Back to Federal guidance

Precast concrete fall protection safety plans

Summary A steel erection company asked whether OSHA had approved the sample precast concrete fall protection plan for use at every site. OSHA said contractors had to check its fit to site hazards and described when the greater-hazard rationale could support a plan.
Document
Federal opinion letter
Agency
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Document number
1995-03-23
Date issued
March 23, 1995
Status
Active
Status last verified October 9, 2026

Apply this to your situation

This page explains the general guidance. Ask about your specific situation and see what current federal labor law says, with citations.

About this page: The full text below is the official document from Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Ezel adds the plain-English summary and tracks the document's status. The official source linked on this page is authoritative for any reliance.

March 23, 1995
Mr. Philip Torchio V.P., Corporate Services
Atlanta Steel Erectors, Inc.
[Recipient address omitted]
Dear Mr. Torchio:
Thank you for your letter dated January 20 concerning safety plans as set forth in Subpart M -- Fall Protection for the Construction Industry.
The sample pre-cast concrete erection safety plan listed in Appendix E of Subpart M is a generic type plan that has the potential of being applied to every worksite. However, it should never be used without the contractor first reviewing it in its entirety to confirm that it properly addresses the fall hazards at a given worksite. Although I did briefly review the plan used in Appendix E, I did so with an eye towards the concept of using such a plan to address fall hazards; I did not intend to "approve" the plan for use without further site specific concerns being addressed. As you recognize in your letter, plans will be evaluated, as appropriate, by OSHA field staff; I will not be reviewing plans personally.
The concept of "greater hazard" centers on whether or not compliance with a standard would result in greater hazards to employees than noncompliance. In addition, there must be no alternative means of employee protection and application of a variance would be inappropriate. The answers to these questions are often site dependent. With these concepts in mind, the sample plans in Subpart M have been evaluated and accepted as meeting the requirements of the greater hazard concept in a generic sense and specifically for those activities identified in the sample plans. They must still be reviewed by the contractor to confirm their applicability. As more plans are developed to address fall protection concerns, it is our intention to include additional acceptable plans in Appendix E.
Thank you for your interest in these matters.
Sincerely,
Joseph A. Dear
Assistant Secretary
Enclosure

[Requester letter reproduced on OSHA page; omitted here.]

What does federal law require in your situation?

Ezel checks current federal labor law against your facts and answers with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace