OSHA 29 CFR 1910 Subpart D 1910.28 Section 1910.28(b)(11)(ii) Table D-2 handrail inquiry 6

[mcdermott2]

Hello!

I understand that Table D-2 (1910.28(b)(11)(ii)) contains a printing error, and that for each flight of stairs with two open sides and a width of less than 44 inches, column 4 of Table D-2 should state "One stair rail system with hand rail on each open side". This was corroborated on the OSHA FAQ page for a while (see the attachment to this post), but that specific question and response has since been removed by OSHA.

Years ago, I reached out to OSHA and received confirmation that although that question and answer had been removed from their FAQ, that it was still valid and that OSHA intended to correct the table in a published notice (I've copied my inquiry and OSHA's response at the end of this email).

My question is, has anyone on this forum seen a published notice that corrects this error, or have any similar experiences they could share? I feel like every month I'm dealing with a platform vendor who is omitting handrails from their stair rails, where I have to go through the song and dance of explaining the OSHA printing error, and pushing them to include the handrail to meet the actual intent of the OSHA rule, and am hoping that there is some documentation out there that I'm missing where this error has been resolved.

Thanks in advance!





INQUIRY I SENT TO OSHA AND THEIR RESPONSE:
Topic & Question

Topic: Other
The OSHA FAQ previously
had the following question and response:

Based on the height requirements for stair rails and handrails and the requirements in Table D-2, are both stair rails and handrails required on stairs that have two open sides and are less than 44-in. wide?
Yes. Section 1910.28(b)(11)(ii) Table D-2 contains a printing error, which OSHA will correct in a published notice. For each flight of stairs with two open sides and a width of less than 44 inches, column 4 of Table D-2 should state "One stair rail system with hand rail on each open side" is required. (See 81 FR 82611-12).

I notice that this question/response has since been removed. Is this response still valid, and is there a rough date when OSHA is planning to correct with a published notice?
Submit Date: 08-OCT-19 04:13:29 PM

OSHA Response(s)
Hello mcdermott2,


Thank you for your correspondence to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regarding OSHA?s Walking-Working Surfaces rule. You are correct that the question and answer regarding Table D-2 in OSHA?s Walking-Working Surfaces FAQs have been removed. OSHA still plans to correct the table in a published notice, but does not have a date as to when that publication will occur. For questions
regarding current OSHA enforcement policy, please contact the Office of General Industry and Agricultural Enforcement Programs within OSHA?s Directorate of Enforcement Programs at 202-693-1850. Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health.

 

[WinelandV]

I fell into a hole here a few months ago looking at all the threads we had going dealing with this issue. I even through the document that OSHA published dealing with their reasoning regarding the changes (can't remember what that document is called off the top of my head, but I did post a link to it a few years ago), but there was nothing in there about that particular part of Table D-2.

All that to say, no, I've seen no other info on Table D-2 since those threads here all those years ago. Couple that with the scrubbing of the FAQ, I had assumed that Table D-2 is correct as is. If you don't mind me asking, when did you send your inquiry?

Please note that is a "v" (as in Violin) not a "y".

 

[mcdermott2]

Thanks, winelandv,

I submitted the inquiry to OSHA mid October, 2019. I'm still under the working impression that the OSHA response (and the OSHA FAQ) is correct and accurate, but would love for something more official from OSHA on the issue!

 

[JLNJ]

Logic tells me that the originators of the rule want to allow a handrail on ONE side where the stair is narrow. So, less than 44 inches, ONE handrail. Wider than 44 inches, handrails on each side. This makes sense to me.

If the potential fall from the stair exceeds 48", then a 42" guard would also be needed. Therefore, stair less than 44" in width and a high fall hazard --> 42" guards each side and a handrail on just one side is all that is required. Stairs greater than 44" in width and a high fall hazard --> guards and handrails on both sides.

In my opinion, reading it any other way is just trying to weasel out of doing the right, and safe, thing. Why OSHA can't seem to communicate this in a concise, reasonable fashion, I have no idea.

 

[dauwerda]

I've always been under the impression the committee can't reach a consensus on this issue (by this issue, I am really referring to the option to have a combined system where the top rail serves as the hand rail) and that is why they seem to have missing/conflicting requirements and can't manage to put out an official statement on the subject (or get an update made).

The way it is published combination systems are allowed in spirit, but technically they are not because it is impossible to meet all of the requirements they lay out (be between 36" and 38" to act as a handrail and a minimum of 42" to act as a stair rail system). The missing line in that table all the sudden lets the top rail of a 42" tall stair rail system act a a handrail as well, by omitting the requirement to actually have the handrail.

 

[JLNJ]

They do go out of the way in the table to say "stair rail system and handrail" in the table. It's pretty clear to me that the intent is to have a guard plus a handrail at two different heights.

 

[dauwerda]

Where did that table come from, as in what revision?
The one that is currently available online (

https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.28)

(so I would assume the most up to date) has the following:

Which, as pointed out by the OP, does not include the handrail requirement.

I agree that is the intent - I'm just envisioning some holdouts on the committee that wanted a way to weasel out of it to avoid the extra cost to have to install a third handrail. Hopefully I am wrong about that, I just can't come up with any other reasons why it is the way it is and has been so hard for OSHA to release an official statement.

 

[WinelandV]

install a third handrail

I count 2 handrails, one on each side. Or do you mean a 3rd rail in general for each stair/guardrail system? That is: top, mid, and handrail?

Please note that is a "v" (as in Violin) not a "y".

 

[dauwerda]

I count 2 handrails, one on each side. Or do you mean a 3rd rail in general for each stair/guardrail system? That is: top, mid, and handrail?

Yes, I meant this:
a 3rd rail in general for each stair/guardrail system? That is: top, mid, and handrail?

 

[mcdermott2]

Thanks, dauwerda!

Regarding the "top rail as a handrail" comment in your earlier response -- my take on that perceived inconsistency is just that OSHA wants to allow grandfathered in stairrail systems (installed prior to Jan 17, 2017) where the top rail is installed between 36 - 38" to also serve as a handrail, but for new designs they want both a stairrail (at 42") and a separate handrail.

This is actually directly addressed in the "Final Rules" put out by the Federal Register (

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...protective-equipment-fall-protection-systems)

where it states:
"Second, because the final rule requires that all stair rail systems installed on or after the effective date, which is January 17, 2017, must be at least 42 inches in height, final paragraph (f)(1)(iii)(A) is only applicable to stair rail systems installed before the effective date."


Now if you really want to go down the rabbit hole a bit, I actually think it is possible to defend the scenario where existing top rails of stair rails (installed prior to 1/17/17) installed between 30 - 38" can also serve as handrails, not just 36 - 38" (gasp! I know!). To defend this stance I point again to the Final Rule which states:
"The final rule will not affect existing stair rail systems; therefore, there is no requirement to retrofit stair rail systems. The final rule will continue to allow stair rails installed before the new requirements take effect to meet the existing requirements"

And then, If you use the "waybackmachine" to look at OSHA code before Jan 17, 2017 you will note that OSHA used to allow top rails of stair rails to serve as hand rails if installed between 30 - 34". Also see the snippet attached from the OSHA FAQ which corroborates this.

 

[mcdermott2]

Thanks for the snippet JLNJ! That jogs a distant memory -- perhaps you can confirm, but is the table you included from the "print" version of the OSHA ruling? I believe I recall that the print version lists that table correctly (but the online version lists it incorrectly).

 

[IFRs]

Is this the clarification document? [URL unfurl="true"]https://res.cloudinary.com/engineering-com/image/upload/v1672964970/tips/OSHA_1910.29_Interpretation_09-23-19_Heights_of_Handrail_and_Stair_Rail_Systems_qyriei.pdf[/url]

 

[mcdermott2]

Thanks, IFR!

That helps clarify situations where the top rail can serve also as a handrail, but I do not believe that clarifies the original question I posed in this thread (which is related to the printing error to table D-2 in the online version of OSHA which muddies the water as to whether OSHA requires a hand rail and a stair rail for a stair with width <44" and two open sides).

 

[JLNJ]

The table I snipped is from a PDF called "RegTextWWSFinalRule" created 12/21/16. It's been sitting on my desktop for years, so long, in fact, I can't remember where it came from.

I remember descending a tall, multi-level exterior stair tower (back in the day) where the only guard was the 30" handrail. Then, when you got to a landing, suddenly there were 42" guards. Once on the next flight, back to the 30" guardrail/handrail combo ("stair rail" OSHA calls it for some stupid reason). To me this felt unsafe, and since many falls are on stairs, having such a low guard seems nuts. The building code went to 42" guards with separate handrails eons ago. Everyone says "safety is number one!". I'm not sure why all the pushback by vendors on this. We had this same discussion with Carbis for several unloading platforms. It is tiresome.

OSHA's rule writers are a bunch of dopes.

 

[WinelandV]

Because I'm a glutton for punishment, I went and dug out the other 2 threads dealing with this issue.

thread507-433966
This is the one that started it all (thanks mcdermott2!). JLNJ, you shared that version of Table D-2 in this thread.

thread507-459378
This thread notes that the FAQ had been scrubbed of the Table D-2 question.

You'll notice the first one was made back in Feb of 2018, so almost 5 years now! Good job OSHA, really top notch work here.

I can't help but reach the conclusion that the table is the way that OSHA wants it - 5 years is a long time for this to be "wrong", even by government standards.

And yes, the way these sections (1910.25 and 1910.28) were written with the grandfathering clauses ingloriously shoved in, really made everything a terrible mess. I still get requests from fabricators to use 50 degree stairs because they glance at the section and see Table D-1 sitting right there.

Please note that is a "v" (as in Violin) not a "y".

 

[JLNJ]

We had a vendor try to put the guard up at 42" and then simply add a "handrail" between posts down at 30". Not only would you have to let go of the rail at every post, access to the top of the handrail is blocked from the top by the guard. Preposterous, right? Now go try to find the OSHA provision where this is prohibited. You can't. I was ready to stab myself in the eye with a cocktail fork.

 

[WinelandV]

I would have said 1910.29(f)(2) gets the job done, but I guess it doesn't specifically state that there can't be obstructions along the length.

It would have saved everyone a ton of hassle if OSHA just wrote:

Guardrails on stairs now 42" tall min. Handrails now required - see IBC for requirements. New maximum stair stringer incline of 45 degrees. New MAXIMUM tread nose-nose dimension of 9 1/2".

Please note that is a "v" (as in Violin) not a "y".

 

[mcdermott2]

Thanks, winelandv!

Regarding your "it's been like this for 5 years and hasn't changed so I'll assume that the code as written is what OSHA wants" comment. I'd be careful there -- the "final rules" as we now know them were first written/submitted in 1990 and didn't get final approval until 2017, so I think things just move slowly in OSHA world.

To me, I'm fairly certain that the OSHA Table D-2 contains an error based on the following:
-The OSHA FAQ for a period indicated there was an error that would be fixed with a published notice
-I've received official confirmation from OSHA that they still plan to fix the error in a published notice (even though they removed that point from the FAQ)
-It doesn't make sense that for a stair with one open side that you need a stair rail with handrail on the open side, but for a stair with two open sides you only need a stair rail on the open sides (as would be the case if Table D-2 is correct as written on the OSHA website (

https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.28)

-And then a breakthrough this morning -- I also found this link today (I did a google search for 1910.28(b)(11)(ii) and clicked the first OSHA link, which after a few clicks led me to this link):

https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/federalregister/2021-05-20-0.

Check out the Table D-2 there.


So in summary, I believe the below is the correct table D-2 as intended by OSHA (this is a snippet from that link in my last bullet point above). But I will also be keeping my eye out from an official notice from OSHA confirming this - perhaps sometime in the 2030's!

 

[mcdermott2]

JLNJ - to address your issue with a handrail being installed in plane with the stair rail:

This is a tricky one, but the below is how I justify that in plane handrails are not allowed (other than the obvious ergonomic issues). It's similar to your sentiment, but with a couple of code / commentary sections that kind of help justify it (without explicitly stating the rail needs to be inboard of the stair rail):

OSHA 29 CFR states:
1910.29(f)(2)
Finger clearance. The minimum clearance between handrails and any other object is 2.25 inches (5.7 cm).


OSHA FINAL RULE states:

NFPA 101-18 states:

Regarding continuity of the rail along the stair (from NFPA 101-18):

So, basically, 1910.29(f)(2) indicates that you need 2.25 inches of clearance. This would be impossible if the rail was inline with the stairrail, as that finger clearance isn't achievable at post locations (as you mention, you'd have to lift your hand). NFPA 101-18 has a continuity clause that also backs this up (although this continuity clause is a little dubious - if you wanted to play devil's advocate you could say that it just means you need a handrail for the full length of the stair, not that it needs to be "graspable" for that full length).

Then, the OSHA Final Rule (as well as NFPA 101-18 which is referenced frequently by OSHA) indicate that this finger clearance also needs to be offset from any wall - now a stairrail isn't exactly a "wall" but the intent is that the handrail needs to be offset so it can actually function as a handrail to prevent a fall (so you have to extrapolate "wall" to include "stair rail" for this one I suppose).

So, I do totally agree - OSHA is pretty sparse in how they describe that a hand rail should be offset, which I can totally see leading to issues like you describe. I also do think that the sparse wording does cover the scenario as I mention above (but could definitely benefit from more clear and precise language).

 

[mcdermott2]

Hi, All,

Take a look at the attachment to this post. Specifically the third column of page 27333. Looks like OSHA did indeed acknowledge the printing error!

For posterity, I'll re-write what is in the attachment (in case the attachment ever disappears):

Excerpt from Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 96 / Thursday, May 20, 2021 / Proposed Rules:
Existing 1910.28(b)(11)(ii) contains requirements for when handrails and stair rail systems must be present on certain flights of stairs. The provision refers to existing Table D-2, Stairway Handrail Requirements, which specifies handrail requirements based on the variables of stair width and how many sides of the stairway are open. Existing Table D-2 contains a formatting error that inadvertently omits several words from the table with two open sides and a width of less than 44 inches. A cell in the table currently contains the words "One stair rail system each open side," but OSHA intended the cell to state: "One stair rail system with handrail on each open side" OSHA is proposing to correct the cell to reflect the language that OSHA proposed in 2010 (see table 75 FR 29141) and intended to finalize, as discussed in the summary and explanation section of the 2016 final rule.

... OSHA recognizes that some employers may have already relied on the inadvertent error in existing Table D-2 when installing stair rail systems covered by this correction. It is not OSHA's intent for any stair rail system installed before the effective date of a new final rule to need modification, so long as that system was in compliance with OSHA requirements at the time it was installed. OSHA is therefore proposing two separate provisions for stairs with two open sides and a width of less than 44 inches: The corrected requirements for new handrails and stair rail systems (located in Table D-2), and a separate provision to retain the current requirements for already existing handrails and stair rail systems. Proposed 1910.28(b)(11)(ii) would address new stair rail systems through the corrected Table D-2. OSHA would add proposed 1910.28(b)(11)(iii) to maintain the existing requirements for flights of stairs less than 44" wide, with two open sides, and installed before the effective date of a final rule that would result from this rulemaking. Those stairways would be required to have a stair rail system on each open side, but would not need to include a handrail.