“Docket No. 85-1362 SECRETARY OF LABOR, Complainant, v. PACE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Respondent.OSHRC DOCKET NO. 85-1362DECISIONBefore: BUCKLEY, Chairman, and AREY, Commissioner. BY THE COMMISSION:The Secretary of Labor alleges that Pace Construction Corporation committed a seriousviolation of an OSHA safety standard governing personnel hoists used in construction work.According to the Secretary, Pace violated 29 C.F.R. ? 1926.552(c)(4) by failing to erect6? foot high doors at the hoistway entrances on the roof level of a building underconstruction. We conclude that Pace violated the standard but that the violation should beclassified as nonserious.Pace was the general contractor for the constructionof an 18-story building in Atlanta. The company erected a personnel hoist adjacent to thebuilding’s perimeter to carry workers to the building’s upper levels. Until about twoweeks before the alleged violation occurred, the hoist extended only to the level of thehighest floor, but not to the roof level. However, reacting to subcontractor complaintsthat it was dangerous for workers carrying tools and materials to climb ladders to reachthe roof, Pace extended the hoist to the roof level for the use of those workers.Pace allegedly violated 29 C.F.R. ? 1926.552(c)(4),which provides:? 1926.552 Material hoists, personnel hoists, and elevators.*\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *(c) Personnel hoists.*\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *(4) Hoistway doors or gates shall be not less than 6 feet 6 inches high and shall beprovided with mechanical locks which cannot be operated from the landing side, and shallbe 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, at each \”entrance\” tothe \”hoistway\” or \”hoistway shaft.\” However, on the roof level, Pacedid not erect such doors. Instead, Pace erected gates consisting of single lengths of 2 x4 Lumber set in notches about 3? feet high. These gates were located at gaps in fencingthat Pace had erected around the roof perimeter to provide fall protection to the workerson the roof. The OSHA compliance officer who inspected the worksite testified that thegates did not provide adequate fall protection for workers on the roof.Before the administrative law judge, Pace contendedthat the standard did 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 carry workers carryingtools and materials to the roof, rejected this argument. We agree with the judge’sreasoning. Pace also argued that erection of 6? foot doors on the roof wouldbe infeasible because the high winds that existed on the worksite could blow the doors offthe roof and endanger workers below. In rejecting this argument, the judge observed thatdoors containing large areas of fencing would alleviate the problem that concerned Pace.We agree, and note that the standard specifically permits doors of thatconstruction.[[1\/]] We therefore affirm the judge’s finding that Pace violated the citedstandard.Pace argues that a 6? foot high door on the roof ofa building would be an \”unnecessary, superfluous appendage.\” We cannot declineto enforce a standard because we believe it imposes an unnecessary requirement. We note,however, that the record demonstrates confusion over the purpose of the standard that isat issue here. Our examination of the standard’s history reveals that the confusion arisesfrom an apparent mistake that occurred when the standard was promulgated.The OSHA compliance officer who inspected Pace’sworksite was concerned that the 2 x 4’s Pace was using as hoistway gates did not provideadequate fall protection to employees on the roof. The compliance officer noted that thegates were about the height of the top rail of a standard railing, but believed the fallprotection was inadequate because the gates lacked the midrails required of standardrailings.[[2\/]] Thus, the compliance officer did not state that a 6? foot high barrierwas necessary to provide fall protection; the only concern he expressed was based on theabsence of midrails.The compliance officer’s testimony suggests that a 6?foot high barrier on the roof is not needed for fall protection. In seeking to determinewhat purpose it would serve, we have examined the history of the standard. Our examinationreveals that the doors were originally meant to be openings in a full-height barrierseparating the hoistway from the building. When closed, the doors would be part of thebarrier; when open, they would provide access to and from the hoist. The 6? foot heightrequirement was to provide adequate clearance for employees entering and leaving the hoistcars, not to provide a 6? foot high barrier for fall protection.The standards for personnel hoists were firstpromulgated by the Secretary under the Construction Safety Act, 40 U.S.C. ? 333. Theywere adopted as OSHA standards under 29 U.S.C. ? 655(a), which gave the Secretary theauthority to summarily adopt established federal standards as OSHA standards within twoyears of the Occupational Safety and Health Act’s effective date.The Secretary, in drafting the standard forpromulgation under the Construction Safety Act, used as a model a voluntary standardadopted in 1963 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 Devices4-4.1 Height, Material, and Installation.Hoistway doors shall be not less than 6 ft. 6 in. high . . . .4-4.2 Door Locking Devices. Landingdoors shall be provided with any of the locking devices specified in Part I, Section 111of American National StandardA17.1-1960, or they may be provided with any meansthat will lock the doors mechanically so that they cannot be opened from the landing side.Locking devices shall be so located as to be inaccessible from outside the hoistway. . . .This section obviously served as the model forsection 1926.552(c)(4), the standard Pace allegedly violated. The ANSI standard alsocontained a requirement for hoistway enclosures.4-3.2 Hoistway Enclosures. Hoistways shall. beenclosed throughout their height. EXCEPTION. For towers located outside a building, the enclosures, except those at thelanding, may be omitted on the sides where there is no floor or scaffold adjacent to thehoistway. Enclosures on the entrance and 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 \”hoistway enclosure,\” but definitions can be found in alater version of the standard, ANSI A10.4-1975, \”Safety Requirements for PersonnelHoists.\”3.15 Hoistway. A temporary shaftway; the spacetraveled by the car.3.15.1 Hoistway Enclosure. The structure whichisolates the hoistway from all other parts of the building and on which the hoistway doorsor gates, and door or gate assemblies are installed. (Emphasis added.)Thus, as envisioned by the ANSI standard, a personnelhoist located outside a building would have a barrier at the perimeter of the building toisolate the hoistway from the building. This barrier would contain 6? foot high doors topermit access to and from the cars.When drafting the Construction Safety Act standards,the Secretary kept the requirement for 6? foot doors but omitted the requirement for thehoistway enclosures the doors were supposed to be installed in. This was evidentlyinadvertent. The Secretary included the following provision:? 1926.552 Material hoists, personnel hoists, andelevators.(C) Personnel hoists.(1) Hoist towers outside the structure shall beenclosed for the full height on the side or sides used for entrance and exit to thestructure. At the lowest landing, the enclosure on the sides not used for exit or entranceto the structure shall be enclosed to a height of at least 10 feet . . . .This provision, which requires the enclosure of hoisttowers is similar to the ANSI provision requiring enclosure of hoistways,and wasapparently intended to accomplish the same purpose as the ANSI requirement for hoistwayenclosures. However, a hoist tower is not a hoistway. The 1975 version of the ANSIstandard, which contained the definitions of \”hoistway\” and \”hoistwayenclosure\” quoted earlier, contains the following definition of \”tower.\”3.35 Tower. A vertical structure which supports andguides the car (and the counterweight and overhead when used) within the tower structure.Thus, the ANSI standard required hoistway enclosures,with doors in the enclosures to permit access to and from the hoist cars. The OSHAstandard requires tower enclosures, but no hoistway enclosures. It does, however, retainthe ANSI requirement for hoistway doors even though it does not require the hoistwayenclosures ANSI intended for the doors to be installed in.[[4\/]]The hoistway enclosures with installed doors orgates, as envisioned by the ANSI standard, serve two important safety purposes. First,they prevent people working or walking on the floor where the hoistway entrance is locatedfrom falling into the opening to the bottom of the shaft. This is the hazard thatconcerned the compliance officer in this case. However, if that were the only hazardpresented at the entrance to the hoistway, it is not evident why the gates Pace haderected would not have been sufficient to eliminate the hazard. Those gates substantiallycomplied with OSHA’s requirements for material hoist gates,[[5\/]] and there is no apparentreason why the hazard of falling through the entranceway to a personnel hoist is differentthan the hazard of falling through the entranceway to a material hoist.The second purpose the hoistway enclosure serves is to protect the employees who ride thehoist by preventing tools, materials, and debris from falling into the hoistway shaft andstriking employees while they are entering, leaving, or riding the hoist at lowerlevels.[[6\/]] Even if the hoistway is not totally enclosed, doors or gates at the hoistwayentrances will prevent objects from falling into the shaft and endangering employeesbelow. Exhibit C-3 in this case is a photograph showing the sturdy plywood doors Paceerected at the hoistway entrances on all of the floors except the roof, and those doorswould protect against objects falling into the hoistway shaft almost as well as a fullenclosure.[[7\/]]They would also, of course, provide fall protection to employees workingon the floors where the doors are located.Thus, the requirement for 6? foot high doors orgates at each hoistway entrance serves the same safety purposes, albeit not to the sameextent, as the full hoistway enclosures that the ANSI standard required but that the OSHAstandard does not require. Pace violated section 1926.552(c)(4) by failing to erect suchdoors or gates at the hoistway entrances on the roof. We conclude, however, that theviolation was not proven to be serious as alleged. The only hazard discussed at thehearing was the hazard of falling off of the roof edge into the hoistway shaft. As we havenoted, Pace’s bar gates substantially conformed to the standard for material hoist gatesand would apparently have been adequate to protect against that hazard. We also note thatPace provided perimeter protection around the entire roof even though there is no generalrequirement for such protection.[[8\/]] The absence of 6? foot high doors did present apotential hazard to employees riding the personnel hoist, but the compliance officer didnot discuss this hazard, and there is no evidence in the record that would allow us toindependently assess the scope or degree of this hazard.[[9\/]] Since the Secretary failedto establish the gravity of the violation, we classify the violation as nonserious andassess no penalty.The violation we have just affirmed was alleged asitem 1a of the serious citation. Item 1b alleged violation of another standard, 29 C.F.R.? 1926.500(d)(2).The judge affirmed both items as serious and assesseda combined penalty of $200. Pace has not taken exception to the judge’s affirmance of item1b. We therefore affirm item 1b as a serious violation, and assess a penalty of $100, halfof the combined penalty assessed by the judge. We affirm item 1a, the section1926.552(c)(4) item, as a nonserious violation and assess no penalty for that item.FOR THE COMMISSION DATED: April 27, 1989 SECRETARY OF LABOR Complainant, v. PACE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Respondent.OSHRC Docket No. 85-1362APPEARANCES: Larry A. Auerbach, Esquire, Office ofthe 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 behalf of respondent.DECISION AND ORDERSPARKS, Judge: An inspection was conducted of theconstruction site of a 19-story[[1\/]] building where respondent was the general contractorto determine compliance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Respondent contesteda serious citation charging it with violating 29 C.F.R. ? 1926.552(c)(4)[[2\/]] and 29C.F.R. ? 1926.500(d)(2).[[3\/]] The citation alleges that the personnel hoist had aninadequate gate at the roof level and the hoist runway lacked standard railings at thesame Respondent has raised several defenses to the charges. At the conclusion of thehearing, the parties were invited to submit briefs, and proposed findings of fact andconclusions of law.IFINDINGS OF FACTDuring the period October 15 through October 18,1985, compliance officer Jonathan Worrell conducted an inspection of the constructionproject at 1000 Abernathy Road, Atlanta, Georgia, known as the North Park Project (Ex. C-4; Tr. 8, 44-45).2. Respondent was the general contractor on the project at the time of the inspection.3. During the course of the inspection, thecompliance officer inspected each level of a building being constructed at the site,consisting of 19 floor 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, thecompliance officer used 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 15 to 18 inches fromthe edge of the building, and at lower floor levels the hoist was approximately 2 feetfrom the edge of the building (Tr. 26, 48, 72).5. A three-foot let-down ramp extended from the hoistand overlapped the edge of the building at the roof level. The ramp did not have standardrailings or other similar fall protection. A hoistway gate was constructed in theperimeter protection around the roof (Tr. 97-28, 47-50, 71).6. The gate in the perimeter protection at the rooflevel consisted of a single 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 sturdily constructed and capableof withstanding the weight of a 200-pound person. The gate had to be lifted out of thenotch-type bracing to be opened. 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 foot high safety fencesurrounded the perimeter of the roof, recessed from the edge of the roof (Ex. C-1, C-2;Tr. 50, 72).8. The hoist was used only for the lower 19 floorlevels of the building until two weeks prior to the inspection, at which time the hoistwas extended to the roof level of the building at the request of certain subcontractors toprovide a means of carrying materials and tools to the roof level. The gate in the rooflevel perimeter protection was constructed after the hoist was extended to the roof, andprior to that time, there existed standard perimeter protection (Tr. 17, 53-56, 73-74).9. The regular access to the roof of the building byemployees was by ladder access from the lower floor level, both before and after the hoistwas extended to the roof. Hoist operators were instructed to let off employees at thefloor level below the roof, and only the hoistman and persons carrying hand tools andsmall materials were permitted to ride the hoist, to the roof level (Tr. 17, 55, 58,64-65, 75).10. Workers carrying hand tools or small materials tothe roof were required to use the hoist as it was a violation of company policy to use theladder while carrying objects (Tr. 55-56, 57, 58, 64).11. At. the time of the inspection, no employees wereperforming work on the 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 the building Tr. 30,51, 71).12. The hoist was used as a personnel hoist on the lower floor levels of the building, andevery hoist entrance on every lower floor level complied with the cited OSHA standards(Ex. C-3; Tr. 25-26, 52-53, 70-71).13. Following the inspection of the roof level andprior to the compliance officer leaving the site, respondent erected a six-and-a-half-footplywood door and guardrails at the roof level hoistway entrance as an abatement measurefor the alleged violation (Tr. 60-61, 75-76).14. The roof of the building has experienced windsstrong enough to halt work on occasion and strong enough so that plywood doors could beblown down (Tr. 59-60, 78).15. Respondent and its safety director were aware ofthe change to permit the hoist to go to the roof and visited the roof twice between thetime the change was made and the inspection (Tr. 62-63, 65, 66).16. A fall from the roof would result in death orserious injury. IIThe burden of proof is upon the Secretary of Labor,Astra Pharmaceutical Products, 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 personnelor material hoist because, if it was the latter as contended by respondent, there were noviolations.Although the normal means of entrance to the roof foremployees was by a ladder, employees carrying small tools and small materials wererequired to use the hoist. In fact, it was a violation of Pace’s rule for a personcarrying such items to use the ladder. In addition, the hoist operator regularly rode thehoist and at times delivered materials.The Policy of permitting or requiring employeescarrying tools or materials to ride the hoist from the 19th floor to the roof is in directconflict with OSHA standards for the operation of material hoists. Section1926.552(b)(1)(i) requires posting of a notice on the hoist car that \”No RidersAllowed.\” Section 1926.552(b)(1)(ii) provides as follows:No person shall be allowed to ride on material hoistsexcept for the purposes of inspection and maintenance.It is clear that respondent’s hoist was not amaterial hoist as envisioned in OSHA standards. Because the hoistman and employees werepermitted to ride to the roof level, respondent was required to meet the standard relatingto personnel hoists at that level.Respondent contends that the erection of a hoistwaydoor or gate six feet, six inches, high would create a greater hazard because the doorwould be subject to being blown off the building by high winds which have buffeted thebuilding at times. The affirmative defense of greater hazard requires respondent toestablish the following elements:In order to establish a greater hazard defense, theemployer must prove that (1) the hazards created by compliance with the requirements ofthe cited standard are greater than those resulting from noncompliance, (2) alternativemeans of protecting employees are unavailable, and (3) a variance application undersection 6(d) of the Act would be inappropriate.M. J. Lee Construction Co., 79 OSAHRC 12\/A2, 7 BNAOSHC 1140, 1144, 1979 CCH OSHD ? 23,330 at p. 28,227 (No. 15094, 1979); Marion PowerShovel Co., 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 premisethat the standard requires the erection of plywood doors with a large flat surface, as onthe floors below, which cannot be adequately anchored on the upper side at the roof level(Ex. C-3). Respondent chose to erect a large plywood door, but the standard does notrequire such a door. No reason is advanced why a gate or door containing large areas offencing would fail to 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 by respondent wouldnot be present. Accordingly, respondent’s claimed defense that compliance with thestandard would create a greater hazard was not established.Respondent suggests the Secretary did not prove thatit had knowledge of the conditions. The Secretary must prove that Pace knew or could haveknown with the exercise of reasonable diligence of the noncomplying condition. GeneralElectric Co., 81 OSAHRC 42\/A2, 9 BNA OSHC 1722, 1981 CCH OSHD ? 25,345 (No. 13732, 1981);Dunlop v. Rockwell International, 540 F.2d 1283 (6th Cir. 1976); Brennan v. OSHRC (AlseaLumber Co.), 511 F.2d 1139 (9th Cir. 1975); Prestressed Systems, Inc., 81 OSAHRC, 43\/D5, 9BNA OSHC 1864, 1981 CCH OSHD ? 25,358 (No. 16147, 1981); Scheel Construction Co., 76OSAHRC 138\/86, 4 BNA OSHC 1825, 1976-77 CCH OSHD ? 21,263 (No. 8687, 1976). It is notnecessary that respondent realize that the conditions are in violation of a standard butonly that it know of the operative circumstances. The evidence shows that Pace’smanagement called in the rigging subcontractor to make the change in the hoist so that itcould take employees with small tools and materials to the roof level. The change in theperimeter guarding, by removing the regular fencing and installing a gate, was performedby 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 isclear that respondent’s management was aware of the conditions and indeed had createdthem.Lastly, respondent contends that employees were notexposed to a direct and immediate risk of death or serious bodily injury. Respondentcontends that there was no evidence to show that the hoist was ever used as a personnelhoist. The evidence is irrefutable that employees carrying tools and materials used thehoist and was the reason the hoist was extended to the roof level (Tr. 62-65). The factthat employees were carrying tools or materials does not make the hoist a material ratherthan a personnel hoist. Pace further contends that the gate and rampway present at thetime were adequate protection and prevented exposure of employees to any significant riskof death or serious bodily injury. A fall from the roof would almost certainly result indeath or serious bodily injury, and, if no protection were present, the hazard would beobvious. Respondent contends the gate on the roof was substantial and could withstand theforce of a 200-pound man. Although lacking a lock of the type specified for personneldoors, the gate was recessed into a grove which required intentional action to move.However, as shown in exhibits C-1 and C-2, there was no \”gate\” at the roof otherthan the single 2-x-4-inch piece of lumber. A person could easily fall under the railingas there was no fencing or midrail to prevent such falls. A person is clearly subject to afall hazard at the gate. Pace also notes that, although the three-foot runway whichbridged the distance between the hoist car and the roof was not equipped with a side rail,the distance between the car and edge of the roof was only 15 to 18 inches which would beeasily crossed in one step. However, there was no protection to prevent a fall from theside of the runway as would be afforded by the standard railings.Having concluded that the hoist was for personnel,respondent clearly had not complied with the requirements at 29 C.F.R. ? 1926.552(c)(4)and 29 C.F.R. ? 1926-550(d)(2). The measures taken by respondent by erecting the single2-x-4-inch board and the runway (without standard railings) do provide some measure ofprotection and are better than nothing, they do not comply with the standards nor provideprotection equivalent to that required by the standards.Employees were exposed to hazards of death or serious injury and, therefore, theviolations were serious. The gate consisting of the single piece of 2-x-4-inch lumberwould allow a person to fall through the opening below the 2-x-4 as it had neither fencingmaterial or a midrail to prevent such a fall.Although the runway between the hoist and roof floorcovered an opening of 15 to 18 inches, no protection of any type was afforded for thesides of the runway which would also permit a fall. If such an accident occurred, death orserious injury would result. Accordingly, respondent was in serious violation of thestandards as alleged.The record is convincing that the violations were not the result of intentional actions orunconcern. Pace has a good safety program and is a safety-conscious employer (Tr. 19-20,22). In this instance, it erred by considering the hoist a material rather than apersonnel hoist and erecting protection accordingly.Considering the gravity of the violations and givingparticular weight to 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 andthis 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 areaffirmed. 2. Penalties of $200 are assessed.Dated this 21st day of July, 1986.JOE D. SPARKS JudgeFOOTNOTES: [[1\/]] Section 1926.552(c)(16) provides thatmaterials and components for personnel hoists must meet the specifications of AmericanNational Standard 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 may be constructed ofopenwork material meeting certain specifications.[[2\/]]The specifications for standard railings arefound at 29 C.F.R. ? 1926.500(f). A standard railings consists of a toprail about 42inches high, a midrail, and a toeboard. The railings must meet certain specifications formaterials and strength.[[3\/]] The Secretary’s brief states that this ANSIstandard was the source of the present OSHA standards.[[4\/]] We note that both the Secretary and Paceapparently agree that the OSHA standards for personnel hoists do not require constructionof a hoistway enclosure. Pace did not enclose the hoistway along the side of the building,and the Secretary did not cite Pace for failing to enclose the hoistway.[[5\/]] Section 1926.552 is captioned \”Materialhoists, personnel hoists, and elevators.\” Subsection (b) of this section governs\”material hoists\” while subsection (c) governs \”personnel hoists.\” Thestandard cited in this case is contained in section 1926.552(c). Its counterpart insubsection (b) provides as follows:(b) Material hoists.*\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 * (2) All entrances of the hoistways shall be protected by substantial gates or bars whichshall guard the full width of the landing entrance. All hoistway entrance bars and gatesshall be painted with diagonal contrasting colors, such as black and yellow stripes.(1) Bars shall not be less than 2- by 4-inch wooden bars or the equivalent located 2feet from the hoistway line. Bars shall be located not less than 36 inches nor more than42 inches above the floor.Pace contends that its hoistway gates complied with the requirements for materialhoists. The testimony and photographic evidence suggests that this is substantially true,except that the photographs indicate that the bars were not painted with diagonalcontrasting colors.[[6\/]] Material hoists do not require similarprotection. Section 1926.552(b)(1)(ii) provides: \”No person shall be allowed to rideon material 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 largeareas of fencing, as discussed in the judge’s decision, would prevent objects from fallinginto the hoistway shaft.[[8\/]] The standard requiring perimeter guardrailsfor open-sided floors and platforms, 29 C.F.R. ? 1926.500(d)(1), does not apply to flatroofs. Central City Roofing Co., 76 OSAHRC 61\/A2, 4 BNA OSHC 1286, 1976-77 CCH OSHD? 20,761 (No. 8173, 1976). Perimeter protection during built-up roofing work is requiredby 29 C.F.R. ? 1926.500(g), but there is no indication that such work was being performedat Pace’s worksite.[[9\/]] For example, there is no evidence on the sizeor 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 fall into the shafts.[[1\/]] There was some confusion regarding the numberof floors in the building. 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 asfollows:Hoistway doors or gates shall be not less than 6 feet 6 inches high and shall beprovided with mechanical locks which cannot be operated from the landing side, and shallbe 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, as specified inParagraph (f) of this section, on all open sides, 4 feet or more above floor or groundlevel. Wherever tools machine parts, or materials are likely to be used on the runway, atoeboard shall also be provided on each exposed side.”