“SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainant,v.PACE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION,Respondent.OSHRC DOCKET NO. 85-1362_DECISION_Before: BUCKLEY, Chairman, and AREY, Commissioner.BY THE COMMISSION:The Secretary of Labor alleges that Pace Construction Corporationcommitted a serious violation of an OSHA safety standard governingpersonnel hoists used in construction work. According to the Secretary,Pace violated 29 C.F.R. ? 1926.552(c)(4) by failing to erect 6? foothigh doors at the hoistway entrances on the roof level of a buildingunder construction. We conclude that Pace violated the standard but thatthe violation should be classified as nonserious.Pace was the general contractor for the construction of an 18-storybuilding in Atlanta. The company erected a personnel hoist adjacent tothe building’s perimeter to carry workers to the building’s upperlevels. Until about two weeks before the alleged violation occurred, thehoist extended only to the level of the highest floor, but not to theroof level. However, reacting to subcontractor complaints that it wasdangerous for workers carrying tools and materials to climb ladders toreach the roof, Pace extended the hoist to the roof level for the use ofthose workers.Pace allegedly violated 29 C.F.R. ? 1926.552(c)(4), which provides:*? 1926.552 Material hoists, personnel hoists, and elevators.** * *(c) _Personnel hoists_.* * *(4) Hoistway doors or gates shall be not less than 6 feet 6 inches highand shall be provided with mechanical locks which cannot be operatedfrom the landing side, and shall be accessible only to persons on the car.On the floors below the roof, Pace had erected sturdy plywood doors, 6?feet high, at each location where a hoist car met the floor, that is, ateach \”entrance\” to the \”hoistway\” or \”hoistway shaft.\” However, on theroof level, Pace did not erect such doors. Instead, Pace erected gatesconsisting of single lengths of 2 x 4 Lumber set in notches about 3?feet high. These gates were located at gaps in fencing that Pace haderected around the roof perimeter to provide fall protection to theworkers on the roof. The OSHA compliance officer who inspected theworksite testified that the gates did not provide adequate fallprotection for workers on the roof.Before the administrative law judge, Pace contended that the standarddid not apply because the hoist was not used as a personnel hoist at theroof level. The judge, noting that the hoist was regularly used to carryworkers carrying tools and materials to the roof, rejected thisargument. We agree with the judge’s reasoning. Pace also argued thaterection of 6?foot doors on the roof would be infeasible because thehigh winds that existed on the worksite could blow the doors off theroof and endanger workers below. In rejecting this argument, the judgeobserved that doors containing large areas of fencing would alleviatethe problem that concerned Pace. We agree, and note that the standardspecifically permits doors of that construction.[[1\/]] We thereforeaffirm the judge’s finding that Pace violated the cited standard.Pace argues that a 6? foot high door on the roof of a building would bean \”unnecessary, superfluous appendage.\” We cannot decline to enforce astandard because we believe it imposes an unnecessary requirement. Wenote, however, that the record demonstrates confusion over the purposeof the standard that is at issue here. Our examination of the standard’shistory reveals that the confusion arises from an apparent mistake thatoccurred when the standard was promulgated.The OSHA compliance officer who inspected Pace’s worksite was concernedthat the 2 x 4’s Pace was using as hoistway gates did not provideadequate fall protection to employees on the roof. The complianceofficer noted that the gates were about the height of the top rail of astandard railing, but believed the fall protection was inadequatebecause the gates lacked the midrails required of standardrailings.[[2\/]] Thus, the compliance officer did not state that a 6?foot high barrier was necessary to provide fall protection; the onlyconcern he expressed was based on the absence of midrails.The compliance officer’s testimony suggests that a 6?foot high barrieron the roof is not needed for fall protection. In seeking to determinewhat purpose it would serve, we have examined the history of thestandard. Our examination reveals that the doors were originally meantto be openings in a full-height barrier separating the hoistway from thebuilding. When closed, the doors would be part of the barrier; whenopen, they would provide access to and from the hoist. The 6? footheight requirement was to provide adequate clearance for employeesentering and leaving the hoist cars, not to provide a 6? foot highbarrier for fall protection.The standards for personnel hoists were first promulgated by theSecretary under the Construction Safety Act, 40 U.S.C. ? 333. They wereadopted as OSHA standards under 29 U.S.C. ? 655(a), which gave theSecretary the authority to summarily adopt established federal standardsas OSHA standards within two years of the Occupational Safety and HealthAct’s effective date.The Secretary, in drafting the standard for promulgation under theConstruction Safety Act, used as a model a voluntary standard adopted in1963 by the American National Standards Institute (\”ANSI\”). The ANSIstandard, A10.4-1963, \”Safety Requirements for Workmen’s Hoists,\”[[3\/]]contained the following provision:*4-4. Hoistway Door and Door Locking Devices**4-4.1 Height, Material, and Installation.* Hoistway doors shall be notless than 6 ft. 6 in. high . . . .*4-4.2 Door Locking Devices.* Landing doors shall be provided with anyof the locking devices specified in Part I, Section 111 of AmericanNational StandardA17.1-1960, or they may be provided with any means that will lock thedoors mechanically so that they cannot be opened from the landing side.Locking devices shall be so located as to be inaccessible from outsidethe hoistway. . . .This section obviously served as the model for section 1926.552(c)(4),the standard Pace allegedly violated. The ANSI standard also contained arequirement for hoistway enclosures.4-3.2 Hoistway Enclosures. Hoistways shall. be enclosed throughout theirheight.EXCEPTION. For towers located outside a building, the enclosures, exceptthose at the landing, may be omitted on the sides where there is nofloor or scaffold adjacent to the hoistway. Enclosures on the entranceand exit side of the hoistway shall be full height. Other enclosures,where required, shall be not less than 10 ft. high.The 1963 ANSI standard did not define \”hoistway\” or \”hoistwayenclosure,\” but definitions can be found in a later version of thestandard, ANSI A10.4-1975, \”Safety Requirements for Personnel Hoists.\”3.15 Hoistway. A temporary shaftway; the space traveled by the car.3.15.1 Hoistway Enclosure. The structure which isolates the hoistwayfrom all other parts of the building and on which the hoistway doors orgates, and door or gate assemblies are installed. (Emphasis added.)Thus, as envisioned by the ANSI standard, a personnel hoist locatedoutside a building would have a barrier at the perimeter of the buildingto isolate the hoistway from the building. This barrier would contain 6?foot high doors to permit access to and from the cars.When drafting the Construction Safety Act standards, the Secretary keptthe requirement for 6? foot doors but omitted the requirement for thehoistway enclosures the doors were supposed to be installed in. This wasevidently inadvertent. The Secretary included the following provision:? 1926.552 Material hoists, personnel hoists, and elevators.(C) Personnel hoists.(1) Hoist towers outside the structure shall be enclosed for the fullheight on the side or sides used for entrance and exit to the structure.At the lowest landing, the enclosure on the sides not used for exit orentrance to the structure shall be enclosed to a height of at least 10feet . . . .This provision, which requires the enclosure of hoist towers is similarto the ANSI provision requiring enclosure of hoistways,and wasapparently intended to accomplish the same purpose as the ANSIrequirement for hoistway enclosures. However, a hoist tower is not ahoistway. The 1975 version of the ANSI standard, which contained thedefinitions of \”hoistway\” and \”hoistway enclosure\” quoted earlier,contains the following definition of \”tower.\”3.35 Tower. A vertical structure which supports and guides the car (andthe counterweight and overhead when used) within the tower structure.Thus, the ANSI standard required hoistway enclosures, with doors in theenclosures to permit access to and from the hoist cars. The OSHAstandard requires tower enclosures, but no hoistway enclosures. It does,however, retain the ANSI requirement for hoistway doors even though itdoes not require the hoistway enclosures ANSI intended for the doors tobe installed in.[[4\/]]The hoistway enclosures with installed doors or gates, as envisioned bythe ANSI standard, serve two important safety purposes. First, theyprevent people working or walking on the floor where the hoistwayentrance is located from falling into the opening to the bottom of theshaft. This is the hazard that concerned the compliance officer in thiscase. However, if that were the only hazard presented at the entrance tothe hoistway, it is not evident why the gates Pace had erected would nothave been sufficient to eliminate the hazard. Those gates substantiallycomplied with OSHA’s requirements for material hoist gates,[[5\/]] andthere is no apparent reason why the hazard of falling through theentranceway to a personnel hoist is different than the hazard of fallingthrough the entranceway to a material hoist.The second purpose the hoistway enclosure serves is to protect theemployees who ride the hoist by preventing tools, materials, and debrisfrom falling into the hoistway shaft and striking employees while theyare entering, leaving, or riding the hoist at lower levels.[[6\/]] Evenif the hoistway is not totally enclosed, doors or gates at the hoistwayentrances will prevent objects from falling into the shaft andendangering employees below. Exhibit C-3 in this case is a photographshowing the sturdy plywood doors Pace erected at the hoistway entranceson all of the floors except the roof, and those doors would protectagainst objects falling into the hoistway shaft almost as well as a fullenclosure.[[7\/]]They would also, of course, provide fall protection toemployees working on the floors where the doors are located.Thus, the requirement for 6? foot high doors or gates at each hoistwayentrance serves the same safety purposes, albeit not to the same extent,as the full hoistway enclosures that the ANSI standard required but thatthe OSHA standard does not require. Pace violated section 1926.552(c)(4)by failing to erect such doors or gates at the hoistway entrances on theroof. We conclude, however, that the violation was not proven to beserious as alleged. The only hazard discussed at the hearing was thehazard of falling off of the roof edge into the hoistway shaft. As wehave noted, Pace’s bar gates substantially conformed to the standard formaterial hoist gates and would apparently have been adequate to protectagainst that hazard. We also note that Pace provided perimeterprotection around the entire roof even though there is no generalrequirement for such protection.[[8\/]] The absence of 6? foot high doorsdid present a potential hazard to employees riding the personnel hoist,but the compliance officer did not discuss this hazard, and there is noevidence in the record that would allow us to independently assess thescope or degree of this hazard.[[9\/]] Since the Secretary failed toestablish the gravity of the violation, we classify the violation asnonserious and assess no penalty.The violation we have just affirmed was alleged as item 1a of theserious citation. Item 1b alleged violation of another standard, 29C.F.R. ? 1926.500(d)(2).The judge affirmed both items as serious and assessed a combined penaltyof $200. Pace has not taken exception to the judge’s affirmance of item1b. We therefore affirm item 1b as a serious violation, and assess apenalty of $100, half of the combined penalty assessed by the judge. Weaffirm item 1a, the section 1926.552(c)(4) item, as a nonseriousviolation and assess no penalty for that item.FOR THE COMMISSIONDATED: April 27, 1989————————————————————————SECRETARY OF LABOR Complainant, v. PACE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION,Respondent.OSHRC Docket No. 85-1362APPEARANCES: Larry A. Auerbach, Esquire, Office of the Solicitor, U. S.Department of Labor, Atlanta, Georgia, on behalf of complainant.R. Daniel Douglass, Esquire, and J. D. Humphries, III, Esquire, Varner,Stephens, Wingfield, McIntyre and Humphries, Atlanta, Georgia, on behalfof respondent.DECISION AND ORDERSPARKS, Judge: An inspection was conducted of the construction site of a19-story[[1\/]] building where respondent was the general contractor todetermine compliance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act.Respondent contested a serious citation charging it with violating 29C.F.R. ? 1926.552(c)(4)[[2\/]] and 29 C.F.R. ? 1926.500(d)(2).[[3\/]] Thecitation alleges that the personnel hoist had an inadequate gate at theroof level and the hoist runway lacked standard railings at the sameRespondent has raised several defenses to the charges. At the conclusionof the hearing, the parties were invited to submit briefs, and proposedfindings of fact and conclusions of law.IFINDINGS OF FACTDuring the period October 15 through October 18, 1985, complianceofficer Jonathan Worrell conducted an inspection of the constructionproject at 1000 Abernathy Road, Atlanta, Georgia, known as the NorthPark Project (Ex. C- 4; Tr. 8, 44-45).2. Respondent was the general contractor on the project at the time ofthe inspection.3. During the course of the inspection, the compliance officer inspectedeach level of a building being constructed at the site, consisting of 19floor levels and a roof level, and was accompanied by respondent’s jobsuperintendent. and safety director (Tr. 23-25).4. During the inspection of the above building, the compliance officerused a hoist on the outside of the building to gain access to the rooflevel of the building. At the roof level, the hoist was approximately 15to 18 inches from the edge of the building, and at lower floor levelsthe hoist was approximately 2 feet from the edge of the building (Tr.26, 48, 72).5. A three-foot let-down ramp extended from the hoist and overlapped theedge of the building at the roof level. The ramp did not have standardrailings or other similar fall protection. A hoistway gate wasconstructed in the perimeter protection around the roof (Tr. 97-28,47-50, 71).6. The gate in the perimeter protection at the roof level consisted of asingle 2-x-4-inch lumber bar with bracing, and notch-type bracing oneither end of the gate to hold it in place. The bar was sturdilyconstructed and capable of withstanding the weight of a 200-poundperson. The gate had to be lifted out of the notch-type bracing to beopened. But, as the gate did not have a midrail or other interiorprotection such as safety fence, a person could fall through the gate(Ex. C-1, C-2; Tr. 50, 74).7. Perimeter protection consisting of three to three and a half foothigh safety fence surrounded the perimeter of the roof, recessed fromthe edge of the roof (Ex. C-1, C-2; Tr. 50, 72).8. The hoist was used only for the lower 19 floor levels of the buildinguntil two weeks prior to the inspection, at which time the hoist wasextended to the roof level of the building at the request of certainsubcontractors to provide a means of carrying materials and tools to theroof level. The gate in the roof level perimeter protection wasconstructed after the hoist was extended to the roof, and prior to thattime, there existed standard perimeter protection (Tr. 17, 53-56, 73-74).9. The regular access to the roof of the building by employees was byladder access from the lower floor level, both before and after thehoist was extended to the roof. Hoist operators were instructed to letoff employees at the floor level below the roof, and only the hoistmanand persons carrying hand tools and small materials were permitted toride the hoist, to the roof level (Tr. 17, 55, 58, 64-65, 75).10. Workers carrying hand tools or small materials to the roof wererequired to use the hoist as it was a violation of company policy to usethe ladder while carrying objects (Tr. 55-56, 57, 58, 64).11. At. the time of the inspection, no employees were performing work onthe roof within six feet of the perimeter protection or the hoist gate.The workers on the roof were approximately 30 feet from the edge of thebuilding Tr. 30, 51, 71).12. The hoist was used as a personnel hoist on the lower floor levels ofthe building, and every hoist entrance on every lower floor levelcomplied with the cited OSHA standards (Ex. C-3; Tr. 25-26, 52-53, 70-71).13. Following the inspection of the roof level and prior to thecompliance officer leaving the site, respondent erected asix-and-a-half-foot plywood door and guardrails at the roof levelhoistway entrance as an abatement measure for the alleged violation (Tr.60-61, 75-76).14. The roof of the building has experienced winds strong enough to haltwork on occasion and strong enough so that plywood doors could be blowndown (Tr. 59-60, 78).15. Respondent and its safety director were aware of the change topermit the hoist to go to the roof and visited the roof twice betweenthe time the change was made and the inspection (Tr. 62-63, 65, 66).16. A fall from the roof would result in death or serious injury.IIThe burden of proof is upon the Secretary of Labor, Astra PharmaceuticalProducts, Inc., 82 OSAHRC 55\/E9, 9 BNA OSHC 2126, 1981 CCH OSHD ? 25,578(No. 78-6247, 1979).The first issue is whether the hoist was a personnel or material hoistbecause, if it was the latter as contended by respondent, there were noviolations.Although the normal means of entrance to the roof for employees was by aladder, employees carrying small tools and small materials were requiredto use the hoist. In fact, it was a violation of Pace’s rule for aperson carrying such items to use the ladder. In addition, the hoistoperator regularly rode the hoist and at times delivered materials.The Policy of permitting or requiring employees carrying tools ormaterials to ride the hoist from the 19th floor to the roof is in directconflict with OSHA standards for the operation of material hoists.Section 1926.552(b)(1)(i) requires posting of a notice on the hoist carthat \”No Riders Allowed.\” Section 1926.552(b)(1)(ii) provides as follows:No person shall be allowed to ride on material hoists except for thepurposes of inspection and maintenance.It is clear that respondent’s hoist was not a material hoist asenvisioned in OSHA standards. Because the hoistman and employees werepermitted to ride to the roof level, respondent was required to meet thestandard relating to personnel hoists at that level.Respondent contends that the erection of a hoistway door or gate sixfeet, six inches, high would create a greater hazard because the doorwould be subject to being blown off the building by high winds whichhave buffeted the building at times. The affirmative defense of greaterhazard requires respondent to establish the following elements:In order to establish a greater hazard defense, the employer must provethat (1) the hazards created by compliance with the requirements of thecited standard are greater than those resulting from noncompliance, (2)alternative means of protecting employees are unavailable, and (3) avariance application under section 6(d) of the Act would be inappropriate.M. J. Lee Construction Co., 79 OSAHRC 12\/A2, 7 BNA OSHC 1140, 1144, 1979CCH OSHD ? 23,330 at p. 28,227 (No. 15094, 1979); Marion Power ShovelCo., 80 OSAHRC 110\/A2, 8 BNA OSHC 2244, 1980 CCH OSHD ? 24,915 at p.30,730 (No. 76-4114, 1980).Respondent’s contention is bottomed on the premise that the standardrequires the erection of plywood doors with a large flat surface, as onthe floors below, which cannot be adequately anchored on the upper sideat the roof level (Ex. C-3). Respondent chose to erect a large plywooddoor, but the standard does not require such a door. No reason isadvanced why a gate or door containing large areas of fencing would failto meet the requirements of the standard. A gate of that design wouldnot be subject to the force of the high wind and the hazard described byrespondent would not be present. Accordingly, respondent’s claimeddefense that compliance with the standard would create a greater hazardwas not established.Respondent suggests the Secretary did not prove that it had knowledge ofthe conditions. The Secretary must prove that Pace knew or could haveknown with the exercise of reasonable diligence of the noncomplyingcondition. General Electric Co., 81 OSAHRC 42\/A2, 9 BNA OSHC 1722, 1981CCH OSHD ? 25,345 (No. 13732, 1981); Dunlop v. Rockwell International,540 F.2d 1283 (6th Cir. 1976); Brennan v. OSHRC (Alsea Lumber Co.), 511F.2d 1139 (9th Cir. 1975); Prestressed Systems, Inc., 81 OSAHRC, 43\/D5,9 BNA OSHC 1864, 1981 CCH OSHD ? 25,358 (No. 16147, 1981); ScheelConstruction Co., 76 OSAHRC 138\/86, 4 BNA OSHC 1825, 1976-77 CCH OSHD ?21,263 (No. 8687, 1976). It is not necessary that respondent realizethat the conditions are in violation of a standard but only that it knowof the operative circumstances. The evidence shows that Pace’smanagement called in the rigging subcontractor to make the change in thehoist so that it could take employees with small tools and materials tothe roof level. The change in the perimeter guarding, by removing theregular fencing and installing a gate, was performed by Pace employees.Respondent’s safety director was on the roof twice during the two-weekperiod between the time the hoist limit was changed and the inspection(Tr. 62-63). It is clear that respondent’s management was aware of theconditions and indeed had created them.Lastly, respondent contends that employees were not exposed to a directand immediate risk of death or serious bodily injury. Respondentcontends that there was no evidence to show that the hoist was ever usedas a personnel hoist. The evidence is irrefutable that employeescarrying tools and materials used the hoist and was the reason the hoistwas extended to the roof level (Tr. 62-65). The fact that employees werecarrying tools or materials does not make the hoist a material ratherthan a personnel hoist. Pace further contends that the gate and rampwaypresent at the time were adequate protection and prevented exposure ofemployees to any significant risk of death or serious bodily injury. Afall from the roof would almost certainly result in death or seriousbodily injury, and, if no protection were present, the hazard would beobvious. Respondent contends the gate on the roof was substantial andcould withstand the force of a 200-pound man. Although lacking a lock ofthe type specified for personnel doors, the gate was recessed into agrove which required intentional action to move. However, as shown inexhibits C-1 and C-2, there was no \”gate\” at the roof other than thesingle 2-x-4-inch piece of lumber. A person could easily fall under therailing as there was no fencing or midrail to prevent such falls. Aperson is clearly subject to a fall hazard at the gate. Pace also notesthat, although the three-foot runway which bridged the distance betweenthe hoist car and the roof was not equipped with a side rail, thedistance between the car and edge of the roof was only 15 to 18 incheswhich would be easily crossed in one step. However, there was noprotection to prevent a fall from the side of the runway as would beafforded by the standard railings.Having concluded that the hoist was for personnel, respondent clearlyhad not complied with the requirements at 29 C.F.R. ? 1926.552(c)(4) and29 C.F.R. ? 1926-550(d)(2). The measures taken by respondent by erectingthe single 2-x-4-inch board and the runway (without standard railings)do provide some measure of protection and are better than nothing, theydo not comply with the standards nor provide protection equivalent tothat required by the standards.Employees were exposed to hazards of death or serious injury and,therefore, the violations were serious. The gate consisting of thesingle piece of 2-x-4-inch lumber would allow a person to fall throughthe opening below the 2-x-4 as it had neither fencing material or amidrail to prevent such a fall.Although the runway between the hoist and roof floor covered an openingof 15 to 18 inches, no protection of any type was afforded for the sidesof the runway which would also permit a fall. If such an accidentoccurred, death or serious injury would result. Accordingly, respondentwas in serious violation of the standards as alleged.The record is convincing that the violations were not the result ofintentional actions or unconcern. Pace has a good safety program and isa safety-conscious employer (Tr. 19-20, 22). In this instance, it erredby considering the hoist a material rather than a personnel hoist anderecting protection accordingly.Considering the gravity of the violations and giving particular weightto the good faith and history of the respondent, a penalty of $200 isreasonable and appropriate.CONCLUSIONS OF LAW1. Respondent is an employer subject to the Act and this proceeding.2. Respondent violated 29 C.F.R. ? 1926.552(c)(4) and 29 C.F.R. ?1926.500(d)(2) under conditions constituting serious violations.ORDER It is ORDERED:1. Items 1a and 1b of the serious citation are affirmed.2. Penalties of $200 are assessed.Dated this 21st day of July, 1986.JOE D. SPARKS JudgeFOOTNOTES:[[1\/]] Section 1926.552(c)(16) provides that materials and componentsfor personnel hoists must meet the specifications of American NationalStandard A10.4-1963, \”Safety Requirements for Workmen’s Hoists.\”Sections 4-3.2.1 and 4-4.1 of A10.4-1963 provide that hoistway doors maybe constructed of openwork material meeting certain specifications.[[2\/]]The specifications for standard railings are found at 29 C.F.R. ?1926.500(f). A standard railings consists of a toprail about 42 incheshigh, a midrail, and a toeboard. The railings must meet certainspecifications for materials and strength.[[3\/]] The Secretary’s brief states that this ANSI standard was thesource of the present OSHA standards.[[4\/]] We note that both the Secretary and Pace apparently agree thatthe OSHA standards for personnel hoists do not require construction of ahoistway enclosure. Pace did not enclose the hoistway along the side ofthe building, and the Secretary did not cite Pace for failing to enclosethe hoistway.[[5\/]] Section 1926.552 is captioned \”Material hoists, personnel hoists,and elevators.\” Subsection (b) of this section governs \”material hoists\”while subsection (c) governs \”personnel hoists.\” The standard cited inthis case is contained in section 1926.552(c). Its counterpart insubsection (b) provides as follows:(b) _Material hoists_.* * *(2) All entrances of the hoistways shall be protected by substantialgates or bars which shall guard the full width of the landing entrance.All hoistway entrance bars and gates shall be painted with diagonalcontrasting colors, such as black and yellow stripes.(1) Bars shall not be less than 2- by 4-inch wooden bars or theequivalent located 2 feet from the hoistway line. Bars shall be locatednot less than 36 inches nor more than 42 inches above the floor.Pace contends that its hoistway gates complied with the requirements formaterial hoists. The testimony and photographic evidence suggests thatthis is substantially true, except that the photographs indicate thatthe bars were not painted with diagonal contrasting colors.[[6\/]] Material hoists do not require similar protection. Section1926.552(b)(1)(ii) provides: \”No person shall be allowed to ride onmaterial hoists except for the purposes of inspection and maintenance.\”Thus, instances in which employees ride material hoists are rare.[[7\/]] Similarly, a door or gate containing large areas of fencing, asdiscussed in the judge’s decision, would prevent objects from fallinginto the hoistway shaft.[[8\/]] The standard requiring perimeter guardrails for open-sided floorsand platforms, 29 C.F.R. ? 1926.500(d)(1), does not apply to flat roofs._Central City Roofing Co._, 76 OSAHRC 61\/A2, 4 BNA OSHC 1286, 1976-77CCH OSHD ? 20,761 (No. 8173, 1976). Perimeter protection during built-uproofing work is required by 29 C.F.R. ? 1926.500(g), but there is noindication that such work was being performed at Pace’s worksite.[[9\/]] For example, there is no evidence on the size or extent of tools,materials or debris that were in use or present on the roof. Thus, wecannot find that such objects were close enough to the hoistway to fallinto the shafts.[[1\/]] There was some confusion regarding the number of floors in thebuilding. There were 18 floor levels plus the roof; but as there was no13th floor, they are numbered 1 through 19 (Tr. 70).[[2\/]] Section 1926.552(c)(4) of 29 C.F.R. states as follows:Hoistway doors or gates shall be not less than 6 feet 6 inches high andshall be provided with mechanical locks which cannot be operated fromthe landing side, and shall be accessible only to persons on the car.[[3\/]] Section 1926.500(d)(2) of 29 C.F.R. provides as follows:Runways shall be guarded by a standard railing, or the equivalent, asspecified in Paragraph (f) of this section, on all open sides, 4 feet ormore above floor or ground level. Wherever tools machine parts, ormaterials are likely to be used on the runway, a toeboard shall also beprovided on each exposed side.”