DLLR's Division of Labor and Industry

 

MOSH Instruction 03-2 - Attachment A - Questions and Answers - Maryland Occupational Safety and Health (MOSH)

 
 

Question #1:
Is an employer, having employees exposed to fall hazards while performing a listed group activity of the new interim policy, required to have a verbal fall protection plan?
Answer:
Yes, and failure to have such a plan would prompt the CO/IH to recommend citations regarding the specific standard covering the exposure. Example: If employees were engaged in exterior wall installation and the employer did not have any fall protection plan, then exposures to fall hazards noted proximate to unprotected floor edges would be cited under 29 CFR 1926.501(b)(1).

Question #2:
Are employees required to be trained in the requirements of the plan?
Answer:
Yes, and failure to train employees regarding a fall protection plan would be a violation of 29 CFR 1926.503(a)(1). Keep in mind this would preclude any use of the Interim Fall Protection Guidelines and result in a violation of the specific standard under Subpart M relating to their fall exposure.

Question #3:
Is an employer required to have fall protection training certified?
Answer:
Yes, failure to provide such certification to a CO/IH requesting such would prompt the CSHO to recommend citations under 29 CFR 1926.503(b)(1). This violation does not preclude the use of the Interim Fall Protection Guidelines.

Question #4:
Is an employer, having employees exposed to fall hazards while performing any listed group activity, required to have the plan's competent person at site while employees are exposed to fall hazards?
Answer:
Yes, the plan=s competent person must be at the site when employees are exposed to falls. Failure to comply with this provision would prompt the CO/IH to recommend citations regarding the specific standard covering the exposure. Example: If the competent person is not on site and employees are installing roofing material, a citation of 29 CFR 1926.501(b)(10) or .501(b)(11) shall be recommended, depending upon the roof slope.

Question #5:
If an employer has employees exposed to fall hazards while performing a Group 1 activity located 20' above ground but due to a basement excavation, the maximum fall potential at that area is 27', has a violation been committed?
Answer:
Yes, the CO/IH shall recommend citations relative to the specific exposure. Example: If the CO/IH witnesses employees performing exterior wall installation proximate to unguarded edges having maximum fall potentials greater than 25' then the CO/IH shall recommend a citation of 29CFR1926.501(b)(1).

Question #6:
If an employer allows employees to traverse/work from a concrete block wall having a maximum fall potential greater than 13', or allows exposures on a concrete block wall that is only 12' tall, but is not adequately braced, has a violation been committed?
Answer:
Yes, cite 29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13) for the exposure where the maximum allowable height has been exceeded; cite 29 CFR 1926.706(b) as well as 29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13) for exposures occurring on walls not braced that are greater than 8' in height, and cite 29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13) for exposures on walls less than or equal to 8' in height when inadequately supported.

Question #7:
Is an employer that has employees installing truss systems with a maximum fall potential greater than 48' using the Interim Fall Protection Guidelines in violation of the law?
Answer:
Yes, cite 29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13). The company needs a written fall protection plan in accordance with 29 CFR 1926.502(k) or conventional fall protection.

Question #8:
Is an employer that has employees installing a roof deck on a 10 in 12 slope surface with a ground to eave distance less than 25' and having slide guards spaced every 4' in violation of the law?
Answer:
No, during roof decking operations employees can work regardless of slope as long as they provide slide guards in accordance with the new policy (in this case every 4 feet).

Question #9:
Is an employer that has employees storing roofing material within 6' of rake edges during roofing operations in violation of the law?
Answer:
Yes, cite 29 CFR 1926.501(b)(10) or .501(b)(11) depending upon the slope of the roof.

Question #10
If an employer allows employees to perform the installation of all floor joists while standing upon the top plate, but has a fall protection plan, is the employer in violation of the law?
Answer:
Yes, the employees must install the first four joists from scaffolds/ladders at ground level, then establish a temporary deck in order to install ensuing joists. Employees performing this task from plates would result in the issuance of a citation under 29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13).

Question #11:
Is an employer required to provide a monitor while employees are installing exterior wall systems even when a painted warning line has been established?
Answer:
Yes, cite 29 CFR 1926.501(b)(1) for noncompliance.

Question #12:
Can an employer use a painted warning line, 6' away from the edges of an unguarded floor hole and the presence of a monitor, in order to protect employees from falling through the hole during exterior wall installation?
Answer:
No, cite 29 CFR 1926.501(b)(4)(i or ii) depending upon whether a falling-through hazard exists or whether a stepping-into hazard exists.

Question #13:
If an employer installs 5 courses (rows) of shingles before introducing slide guards at the eave area, has a violation of the law occurred?
Answer:
Yes, but only if employees installed the 4th and 5th courses of shingles from the roof deck. If ladder jack scaffolds are used, and the height of the scaffold is less than 10' above ground, employees can establish as many courses of shingles as they can reach without requiring any fall protection.

Question #14:
If employees performing roofing operations are observed on a 7 in 12 sloped surface that is provided with slide guards spaced every 10 feet, has a violation occurred?
Answer:
Yes, cite 29 CFR 1926.501(b)(11). Slide guards on roof slopes greater than 6 in 12 are required to be spaced every 8 feet.

Question #15:
If employees are performing roofing activities on an 8 in 12 sloped roof that has slide guards spaced every 8' on a roof that has an eave to lower level height of 30', has a violation been committed?
Answer:
Yes, since the use of conventional fall protection systems are required regardless of slope when eave height exceeds 25' measured from lowest level (29 CFR 1926.501(b)(11)).

Question #16:
If employees are observed climbing throughout the webbing of trusses that are not adequately braced (in accordance with HIB-91) and located 15' above ground, has a violation occurred?
Answer:
Yes, two violations at a minimum. Under the General Duty Clause, trusses must be adequately braced to guard against collapse/crushing hazards and the fall hazard itself of traversing within unstable trusses would be covered under 29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13) and possibly 29 CFR 1926.501(a)(2) if truss failure had occurred while employees were walking within the webbing.

Question #17:
When does a roof become a roof?
Answer:
As has been the previous policy, a roof does not become a roof until the sheathing has been completely installed. Note: Houses with roofs not contiguous with the main roof (i.e., dormers, garage) would be considered separate roofs.

 
Return to top of page