecognition and avoidance of hazards byuse of the employer’s prescribedmethods of erection; and

• Compliance with the requirementfor fall protection is likely to result ina more serious injury compared to thepossibility of a life saved . . .’’

SINCO observed that a greater hazardmay exist if a falling person could pulla scaffold over. However, thecommenter added that this hazardwould involve more danger toemployees on the ground than toemployees on the scaffold. Theycontended that other employees on thescaffold may provide ‘‘counter-balance’’that would prevent the scaffold fromoverturning. In addition, SINCO statedthat this hazard can be prevented byreinforcing the scaffold’s base throughthe use of outriggers, counterweights, ortie-downs. The commenter added thatthis hazard can be greatly reduced byrequiring erectors to remain inside theframes to decrease any eccentric loadingand through the use of shock absorbers.

Dow Chemical Co. (Ex. 34–46)commented that since each worksite isunique, fall hazards must be addressedthrough preplanning of the work withthe aim of eliminating fall hazards andpreventing falls. However, thecommenter added, where fall hazardscannot be eliminated, a fall protectionsystem should be used if it ‘‘provides amore appropriately safe solution’’. Dowalso stated that a lanyard long enoughto allow mobility can create trippinghazards and the potential for one workerto ‘‘pull another worker from theirtask.’’ The commenter added that‘‘people on-site must have the latitudeto address [these hazards].’’

OSHA notes that the Agency’s owncompliance experience concerning thepotential problems of providing 100%fall protection for erectors anddismantlers is consistent with thepositions put forth by the commenters.OSHA has determined that it would beuseful to provide examples of the factorsto be considered by a competent personwhen deciding what fall protection isappropriate for employees erecting ordismantling supported scaffolds.Accordingly, the Agency has reservednon-mandatory Appendix B, and will bedeveloping informational text that canbe added to subpart L at a later date to

serve as a guide to assist employers inevaluating their worksite conditions.

Several commenters (Exs. 34–8, 34–9,34–10, 34–12, 34–17, 34–22, and 34–26)addressing the topic of fall protectionfor erectors and dismantlers took noposition as to an exception for theseworkers. However, they indicated thatfully planking sections could reduceexposure to fall hazards. One of thesecommenters (Ex. 34–8) stated that,although full planking and stairway-type ladders would reduce exposure,their use is not always practical. Inaddition, four of these commenters (Exs.34–9, 34–10, 34–12, and 34–17) statedthat ladders attached at the end of thescaffold would be better becausestairway-type ladders greatly reduceemployee movement along the length ofthe scaffold.

Four other commenters (Exs. 34–32,34–35, 34–37, and 34–39) indicated thatsuch practices would be eitherinfeasible or would create other hazards.The SIA and SSFI (Exs. 34–37 and 34–32) added that planking every levelwould overload tall scaffolds and thatstairways are not needed becauseerectors do not continually climb upand down. The SIA also said that fullyplanking every level would require thatall equipment be hoisted outside thescaffold, creating additional hazards.Another commenter (Ex. 34–46) statedthat a requirement for fully plankingsections ‘‘would unnecessarily restrictlocal decisions for safety.’’

The Agency has determined that, dueto the large variety of supportedscaffolds and an infinite number ofunique site conditions that could affectthe feasibility or safety of providing fallprotection, neither a blanket exceptionnor a requirement for 100% fallprotection is appropriate for erectorsand dismantlers. OSHA agrees withcommenters (Exs. 34–8, 34–22, 34–36,and 34–46) that the people on site(competent person) must have theflexibility to address fall hazards forerectors and dismantlers on a site-specific basis. Therefore, OSHA findsthat the determination of what fallprotection is feasible and can be usedsafely at a given worksite should bemade by a competent person at theworksite. The competent person willneed to have the ability and knowledgeto decide whether fall protection can beprovided for erectors and dismantlersunder the specific site conditions, and,if so, what measures are appropriate.

Therefore, the Agency has revised thefinal rule to reflect this finding, whiledeferring compliance for one year toallow time for employers to develop andimplement the appropriate procedures.In addition, as noted above, the Agency

will be adding non-mandatoryAppendix B at a later date, to provideexamples of situations where it isfeasible to provide fall protection duringthe erection and dismantling ofsupported scaffolds and the criteria thecompetent person would consider whendeciding the appropriateness of fallprotection during erection anddismantling. Interested parties areinvited to provide OSHA withsuggestions and information regardingthe appropriate guidance for thecompetent person.

Paragraph (g)(3) of the final ruleprovides that personal fall arrestsystems must comply with the pertinentprovisions of § 1926.502(d) and, inaddition, must be attached by lanyard toa vertical lifeline, horizontal lifeline, orscaffold structural member. However,when overhead obstructions such asoverhead protection or additionalplatform levels are part of a single-pointor two-point adjustable suspensionscaffold, then vertical lifelines must notbe used, because, in the event of ascaffold collapse, the overheadcomponents would injure an employeewho was tied off to a vertical lifeline.This provision is essentially the same asproposed paragraph (e)(3), except thatthe terms ‘‘dropline’’ and ‘‘trolley line’’have been replaced by the terms‘‘vertical lifeline’’ and ‘‘horizontallifeline’’ to be consistent with the termsused in subpart M of this part—FallProtection.

Paragraph (g)(3)(i) of the final rulerequires that vertical lifelines, whenused, be fastened to a fixed safe pointof anchorage, be independent of thescaffold, and be protected from sharpedges and abrasion. Based on concernthat inadequate anchor points may beused, this paragraph also incorporatesthe language of the note to proposed§ 1926.451(e)(3), which stated that safepoints of anchorage include structuralmembers of buildings, but do notinclude standpipes, vents, other pipingsystems, electrical conduit, outriggerbeams, or counterweights. This is thesame requirement as was proposed inparagraph (e)(3)(i) of the NPRM and isconsistent with the correspondinglanguage in § 1926.451(i)(8) of theexisting rule.

Paragraph (g)(3)(ii) of the final rulestates that horizontal lifelines, whenused, shall be secured to two or morestructural members of the scaffold, andshall not be attached only to thesuspension ropes. This is the samerequirement as was proposed inparagraph (e)(3)(ii). It is designed toprovide protection to the employee inthe event of a suspension line failure.


Paragraph (g)(3)(iii) of the final ruleprovides that, when lanyards areconnected to horizontal lifelines orstructural members on a single-point ortwo-point adjustable suspensionscaffold, the scaffold must be equippedwith additional independent supportlines and automatic locking devicescapable of stopping the fall of thescaffold in the event one or more of thesuspension ropes fail. The independentsupport lines must be equal in numberand strength to the suspension ropes.This is the same requirement asproposed paragraph (e)(3)(iii). OSHAbelieves that in the event of asuspension rope failure, the additionalsupport lines will keep the scaffold fromfalling.

Paragraph (g)(3)(iv) of the final ruleprovides that vertical lifelines,independent support lines, andsuspension ropes must not be attachedto each other, or be attached to or usethe same point of anchorage, or beattached to the same point on thescaffold or body belt/harness system.This is essentially the same provision asproposed paragraph (e)(3)(iv), exceptthat the requirements in the final rulealso prohibit the attachment of lines andropes ‘‘to the same point on the scaffoldor personal fall arrest system.’’ Thislanguage reflects the incorporation ofthe note that accompanied proposedparagraph (e)(3) into paragraph (g)(3)(i)of the final rule, as discussed above.

Issue 19 in the preamble to theproposed rule noted that some single-point adjustable suspension scaffoldswhich are currently in use have twoseparate lines (one serves as anindependent support line) attached totwo separate anchor points; however,both lines are connected to a singlepoint on the body support system. Afailure of this single body supportmechanism, or body support system,could result in an uncontrolled fall forthe employee. OSHA sought commentson the question of whether the final ruleshould permit the use of such a system.The Agency also asked what criteriawould need to be set to ensure that asingle mechanism or body supportsystem prevented failures. In addition,OSHA inquired about industryexperience with this type of system.

Several commenters (Exs. 2–29, 2–312, 2–367, and 2–368) and the ACCSH(Tr. 6/9/89, pp. 150–151) were inagreement that OSHA should not permitthe use of systems of the type describedin Issue 19. One commenter (Ex. 2–29)stated simply that ‘‘the standard shouldnot allow single-point suspensionscaffolds with two separate supportlines to be connected to a single pointon the body support system.’’

The SSFI (Ex. 2–367) recommended‘‘that OSHA not permit the use of alifeline and support line being tied to asingle mechanism or body supportsystem. It is our opinion that the lifelineshould be an independent anchoragewith independent support.’’ Also, theSIA (Ex. 2–368) stated:

We are opposed to the use of systems inwhich the lifeline and support line connectto a single mechanism or body supportsystem. The primary suspension line and anindependent fall arrest system should eachbe anchored to separate body supportdevices, so that in the event one line fails,the other will provide protection. The costwould be equal to the cost of the originalsuspension, but could be negligible in manyinstances.

After a careful review of thecomments, OSHA has determined thatthe purpose of having separate lineswould be defeated if lines were attachedto a single point at either end and thatpoint of attachment failed, and the finalrule (paragraph (g)(3)(iv)) reflects thisdetermination.

Final rule paragraph (g)(4) sets criteriafor guardrail systems used to providefall protection for employees workingon scaffolds. These provisions areconsistent with the correspondinglanguage of recently revised subpart Mof this part, Fall protection, except asnecessary to address the particularcircumstances of construction workperformed from scaffolds.

Paragraph (g)(4)(i) of the final ruleprovides that guardrail systems beinstalled along all open sides and endsof platforms. This requirement iseffectively the same as proposedparagraph (e)(4)(i) and existing§ 1926.451(a)(4). OSHA has addedlanguage which clarifies whenguardrails would need to be in place. Inthe case of suspended scaffolds,guardrails must be installed before anyemployee is allowed on a hoistedscaffold. In the case of supportedscaffolds, installation must occur beforeemployees are permitted to work fromthe scaffold. When an employee is on asupported scaffold during the scaffolderection process, fall protection iscovered by final rule paragraph (g)(2).This clarification is based on languagein the State of California Code, Title 8,paragraph 1637(i)(6) which wassubmitted to the docket by theCalifornia Department of IndustrialRelations (Ex. 2–23).

Paragraph (g)(4)(ii) of the final ruleprovides that the top edge height oftoprails or equivalent members onsupported scaffolds manufactured orplaced into service after January 1, 2000must be between 38 inches (0.97 m) and45 inches (1.2 m) above the platform

surface. Furthermore, the top edgeheight of guardrails on supportedscaffolds manufactured and placed intoservice before January 1, 2000 and on allsuspended scaffolds where both aguardrail and a personal fall arrestsystem are required must be between 36inches (0.9 m) and 45 inches (1.2 m).The final rule also provides that toprailheight may exceed 45 inches if the othercriteria of paragraph (g)(4) have beensatisfied.

In the proposal, paragraph (e)(4)(ii)proposed a toprail height between 38and 45 inches above the platformsurface when the guardrail is the solemeans of providing fall protection, anda toprail height between 36 and 45inches when the guardrail is used inconjunction with a personal fall arrestsystem. The proposed minimum 36-inchtoprail height reflected OSHA’s beliefthat the minimum height requirementfor a guardrail used with personal fallarrest systems should be less than thatfor a guardrail on which employees relyfor fall protection.

As discussed in the proposed rule (51FR 42690), the 38-inch lower limit onguardrail height was proposed in lieu ofthe 39-inch lower limit on guardrailheight allowed by subpart M (Fallprotection) to allow for guardrail heightdifferentials caused by scaffold platformunit arrangements. In particular, a frameconstructed to hold a toprail 42 inchesabove a flush-mounted prefabricateddeck would be only 40 inches above ascaffold platform made with two-inchsolid sawn planks. If the scaffold planksare overlapped to form a long platform,the guardrail height would drop to 38inches.

In addition, the Agency hasdetermined that employers should havethe flexibility, when conditions warrant,to use toprails with heights higher than45 inches, so long as the otherprotective criteria of paragraph (g)(4) aresatisfied. The language of the proposedrule has been revised to reflect thisflexibility. The language of paragraph(g)(4)(ii) of the final rule is consistentwith the corresponding language in§ 1926.502(b)(1), Fall protection(subpart M).

Issue 12 of the preamble to theproposed rule sought comments onwhether OSHA should adopt thelanguage in the 1977 edition of ANSIA10.8–1977, paragraph 3.3, which sets36 inches above the work platform asthe minimum guardrail height and onthe effectiveness, feasibility and costsavings of requiring guardrails to be atleast 36 inches high. Issue 12 noted thatexisting § 1926.451(a)(5), which requiresthat guardrails be ‘‘approximately’’ 42inches high, has been interpreted over


the years by OSHA to allow a range of36 inches to 45 inches above the workplatform. These interpretations, datingfrom 1979, are based on OSHA ProgramDirective #200–67 (Revision 1), issuedon October 24, 1978, and laterrenumbered as OSHA Instruction CPL2.11A. OSHA notes that the 1988edition of the pertinent ANSI standard,A10.8–1988, paragraph 4.5.1, acceptstoprails that are installed between 36and 45 inches above lower levels.

OSHA received many comments onthe issue of guardrail heights (Exs. 2–9,2–12, 2–13, 2–20, 2–21, 2–29, 2–41, 2–50, 2–53, 2–54, 2–55, 2–64, 2–69, 2–367,2–368, 2–390, 2–476, and Tr. 6/9/87, pp116–121). The comments receivedranged from those stating that 36 incheswas too low for the bottom of the range,that 36 inches was appropriate, that 45inches was too high for the top of theallowable range of guardrail heights,and that no change should be made tothe range allowed by existing OSHAinterpretations (i.e., that allowableheights be between 36 and 45 inchesabove the work platform). Thearguments presented by the commentersare summarized below, along withOSHA’s response to these commentsand the Agency’s reasoning in reachinga final determination on the matter.

Several commenters (Exs. 2–9, 2–20,2–21, 2–50, 2–53, 2–55, 2–64, 2–69, 2–367, 2–368, 2–390, and 2–476) arguedfor retention of 36 inches as theminimum guardrail height. The reasonsgiven by these commenters were that‘‘no accident statistics justify changingthe current range existing in OSHAstandards’’ (Ex. 2–368), that 36 inches isadequate or reasonable (Exs. 2–21, 2–53and 2–69), that the height is practical,feasible, and would not incurunmeasurable costs (Ex. 2–64), and that36 inches is current industry practice(Exs. 2–367 and 2–476). Typical of thesecomments was the comment of the SIA(Ex. 2–368):

Guardrails on scaffolds are designed as aperimeter warning for workers confined tosmall working areas. Workers do not attainbody motion speeds and momentum thatrequire the drastic changes proposed.

Doctoral papers and NBS studies used asa basis for the proposals do not deal with the‘‘real’’ world. Dummies propelled against aguardrail do not represent a true comparisonof a human being with sense and reflexability.

Guardrails for scaffolds, whether they behorizontal systems or crossbrace systemshave historically been considered a perimeterindication. Work is performed in localizedareas where movement is generally restrictedfrom section to section. Workmen are notsubjected to the hazard of ‘‘momentum’’created by body movement over longerdistances as in the case in peripheral railings

or balconies and other crowded or congestedareas where body weight and force may beaccelerated * * *

It is apparent that guardrails of mostmanufacturers will fall within the proposed38-inches to 45-inches range. However, thereare many in the stream of commerce, andwidely used throughout industry, which willnot. As an example, the GKN Kwikformscaffold system utilizes a post with guardrailattachment points every 371⁄2′′. This distanceis based on the European standard spacing ofone meter [approximately 39 inches]. Thereis no justification for outlawing theequipment which has been used safely fordecades. It is more practical to retain the 36-inches to 45-inches range permitted in thevarious industry and ANSI standards.

The SSFI (Ex. 2–367) agreed with theSIA, stating as follows:

The majority of scaffold guardrail posts,manufactured in this country since 1950, hasbeen designed and manufactured to ANSIA10.8 Standard of 36′′ to 42′′ guardrailheights. The elimination of the lower 36-inchlimit would result in the requirement toscrap all these posts and remanufacture newposts.

The cost to replace guardrail units wouldbe very expensive to the user. In 1983, weestimated that there were at least one millionguardrail units being used. Retrofit changesat that time were estimated at $4 per unit ora total of $4,000,000. Replacement costs at$10 per unit would equal $10 million.

In response to this group ofcommenters, OSHA notes that theabsence of accident statisticssubstantiating the need for higherguardrails reflects on the generalinadequacy of occupational injury andillness recording and reporting systemsbut may well have little or nothing to dowith guardrail heights and theirrelationship with fall hazards. It isOSHA’s experience that few accidentreports contain the detail that would benecessary to differentiate between therelative protectiveness of guardrailheights of 36 as opposed to 38 or 39inches. In addition, although guardrailsdo function as perimeter indicators,they also provide fall protection, and itis this aspect of scaffold guardrails thatis of concern in final rule paragraph(g)(4)(ii). Further, although ‘‘[d]ummiespropelled against a guardrail’’ (Ex. 2–368) cannot precisely mimic theresponses and movement of realworkers in the actual workenvironment, the experimentsdismissed by the SIA provide valuableinformation that cannot be disregardedby OSHA or other safety professionals.

OSHA recognizes the merit of the SIAand SSFI arguments about industry’suse of scaffold components (e.g., posts)suitable for 36-inch guardrails (Exs. 2–367 and 2–368), although the Agencyalso notes that the $4 to $10 per scaffoldunit cost for retrofit or replacement,

respectively, would not be prohibitiveeven for the smallest scaffold-usingbusiness. Nevertheless, to respond tothese concerns, the final rulegrandfathers those guardrailsmanufactured to meet the 36-inchminimum height allowed by OSHA formany years and still accepted by ANSIA10.8–1988. The Agency concludes thatallowing the continued use of theseguardrails until they are replaced willeliminate any potentially adverseimpact of the final rule’s determinationas regards minimum guardrail heights.

Many commenters (Exs. 2–12, 2–13,2–29, 2–41, 2–54, 2–407, and Tr. 6/9/87,pp 116–121) share OSHA’s concern, asstated in the preamble, that a minimumguardrail height of 36 inches isinsufficiently protective. For example,one commenter (Ex. 2–407) stated:

[T]he guardrail height requirement shouldbe set from 38-inches to 45-inches with amidrail. Our experienced opinion has taughtus that 36-inches would be very unsafe.Especially for taller person[s]. * * * As theindustry has been set at 42′′ for so manyyears we feel that the 38′′ to 45′′ all inclusivewould be satisfactory to cover the 42′′ whichso many people would now have, thuscreating no additional expense.

Two other commenters (Exs. 2–29 and2–41) also expressed concerns about theadequacy of 36 inch high guardrails fortall employees, as did LawrenceStafford, a member of both the ANSIA10.8 Committee and the SIA, whocommented (Ex. 2–13)

I and many other members of S.I.A. do notconsider 36-inches as safe for all scaffolduses. Due to the narrow width of theplatforms on suspended scaffolds, theoutboard sides should be protected by a 42-inch high guardrail.

Arguing in the same vein, arepresentative of OSHA’s AdvisoryCommittee on Construction Safety andHealth (June 9, 1987 meeting) stated: ‘‘Ithink, if anything, people are gettingbigger, not smaller. To leave somethingdown at 36 inches only increases thehazard to the fellow working on asuspended scaffold where he needs amuch as he can get * * *’’ Anotherrepresentative said that a 36-inch highguardrail ‘‘strikes you in the wrongplace * * * He goes over the rail or hebacks up to it while he’s doing somework, it hits him at the wrong point andhe’s gone.’’ (Tr. 6/9/87, pp. 116–121).

Based on a review of the commentssubmitted on this issue, the Agency’sexperience in enforcing thisrequirement over the years, and OSHA’sprofessional judgment, the final ruleallows employers to position scaffoldguardrails in the range of 38 to 45-inches on supported scaffolds, asproposed. This range is also consistent


with the guardrail criteria set in therevised standard (subpart M) for Fallprotection. However, OSHA recognizesthat plank overlap is a legitimate reasonto accept a somewhat lower guardrailheight on some scaffolds. Thus,although the record indicates that mostscaffolds on the market fall within the38- to 45-inch range (Ex. 2–368), somescaffolds have been manufactured tomeet the 36-inch lower guardrail heightlimit accepted by ANSI. To allow themanufacturers of these scaffolds thenecessary time to redesign theirsystems, the Agency is grandfathering36-inch guardrail heights on allscaffolds manufactured and installedbefore January 1, 2000. These scaffoldsmay continue to be used throughouttheir normal service life, as long as theycontinue to meet the other requirementsof subpart L.

Final rule paragraph (g)(4)(iii), whichis effectively identical to proposedparagraph (e)(4)(iii), states that, whenmidrails, screens, mesh, intermediatevertical members (such as balusters),solid panels, or equivalent structuralmembers are used, they are to beinstalled between the top edge of theguardrail system and the scaffoldplatform. This is essentially the samerequirement as existing § 1926.451(a)(5),except that the existing languagementioned only midrails and providedfor the use of midrails ‘‘when required.’’In the final rule OSHA has revised theexisting language to reflect the variety ofoptions available and to express theAgency’s intent clearly.

Final rule paragraphs (g)(4)(iv)through (vi) (proposed as paragraphs(e)(4)(iv)–(vi)) specify the criterianecessary to ensure that the midrails,screens, mesh, and baluster typeprotection required by paragraph(g)(4)(iii) will be properly placed andeffective. Paragraph (g)(4)(iv) requiresthat midrails, when used, be installed ata height midway between the top edgeof the guardrail system and the platformsurface. Paragraph (g)(4)(v) requires thatscreens and mesh, when used, extendfrom the top edge of the guardrailsystem to the scaffold platform, andalong the entire opening between thesupports. Paragraph (g)(4)(vi) requiresthat intermediate vertical members(such as balusters or additional rails),when used, be not more than 19 inches(48 cm) apart.

The SSFI and SIA (Exs. 2–367 and 2–368) recommended the addition of theword ‘‘approximately’’ to the midrailheight required in paragraph (iv). Thesecommenters argued that, without theflexibility provided by this word, theprovision was unnecessarily restrictiveand did not properly address varying

platform heights (such as whereadjoining platforms overlap) or theheight variations allowed for toprails.OSHA agrees that it is appropriate toallow for such variation, and the finalprovision reflects this suggestion.

Paragraph (g)(4)(vii) of the final ruleprovides that toprails or equivalentmembers be capable of withstanding,without failure, a force applied in anydownward or horizontal direction at anypoint along their top edge of at least 100pounds (445 n) for guardrail systemsinstalled on single-point adjustablesuspension scaffolds and on two-pointadjustable suspension scaffolds, and atleast 200 pounds (890 n) for guardrailsystems installed on all other scaffolds.

The strength criteria for guardrailsystems on single-point adjustable andtwo-point adjustable suspensionscaffolds differ from the criteria set forguardrails used on other types ofscaffolds because of the functionsguardrails serve on these types ofsuspension scaffolds. Fall protection onthese suspension scaffolds is providedby a combination of personal fall arrestsystems (PFAS) and guardrails, ratherthan by either guardrails or PFAS alone.Guardrails on single-point adjustableand two-point adjustable suspensionscaffolds delineate the scaffold edge,restrain movement, provide handholds,and prevent misstepping. A guardrailsystem can serve these functionswithout having the strength that wouldbe needed if the guardrails were theprimary means of providing fallprotection. Therefore, OSHA has set theminimum capacity for guardrail systemsused on single-point and two-pointscaffolds at 100 pounds rather than at200 pounds.

This is the same substantiverequirement as was proposed inparagraph (e)(4)(vii); however, thelanguage has been modified asdiscussed above to replace the proposedterms ‘‘Type I’’ and ‘‘Type II’’ guardrailswith the pertinent performance criteria.One commenter (Ex. 2–44)recommended that the forcerequirements be changed to 100 poundsfor Type I toprails and 80 pounds forType II toprails. OSHA has maintainedthe proposed strength requirements, i.e.,100 pounds, for all toprails because theAgency believes that they are necessaryto prevent employees from breakingthrough toprails if they fall againstthem.

Final rule paragraph (g)(4)(viii)provides that when the loads specifiedin paragraph (g)(4)(vii) are applied in adownward direction, the top edge maynot drop below the height above theplatform surface prescribed inparagraph (g)(4)(ii). Proposed paragraph

(e)(4)(viii) was identical to thecorresponding requirement in the finalrule except that the proposal limiteddeflection to 38 inches on supportedscaffolds (Type I guardrails) and 36inches on suspended scaffolds (Type IIguardrails). The parallel final ruleprovision does not contain the proposedguardrail designations, for the reasonsdiscussed above, and the provision alsoreflects minor editorial changes.

Paragraph (g)(4)(ix) of the final rulestates that midrails, screens, mesh,intermediate vertical members, solidpanels, and equivalent structuralmembers must be capable ofwithstanding, without failure, a forceapplied in any downward or horizontaldirection at any point along the midrailor other member of at least 75 pounds(333 n) for guardrail systems with aminimum 100 pound toprail capacity,and at least 150 pounds (666 n) forguardrail systems with a minimum 200pound toprail capacity. Except for thechanges in guardrail system terminologydiscussed above, this provision is thesame as proposed paragraph (e)(4)(ix).

The 150 pound force requirement isnot specified in the existing standard.However, the existing requirements(e.g., § 1926.451(b)(15) et al.) requiremidrails to be made of 1 x 6-inchlumber (or other material providingequivalent protection). The existingstandard also requires midrails to be notmore than 8 feet long (§ 1926.451(a)(5)),and to be made of a minimum 1,500fiber stress construction grade lumber(see § 1926.451(a)(9)). On the average,such wooden midrails can support loadsup to approximately 160 pounds beforebreaking. Therefore, OSHA is replacingthe specific reference to 1 x 6-inchlumber with the performance criterionof 150 pounds force. Similarly, OSHAhas adopted a performance criterion of50 pounds for toeboards in final ruleparagraph § 1926.451(f)(3).

The only commenter (Ex. 2–44) onthis issue recommended that theproposed force requirements be changedto 75 pounds for Type I and 40 poundsfor Type II midrails. OSHA has notmade this change because the Agencybelieves that the final rule’s strengthrequirements for midrails are necessaryto prevent employees from breakingthrough midrails or other intermediatemembers of the guardrail system. Inaddition, OSHA has not maintained thedistinction between Type I and Type IImidrails made in the proposal.

Final rule paragraph (g)(4)(x)(proposed paragraph (e)(4)(x)) providesthat a separate guardrail section is notrequired on the ends of suspensionscaffolds when the scaffold’s supportsystem (stirrup) or hoist prevents


passage of employees. One commenter(Ex. 2–8) suggested that OSHA specifya maximum space of 10 inches betweenthe hoist or stirrup and the sideguardrail or structure. Anothercommenter (Ex. 2–28) suggested that thelanguage of this paragraph be changedfrom ‘‘does not allow passage’’ to ‘‘doesnot allow normal passage withoutclimbing over the stirrup.’’ OSHA hasnot made the suggested changes becausethis requirement is clear as written.

Paragraph (g)(4)(xi) (proposedparagraph (e)(4)(xi)) of the final rulerequires that guardrail systems be sosurfaced as to prevent injury to anemployee from punctures or lacerations,and to prevent the snagging of clothing.This provision is consistent with§ 1926.502(b)(6), which sets criteria forguardrails used in construction, otherthan on scaffolds.

The language of the final rule iseffectively identical to that in theproposed rule, except that the proposedrule contained the words ‘‘which couldcause an employee to fall.’’ OSHA usedthose words to explain that one reasonthat guardrail systems should havesmooth surfaces is to prevent snaggingof clothing. OSHA did not intend bythis language to limit protection to thosesituations where snagging wouldactually result in a fall. OSHA realizesthat other hazards, such as exposure tofalling objects, could arise if anemployee’s clothing snagged on aguardrail surface. In the final rule,OSHA has revised the proposedlanguage accordingly.

The SSFI and SIA (Exs. 2–367 and 2–368) objected to the inclusion of thisprovision in the final rule. Bothcommenters stated that the provisionwould be ‘‘impractical in theconstruction industry because of thedifferent types of equipment used,’’ andwould be ‘‘unquestionably over-restrictive for the constructionindustry.’’ The SIA (Ex. 2–368) added‘‘As worded, even the standardguardrail posts could be consideredhazardous.’’ OSHA believes that thisexisting requirement is still needed andis promulgating the proposed provisionas editorially revised. The Agency doesnot intend this provision to beinterpreted to mean that guardrailsystem components have sanded orfinished surfaces. Instead, OSHAintends that such surfaces be free ofbreaks and jagged edges that couldcause cuts or lacerations, or snagemployee’s clothes.

Paragraph (g)(4)(xii) of the final rule,which is effectively identical toproposed paragraph (e)(4)(xii), requiresthat toprails and midrails not be so longas to constitute a hazard. This is

identical to the corresponding provisionin subpart M, (Fall protection)§ 1926.502(b)(7), and is intended toprotect employees from projectionhazards.

Paragraph (g)(4)(xiii) of the final rule,which is identical to proposedparagraph (e)(4)(xiii), prohibits the useof steel banding and plastic banding astoprails or midrails. Although suchbanding can often withstand a 200pound load, it can tear easily if twisted.In addition, such banding often hassharp edges which can cut a hand ifseized. This is identical to thecorresponding provision in subpart M(Fall protection), § 1926.502(b)(8).

Paragraph (g)(4)(xiv) of the final rulerequires that guardrail systems usingmanila, plastic or synthetic rope as railsbe inspected by a competent person asfrequently as necessary to ensure thatthe guardrails comply with theperformance criteria in final rule§ 1926.451(g). This provision has beenadded based on the response to HearingNotice Issue L–10.

Issue L–10 sought testimony andrelated information on an ACCSHrecommendation (Tr. 212–214, 6/9/87)that the Agency bar the use of manilarope and plastic rope as toprails andmidrails of guardrail systems used onscaffolds. This recommendationreflected ACCSH’s concern that manilarope and plastic rope can lose strengthquickly when exposed to water and sun.

The SIA (Exs. 5a-16 and 10, Tr. 3/22/99, pp. 160–161) disagreed with thisview on the grounds that it should notbe necessary to restrict the type ofmaterial that can be used because otherprovisions of the standard spell outsystem strength requirements forguardrails. Another commenter (Exs. 5a-3 and 13) agreed, noting that,particularly for short-term use, ‘‘a ropeis handy, adequate, and perfectly safe.’’This commenter stated that these ropes‘‘should not be barred from use onscaffolds providing they are capable ofsupporting a 100-pound load (Type II)or a 200-pound load (Type I) applied inany direction without excessivedeflection.’’

Zurn Industries (Ex. 2–81)commented that ‘‘plastic rope’’ shouldbe defined, but did not provide such adefinition. Zurn also stated ‘‘[t]here aresynthetic ropes made of plasticmaterials that do not sag or lose strengthwhen exposed to water or sun.’’ Thiscommenter also suggested applyingperformance language to all materialsused for guardrails since futuretechnology might provide moreadvanced types of plastic rope.

After carefully considering the abovecomments and testimony, OSHA

believes that it is not necessary toprohibit the use of manila, plastic orsynthetic rope as guardrails onscaffolds. The Agency realizes that thesetypes of ropes can deteriorate over timefrom environmental exposure. However,the Agency also realizes that such ropescan have a useful lifespan beforesignificant deterioration occurs.Consequently, OSHA is promulgatingfinal rule § 1926.451(g)(4)(xiv), whichallows the use of plastic, manila orsynthetic rope only on condition thatsuch ropes be inspected as often asnecessary to ensure their integrity. Thisprovision is consistent with theapproach taken in § 1926.502(b)(16),which sets generic performance criteriafor guardrails used in construction.

Paragraph (g)(4)(xv) of the final rulepermits the use of crossbracing in lieuof either a midrail or a toprail whencertain criteria are met. This provisionis based on responses to NPRM Issue 13and the March 29, 1993, reopening ofthe record. In particular, crossbracingwould be accepted in lieu of a toprailwhen the crossing point is between 38and 48 inches above the work surface.Also, crossbracing would be accepted inlieu of a midrail when the crossingpoint is between 20 and 30 inches abovethe work surface. In addition, the endpoints of each upright must be no morethan 48 inches apart, which will reducethe slope of the crossbracing and resultin a surface that is similar to that of astandard guardrail.

The Agency received over 30comments in response to Issue 13 andthe March, 1993 reopening of the recordon the issue of the use of crossbracingin lieu of guardrails (Exs. 2–13, 2–14, 2–20, 2–22, 2–26, 2–29, 2–30, 2–37, 2–43,2–54, 2–55, 2–128, 2–330, 2–367, 2–368,2–390, 2–476, 34–1, 34–9, 34–10, 34–11,34–12, 34–15, 34–17, 34–19, 34–22, 34–29, 34–32, 34–34, 34–35, 34–37, 34–39,34–43, 34–46, and Tr. 6/9/87, pp. 121–126). These comments are discussedbelow,

Issue 13 of the NPRM soughtcomments concerning whether OSHAshould accept crossbracing onintermediate levels of supportedscaffolds as an alternative to the existingand proposed rules requiring guardrailsystems on such levels. The Issue raisedthe question of whether crossbraces areas effective as guardrail-type systems inpreventing falls, and asked forcomments on two sets of provisions thathad been developed by the SIA andother interested industry groups.

Issue 13 presented the first threealternatives as a group (hereafter Items1(a)–(c)). Item 1(a) would have allowedcrossbracing in lieu of a midrail if thecrossing point was at or between 20 and


32 inches above the work surface. Item1(b) provided that crossbracing wouldbe allowed in lieu of both midrail andtoprail if the crossing point was at orbetween 30 and 48 inches above thework surface and the end points of theuprights were 54 inches, or less, apart.Item 1(c) would have prohibited the useof crossbracing in lieu of a toprail ormidrail on the top level of a scaffold(Issue 13 repeated this suggestedprovision as Item 2(c)).

Issue 13 also presented a second setof alternatives for crossbracing(hereafter Items 2(a)–(d)). Item 2(a)provided that crossbracing would beallowed in lieu of a toprail if thecrossing point was at or between 39 and49 inches above the work surface andthe endpoints of the uprights were 54inches, or less, apart. Item 2(b) providedthat crossbracing would be allowed inlieu of a midrail if the crossing pointwas at or between 20 inches and 30inches above the working surface. Item2(d) would prohibit the use ofcrossbracing in lieu of both the toprailand midrail on the same scaffold levelat the same time.

Commenters to Issue 13 were splitinto two groups: those supporting (Exs.2–14, 2–20, 2–22, 2–26, 2–30, 2–53, 2–55, 2–367, 2–368, 2–390, and 2–476)and those rejecting (Exs. 2–13, 2–29, 2–37, 2–43, 2–54, 2–128, and ACCSH) theuse of crossbracing in lieu of guardrails.

The ACCSH (Tr. 6/9/87, pp. 121–129)and six commenters (Exs. 2–13, 2–29, 2–37, 2–43, 2–54 and 2–128) opposedOSHA recognizing crossbracing as asubstitute for a standard guardrail. Onecommenter (Ex.2–13 ) stated ‘‘that thereis no substitute for the protectionafforded by a constant-height guardrail’’.The same commenter added that ‘‘thereis no industry standard to allow asubstitution in that the OSHA standardshave required guardrail systems since1971’’.

On the other hand, those commentersfavoring crossbracing argued thatcrossbracing should be allowed in lieuof the entire guardrail system (Exs. 2–14,2–20, 2–26, 2–30, 2–55, 2–367, 2–368,2–390, and 2–476), or that crossbracingshould be permitted on intermediatelevels (Ex. 2–53), or that it should bepermitted as a midrail only if themidpoint of the ‘‘X’’ was 20 to 32 inchesfrom the platform (Ex. 2–22).

Specifically, commenters in the groupfavoring crossbracing argued thatrequiring guardrails in all situationscould result in structural instability (Ex.2–14), was impractical, increased thelikelihood of accidents, could causeproblems when attempting to attachguardrails to the scaffold frame, andmight raise issues of economic

feasibility (Ex. 2–368). Some of thesecommenters also argued that availablestatistics did not support retention ofthe existing rule’s prohibition againstthe use of crossbracing in lieu ofguardrails (Exs. 2–20, 2–55, 2–367, 2–368, and 2–390).

For example, one commenter (Ex. 2–14) stated:

If cross braces and guardrail cannot beplaced on the same studs, and only toprailsand midrails are used to connect a run ofscaffold frames other than the top run, a veryhazardous structural situation is created.This is due to the lack of triangulation whichcrossbraces provide.

The SIA (Ex. 2–368) argued that:Each time workers completed one level

they would have to remove the guardrailposts and rails, install frames and crossbraces, plank the next level, install guardrailposts and rails and repeat the procedure ateach level.

The increased work would create a greaterpossibility of accident than that which itproposes to prevent.

The SIA also commented, argued that:It is impractical and economically

unfeasible to require manufacturers to call inall their scaffolds for refurbishing. There isno way the owners of scaffolds wouldcomply nor any way the manufacturer couldforce them to do so. The result would be afar greater hazard due to alteration of thescaffold frames by persons not qualified toperform the delicate welding required onsteel scaffold. It is further impossible whenyou consider the fact that there are hundredsof thousands of separate owners of scaffoldframes manufactured by numerousmanufacturers, many of which are no longerin business.

The AGC (Exs. 2–20, 2–55, and 2–390)stated that crossbracing can be used asan effective guardrail, because ‘‘studiesdo not reflect actual field conditionsand accident statistics do not reflect theneed for the existing standard.’’ OSHAnotes, however, that inadequateaccident statistics and that lack ofdetailed annotation about the details ofaccidents that are reported should notbe taken as evidence that norelationship exists.

Based on its review of the above-discussed comments, OSHA decidedthat more information was needed inorder to determine if the Agency shouldallow the use of crossbracing in lieu ofguardrail top rails or midrails.Accordingly, on March 29, 1993, OSHAreopened the public record on subpartL (58 FR 16509) for additional input. Inparticular, the Agency requestedcomments regarding the extent to whichsupplemental rail systems could be usedwith crossbraces to meet the guardrailrequirements of subpart L.

The commenters to the Reopening ofthe record either agreed with or opposed

the use of crossbracing in lieu of aguardrail in about the same proportionsas the earlier commenters. Theircomments, which are closely related tothose addressed by the earliercommenters on this issue, are onlybriefly summarized below:—Those opposed to the use of

crossbracing (Exs. 34–1, 34–11, 34–19,34–22, 34–29, 34–34, and 34–35)argued that crossbraces would notprovide protection equivalent to thatprovided by standard guardrails,because crossbracing lacks theuniform height and consistent spacingbetween toprails and midrails that arefound in guardrail systems and arenecessary for adequate protection (Ex.34–11); because there are variations inattachment heights, distances betweencrossmembers, and the strength of theattachment points where crossbracingis used (Ex. 34–34); and because theuse of crossbraces may promoteshortcuts in scaffold erection sinceemployers might fail to measure thepoints of the crossbracing or to addtoeboards (Ex. 34–19). In addition,one commenter stated that crossbracesshould be supplemented by midrailsand toprails because employees mayfall through the triangular void oneither side of the intersection of thebraces, and added that crossbracesmay give a false sense of security (Ex.34–35), and another (Ex. 34–22) statedthat commercial scaffolds are allcapable of being fitted withconventional guardrails, and thatcrossbraces can, at best, only be usedto replace either the toprail or midrail,not both.

—Those supporting the use ofcrossbracing in lieu of guardrails(midrail or toprail) urged OSHA toadopt certain height requirements forthe crossing points of thecrossbracing. For example, fivecommenters (Exs. 34–9, 34–10, 34–12,34–17, 34–37) stated that crossbracingcould be substituted for a midrail asthe crossing point of the brace isbetween 20 and 31 inches above thework surface, while others argued thatcrossbracing could be used in lieu ofa toprail or midrail if the crossingpoint fell in the range of 30 to 48inches above the working surface.Another group of participants (Exs.34–9, 34–10, 34–12, and 34–17) wereof the opinion that crossbracingsubstituting for a midrail should havea crossing point in the 20- to 30-inchrange. A large number of commenters(Exs. 34–9, 34–10, 34- 12, 34–17, 34–32, 34–37, and 34–39) stated that endpoints of the crossbraces must be nomore than 54 inches apart.


Another group of commenters (Exs.34–5, 34–9, 34–10, 34–12, 34–17, 34–22,and 34–29) provided information onsupplemental rail systems, such as thoseproduced by Waco, Safway or Nail.These commenters stated that suchsystems are feasible and would provideprotection equivalent to guardrails thatcomply with proposed subpart L incertain situations.

Donald Nail (Ex. 34–15) commentedas follows:

* * * I have devised a way to enhancescaffold safety. The safety rail which Iinvented can be conveniently attached toscaffold crossbraces, thus eliminating theexcuses of those employers and employeeswho simply do not want to put them up.

This invention is not currently on themarket due to resistance from the scaffoldand construction industries. If OSHAregulations were changed to require aguardrail with scaffolding, employercompliance would follow without undueeconomic hardship. The average cost wouldbe about $5 (plus the rail) per frame asopposed to current systems averaging $30.

The basic concept for my automatic guardrail is that you cannot erect a welded-framescaffold without crossbraces. The automaticguardrail would be permanently attached tothe crossbraces with a slide ring on each endof the rail . . . The guard rail will fold upwith the crossbraces when they are takendown for shipping or storage. Thecrossbraces are easier and quicker to installwith the guard rail attached than without, notto mention safer. If the guard rail ispermanently attached to the crossbraces theworkmen will have installed the guard railsautomatically, thereby helping to reducenumerous fatalities and thousands of scaffoldinjuries each year.

However, commenters opposed to theuse of supplemental rail systems (Exs.34–32, 34–37, and 34–39) argued thatthe Safway panel can only be installedon walk-through frames that haveattachment members on both sides.They added that these systems weredesigned to be used in cases wherecrossbracing is not required in everybay.

SIA (Ex. 34–37) commented that theWaco system has not been accepted byindustry because: (a) It can only be usedon a specific type scaffold frame; (b) Itincreases the number of pieces three-fold because it also requires twoadditional rails; (c) It significantlyincreases the dead load on the scaffold;(d) It has not proved to be economicallyfeasible. The commenter added thatPatent Scaffolding Co. has had a similardevice consisting of four pieces for 10years, but that it has not been widelyused for the same reasons.

In addition, the SIA contended thatthe Nails Safety Rails system is notfeasible because:

(a) It is a proprietary system which cannotbe used universally.

(b) It cannot be used with angle braceswhich account for 60% of most inventory.

(c) When attached to the crossbrace itbecomes permanent (since it is riveted on)and therefore, by its very nature must be used(with the crossbrace) where it would not berequired—thus adding considerable moredead load to the scaffold.

(d) It requires another inventory item notusually included in stock.

(e) It requires extra attachments to thescaffold frame.

(f) It creates costly maintenance problemswhen plaster and cement hinder sliding therail.

(g) It is not cost effective.

The Agency finds that thesupplemental railings discussed abovecan be used as guardrails in somesituations. However, these supplementalsystems are not compatible with allscaffolds, and will thus not address theguardrail vs. crossbracing issue. Inaddition, based on the determination,discussed above, that crossbracing canbe used safely in lieu of either a midrailor a toprail, but not both, the Agencyfinds no reason to mandate the use ofthese supplemental railings. Employersmay still use these railing in situationswhere they are appropriate to protectemployees working on scaffolds fromfall hazards.

After carefully reviewing theextensive record on this issue, theAgency has determined that it isappropriate to allow crossbracing in lieuof a midrail or a toprail (but not both).The crossing point heights andcrossbrace endpoint distance spelledout in the final rule are based on acombination of those raised in Issue 13of the NPRM and those specified in theCalifornia code and reflect OSHA’sevaluation of the record as a whole.

OSHA disagrees that crossbracing canbe used in lieu of both the midrail andthe toprail of a standard guardrailsystem. The principal reasons for thisdetermination are that the voids on eachside of the intersection of thecrossbraces present a serious fall hazardto employees working on scaffolds, andthat the uneven height and spacing ofcrossbraces also contribute to the fallhazard. For example, if OSHA permittedcrossbracing in lieu of both a toprail anda midrail, the voids below the crossingpoint of the crossbrace could be as highas 48 inches. This would be inconsistentwith good safety practice and withsubpart M of this part (Fall protection),which requires that openings in walls orother vertical surfaces not exceed 30inches in height unless a guardrail isinstalled. In addition, ReviewCommission decisions (see, for example,10 OSHRC 1937 and 7 OSHRC 1951)

have consistently upheld OSHA’sposition that crossbracing is notequivalent to a guardrail in the degreeof protection provided. Support for theposition taken in the final rule alsocomes from California, where the StateCode initially allowed the use ofcrossbracing in lieu of a guardrailsystem but was changed in 1976 to limitthe use of crossbracing as only a midrailor a toprail, but not both. A review ofCalifornia’s experience shows thatpermitting the use of crossbracing inlieu of either a midrail or a toprail hasnot compromised employee safety.Washington State and Arizona bothallow such use of crossbracing; OSHAnotes that these three states togetheraccount for well over 10 percent of allU.S. construction work. In addition,specifics of the California code agreewith those in the final rule. Forexample, California accepts crossbracingas a toprail if the intersection of the ‘‘X’’occurs at 45 inches (+/¥3 inches). Issue13 suggested a range of 39 to 49 inchesfor the height of the crossing point, andthe final rule accepts a range of 38 to 48inches to reflect the lower limit ofguardrail height permitted by this finalsubpart L, and the upper limit permittedby the California code.

In addition, the final rule specifiesthat the end points of each upright beno more than 48 inches apart, not 54inches as suggested by manycommenters and raised in NPRM Issue13. This spacing (48 inches) isconsistent with the California code andwill reduce the slope of the crossbracingand result in a flatter surface that ismore consistent with that of a standardguardrail, and will provide equivalentprotection.

The Agency has concluded thatcrossbracing where the crossing point isbetween 20 and 30 inches can servesafely as a midrail since the use of astandard top rail will provide theuniform height that the Agency hasdetermined is necessary, while the useof a toe board will limit the size of anyopenings (voids) on either side of thecrossing point.

Similarly, OSHA believes that wherethe crossing point occurs in the 38- to48-inch range the crossbracing must besupplemented by a midrail. Otherwise,an opening as high as 48 inches couldoccur, allowing an employee to fall.These conditions would also occur ifcrossbracing were permitted to be usedin lieu of a complete standard guardrail.Accordingly, the final rule containsprovisions allowing use of crossbracesas a substitute for either the midrail ortoprail, but not both, providing that thecrossing point and end point distancesspecified in the final rule are observed.

occupational safety and health administration - the construction … · 1996. 8. 30. · 46026...

Documents