Fall Protection Height Changes
Prior to the amendments, the height for triggering fall protection in residential roofing and construction was 15 feet. Now, fall protection for residential construction and roofing will be required at 6 feet. Employers must create programs or processes that will protect their people from falling when on a roof surface where the employees’ fall distance is 6 feet or more above the grade (or ground level), or level below by use of one or more of the following methods:
- Personal fall protection systems
- Scaffolding
- Safety nets
- Guardrails
- A fall protection plan with safety monitors and controlled access zones if the employer demonstrates that the use of conventional fall protection methods is
In addition, previously, the roof pitch range was 3:12 through 7:12, when employees must be protected from falling while on a roof surface when the eave height exceeded 15 feet above the grade or level below, and then anything over a 7:12 pitch, a fall protection method was required.
That has changed. The new regulation, §1731(c)(1) is outlined here:
- Roof slopes 0:12 up to and including 7:12.
- Employees shall be protected from falling when on a roof surface where the employees’ fall distance is 6 feet or more above the grade or level below by use of one or more of the following methods:
- Personal fall protection systems
- Scaffolding
- Safety nets
- Guardrails or
- Provided the employer demonstrates that the use of conventional fall protection methods is infeasible, a fall protection plan with safety monitors and controlled access zones as described in §1671.1 and §1671.2
- Roof slopes steeper than 7:12:
- Employees shall be protected from falling by the methods listed above, regardless of height.
- Employees shall be protected from falling when on a roof surface where the employees’ fall distance is 6 feet or more above the grade or level below by use of one or more of the following methods:
Just to reiterate, for roofing work, employees’ fall height measurements must be determined by measuring the vertical distance from the employees’ walking/working surface to the ground level below. The height of parapets (any wall or railing that extends from the edge of the roof) is not included in the roof height measurement.
Some other incidental, but important changes that were made are listed below:
- Included in §1716.2 (b) definitions:
- The limited use of structural steel in a predominantly wood-framed home, such as steel I-beam(s) to help support wood framing, does not disqualify a structure from being considered residential-type construction.
- Residential-type framing activities include framing commercial structures that use traditional wood frame construction materials and methods.
- Included in §1716.2 (g) Work on Starter Board, Roof Sheathing, and Fascia Board:
- An exception for roofs sloped up to 12:12, which allows side guard use as fall protection up to and including 15 feet measured from the eaves to the grade or floor level below, has been removed.
- Another exception affecting work of short duration, and limited exposure, and provided that the hazards involved in rigging and installing safety devices was equal or greater than the hazards involved in doing the work, the allowance of these provisions to be temporarily suspended if the work was done by a qualified person has been revoked.
Change from “Impractical” to “Infeasible” for Fall Protection Plans
The primary reason for the change was for Cal-OSHA to be in lockstep with Federal OSHA’s fall protection regulation, which uses the term “infeasible” as opposed to “impractical.”
The term “impractical” was changed to “infeasible” in the following sections:
- Fall Protection Plans
- Work on Top Plate, Joists and Roof Structure Framing §(1716.2(E)(1))
- Work on Floors and Other Walking/Working Surfaces §(1716.2(F))
- Work on Starter Board, Roof Sheathing and Fascia Board §(1716.2(G)(1), (2))
- Fall Protection for Roofing Work §(1731(c)(1))
Accordingly, employers now have the burden of establishing that conventional fall protection is infeasible or creates a greater hazard. When conventional fall protection methods are found infeasible, employers must develop a site-specific fall protection plan that is created by a qualified person and supervised by a competent person. Additionally, these site-specific programs cannot cover more than one site, even if the sites are identical.
§1730 Roof Hazards, vs §1731 Residential-type Roofing Activities
Section 1730 historically referred to re-roofing activities, as opposed to §1731, which used to be called Roof Hazards, New Construction Type Residential Construction, that dealt with new types of construction. With the approved language of the two regulations, there is a bit of a snafu that we identified.
In §1730 (a), one sentence was added at the end of subsection (a), which reads,
“This section does not apply to residential-type roofing activities as defined in Section 1731.”
This means that other than the incidental modifications that have been made to this section, which refer to where to measure the vertical distance (changed from the lowest edge of the roof or eaves to the employee’s walking/working surface), there was no substantial change to this section. Historically, this was the section that employers engaging in re-roofing operations would follow, which included, among other things, a 20-foot trigger height. So, by following this language, re-roofing employers would have no substantial changes to their operations.
However
The very next section is §1731 Residential-type Roofing Activities. Historically, this section dealt with new construction type residential construction. It was even in the name. With the recent regulation change, not only did the title of the section change, but there were other changes in addition to the ones outlined in the “Fall Protection Height Changes” section above that include the scope of the regulation and a significant change in the definitions section. The addition of a definition of “Residential-type roofing activities” in §1731 (b) is the item that has become a significant issue. This states that Residential-type roofing activities are defined as being,
“Roofing work consists of roofing and re-roofing work, including roof removal performed on single-family homes, townhouses, duplexes, and other structures covered by Section 1716.2. Roofing work also includes loading and installation of roofing materials, including related insulation, sheet metal that is integral to the roofing system, and vapor barrier work, but does not include the construction of the roof deck.”
Including the term “re-roofing work, including roof removal” as what is included in §1731 directly contradicts what is stated in §1730, which is the section followed by contractors engaged in re-roofing activities. This leaves the companies who do re-roofing unclear as to what regulation they need to follow; can I continue as I always have by following §1730 or follow the new height restrictions outlined in §1731.
Trying to understand this contradiction forced the author here to contact one of the primary authorities on the subject, Steve Smith, who is the principal safety engineer with the California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, in an attempt to get clarification and guidance. The Standards Board is the entity responsible for writing these regulations, along with Advisory Groups consisting of representatives from labor organizations, industry advocates, and governmental representatives in an effort to see that everyone has input on the regulation being developed. The following is a summary of a phone conversation I had with Mr. Smith.
During the phone conversation with Mr. Smith, the textual contradiction was outlined for him, and he agreed that it indeed existed, but said that the intent of the Board was to allow the employers working on re-roofing activities to continue to use §1730 and its 20-trigger height without significant modifications.
When asked if an advisory memo, or guidance document could be drafted by the Standards board to clarify this issue, he said that was not possible at this time, but he did say that there will be a second round of aligning the California fall regulations with the Federal fall regulations that will cover commercial activities and that would be the time the Standards Board could modify this language.
He suggested that there was direction that could be found in the document, “Final Statement of Reasons,” which outlines questions from interested parties and responses from the Board and its staff. When asked if the “Final Statement of Reasons” carries legal weight, he admitted that it didn’t but would be proof upon appeal of the intent of the Standards Board if an employer was cited for continuing to follow the re-roofing regulation instead of following §1731. The change will have to come through case law with a successful appeal.
The language Mr. Smith was referring to in the Final Statement of Reasons is included below. There are a few locations in this document where this specific topic is raised, but there are other topics that are discussed, and frankly, it is a good way to see how a regulation is debated.
Final Statement of Reasons Public Hearing
January 18, 2024
Page 3 of 3
Comment 1.5:
“…The commentators also reiterate their belief that: the SRIA includes errors previously discussed; the SRIA does not address the housing crisis; it does not reflect the re-roofing operations trigger height being lowered from 20 feet to 6 feet; fall protection plans be removed from the SRIA in their entirety; and CALPASC be removed as a source of information for Table 3 on page 9 of the SRIA.”
Note: (SRIA is the Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment document)
Response to Comment 1.5:
“…Further, the Board notes that the 20 feet trigger height contained in section 1730 (Roof Hazards) was not touched; rather as stated in the ISOR, the amendments proposed for this section are clarifications to inform the employer that section 1730 does not apply to residential-type roofing activities nor to how the employee’s height working measurement is to be taken. … or that the trigger height for re-roofing operations would be lowered from 20 feet to 6 feet under the proposed amendments.”
Note: (ISOR is the Initial Statement of Reasons document)
This is one example of where the Standards Board states that they did not intend for re-roofing operations to be included in this round of proposed amendments, and where Mr. Smith was correct in that there is legislative history that supports his assertion. When looking back at the Initial Statement of Reasons, they state that,
“A sentence for subsection (a) is added for clarity to inform the employer that section 1730 does not apply to residential-type roofing activities defined in section 1731. This amendment is necessary to clarify and differentiate to the employer the scope and application of the two Title 8 roofing safety orders; one commercial, one residential.”
The Standards Board has a Summary Page for new regulations, and you can find the history of this regulation here at this link: Fall Protection in Residential Construction. You can find the specific documents for the approved regulatory text changes and the Final Statement at Text approved by OAL, and the Final Statement of Reasons. These are referenced here simply as supporting documents.
After all this information has been presented, it seems that we can conclude that most construction operations will have to change how they operate to comply with the 6-foot rule. Construction roofing operations have been significantly affected in both the trigger heights as well as the roof slope changes. Finally, re-roofing operations have been affected in that the language is at best unclear. If you follow the logic of the information provided here, then re-roofing operations have been largely unaffected and would not be affected by the rule. However, based on the conversation with the principal safety engineer at the Standards Board, this situation is soon to change, and ultimately, everyone will be following the 6-foot rule.
As the director of safety services for Leavitt Pacific, my role is to provide guidance and information to our clients to help them make informed decisions, and this information I have provided is information our clients would not normally know about and will allow them to make decisions about what direction to take their loss prevention operations. If you have any questions or would like more information about this or any other loss prevention, please do not hesitate to reach out.
Have questions? Contact:
