29 C.F.R. § 1910.27

Scaffolds and rope descent systems

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Scaffolds. Scaffolds used in general industry must meet the requirements in 29 CFR part 1926, subpart L (Scaffolds).

(b) Rope descent systems—(1) Anchorages. (i) Before any rope descent system is used, the building owner must inform the employer, in writing that the building owner has identified, tested, certified, and maintained each anchorage so it is capable of supporting at least 5,000 pounds (2,268 kg), in any direction, for each employee attached. The information must be based on an annual inspection by a qualified person and certification of each anchorage by a qualified person, as necessary, and at least every 10 years.

(ii) The employer must ensure that no employee uses any anchorage before the employer has obtained written information from the building owner that each anchorage meets the requirements of paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section. The employer must keep the information for the duration of the job.

(iii) The requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section must be implemented no later than November 20, 2017.

(2) Use of rope descent systems. The employer must ensure:

(i) No rope descent system is used for heights greater than 300 feet (91 m) above grade unless the employer demonstrates that it is not feasible to access such heights by any other means or that those means pose a greater hazard than using a rope descent system;

(ii) The rope descent system is used in accordance with instructions, warnings, and design limitations set by the manufacturer or under the direction of a qualified person;

(iii) Each employee who uses the rope descent system is trained in accordance with § 1910.30;

(iv) The rope descent system is inspected at the start of each workshift that it is to be used. The employer must ensure damaged or defective equipment is removed from service immediately and replaced;

(v) The rope descent system has proper rigging, including anchorages and tiebacks, with particular emphasis on providing tiebacks when counterweights, cornice hooks, or similar non-permanent anchorages are used;

(vi) Each employee uses a separate, independent personal fall arrest system that meets the requirements of subpart I of this part;

(vii) All components of each rope descent system, except seat boards, are capable of sustaining a minimum rated load of 5,000 pounds (22.2 kN). Seat boards must be capable of supporting a live load of 300 pounds (136 kg);

(viii) Prompt rescue of each employee is provided in the event of a fall;

(ix) The ropes of each rope descent system are effectively padded or otherwise protected, where they can contact edges of the building, anchorage, obstructions, or other surfaces, to prevent them from being cut or weakened;

(x) Stabilization is provided at the specific work location when descents are greater than 130 feet (39.6 m);

(xi) No employee uses a rope descent system when hazardous weather conditions, such as storms or gusty or excessive wind, are present;

(xii) Equipment, such as tools, squeegees, or buckets, is secured by a tool lanyard or similar method to prevent it from falling; and

(xiii) The ropes of each rope descent system are protected from exposure to open flames, hot work, corrosive chemicals, and other destructive conditions.

[81 FR 82981, Nov. 18, 2016, as amended at 84 FR 68796, Dec. 17, 2019]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 15 cases, 1978–2015 · leading case: Carroll v. Georgia Power Co., 523 S.E.2d 896 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Carroll v. Georgia Power Co., 523 S.E.2d 896 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 3× “The section he cited, 29 CFR § 1910.27 , does not require cages on vertical ladders, but rather refers to the different clearances required when a vertical ladder has a cage and when it does not.”

Keller v. United States, 38 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 1994). “, or at least on safety standards not intended for applications distinctively maritime in nature: Department of Defense Military Standard Human Engineering Design Criteria for Military Systems, Equipment and Facilities, MIL-STD-1472 (1970); American National Standards…”

Mammoccio v. 1818 Mkt. P'ship, 734 A.2d 23 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999). · cites it 2× “One of those regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.27 (f), provides: “All ladders shall be maintained in a safe condition.”

Bean v. CSX Transp., 289 F. Supp. 2d 277 (N.D.N.Y. 2003). · cites it 2× “CSX contends that the Court erred when it (1) permitted Bean to offer evidence that the boom truck ladder violated the OSHA safety standards, and (2) precluded the jury from considering evidence that the boom truck ladder complied with the US-DOT safety standards.”

Callahan v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 979 A.2d 866 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009). “29 C.F.R. § 1910.27 (b). Amtrak asserts that the catenary pole is not a “ladder” and, thus, the requirements in Section 1910.”

Fairchild v. Servidone Constr. Corp., 288 A.D.2d 665 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). “5 and violations of 29 CFR 1910.27 and 1926.1053, but plaintiffs do not address those allegations on appeal and, therefore, have abandoned such claims (see, Matter of Federation of Mental Health Ctrs.”

Quality Stamping Prods. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n Sec'y of Labor United States Dep't of Labor, 709 F.2d 1093 (6th Cir. 1983). “The evidence supported the conclusion that petitioner had not adhered to the requirements of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.27 (c)(l)(i).”

Ellis v. Chase Commc'ns, Inc., 63 F.3d 473 (6th Cir. 1995). “§ 654 (a)(2), set forth at 29 C.F.R. § 1910.27 (c)(4), governing ladder specifications.”

Bowles v. Litton Indus., Inc., 518 So. 2d 1070 (La. Ct. App. 1987). “ANSI standards promulgated by the American National Safety Institute and general industry regulation 29 CFR 1910.27(b)(ii) promulgated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration suggest a rung spacing of no greater than twelve inches on center and a distance of sixteen…”

Steiner v. Beaver State Scaffolding Equip. Co., 777 P.2d 965 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). “See OAR 437-88-110(2); 29 CFR 1910.27 (b)(ii). After the jury had heard that theory, the trial court rejected it as a matter of law.”

Canipe v. Nat'l Loss Control Serv. Corp., 566 F. Supp. 521 (N.D. Miss. 1983). “25 (portable wood ladders); 29 C.F.R. § 1910.27 (fixed ladders); 29 C.”

Bean v. CSX Transp., Inc., 111 F. App'x 636 (2d Cir. 2004). “, preempt the Occupational Safety and Health regulations codified at 29 C.F.R. § 1910.27 . For the reasons substantially stated by the district court, we conclude that there is no preemption.”

Show all 15 citing cases →

— 29 C.F.R. § 1910.27(b)(ii) — 1 case

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.