Introduction
Understanding the difference between OSHA guardrail requirements and EN 13374 is crucial for contractors and procurement teams working globally. OSHA sets U.S. jobsite safety standards, while EN 13374 defines performance requirements for temporary edge protection systems used internationally.
This comparison will help you navigate both standards and ensure compliance when specifying edge protection systems for various construction projects.
What each standard is “trying to do”
OSHA (U.S. Regulatory Requirements)
OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) is a regulatory body in the U.S. that sets minimum safety standards to ensure the protection of workers in construction environments. Their fall protection standards (outlined in 29 CFR 1926 Subpart M) are focused on reducing accidents and fatalities from falls at construction sites, one of the leading causes of injury and death in the industry.
EN 13374 (European Temporary Edge Protection Performance Standard)
EN 13374 is a product standard used primarily in Europe and internationally to ensure temporary edge protection systems (TEPS) perform safely in a variety of scenarios. This standard focuses on product design and testing to ensure that the systems used on construction sites meet certain performance benchmarks under realistic conditions.
Unlike OSHA, which provides minimum safety rules for jobsite practices, EN 13374 provides detailed testing methods and performance requirements for edge protection systems themselves. It’s all about how the system performs under load, including the weight of workers, materials, and environmental forces like wind. The standard is divided into three classes (A, B, and C), based on factors like fall height and surface slope, to account for different types of work conditions (e.g., sloped roofs, vertical drop zones).
Core OSHA guardrail criteria (the stuff inspectors look for)
From OSHA 29 CFR 1926.502(b), a compliant guardrail system typically includes:
- Top rail height: 42 in ± 3 in above the walking/working level (may exceed 45 in if all other criteria are still met).
- Midrail / infill: required when there’s no wall/parapet at least 21 in high; midrail installed about halfway.
- Opening control: intermediate members spaced so openings are not more than 19 in.
- Force: top rail must withstand 200 lb force applied outward/downward; midrail/infill 150 lb.
Toeboards (the bottom-edge nuance people forget):
- Required to prevent falling objects in situations where objects could fall to lower levels—commonly when tools/materials are stored near the edge.
- Minimum height: typically 3.5 inches (3½”).
- Why it matters: This is a frequent failure point—rails may pass, but missing/undersized toeboards trigger safety flags because the hazard shifts from falling people à chute d'objets.
Key takeaway: OSHA is very “site-rule” oriented—dimensions, strength, and configuration basics.
Core EN 13374 concept: Classes A / B / C
EN 13374 classifies systems by risk scenario, especially surface slope et fall height.
- Class A: pour 0–10° slopes (static load scenarios)
- Class B: pour up to 30°, ou up to 60° if fall height is limited (dynamic scenario included)
- Class C: for steeper slopes (often 30–45°, and sometimes up to 60° with fall-height limits) and includes more demanding dynamic conditions
Key takeaway: EN 13374 is built around real jobsite scenarios like sloped roofs and “rolling/sliding” risks, not just a flat-edge guardrail.
Key Differences
- OSHA: Focuses on basic jobsite safety and minimum standards for installation (e.g., height, strength, and configuration of guardrails) to prevent falls at a specific height.
- EN 13374: Focuses on the performance of the product itself under real-world conditions, including load-bearing capacity, wind resistance, and adaptability to slopes, ensuring that the system is safe in a broader range of environments.
In summary, while OSHA ensures basic protection on U.S. job sites, EN 13374 ensures performance reliability and durability of edge protection systems in more varied construction environments. Both are essential for compliance, but they serve different purposes: one ensures installation safety, the other ensures system performance.
Practical side-by-side (what procurement teams should actually compare)
| Topic | OSHA Guardrail Requirements (U.S.) | EN 13374 (EU/International TEPS) |
|---|---|---|
| Qu'est-ce que c'est | Regulation for employers (minimum compliance) | Product/system performance standard + test methods |
| “Pass/Fail” focus | Height, infill, openings, strength (+ toe-board when falling-object risk exists) | Class-based performance for slope/fall-height conditions |
| Sloped surfaces | Not classed by slope (you still must protect) | Explicit class selection by slope and (often) fall height limits |
| Dynamic behavior | Not framed as class-based dynamic tests in the rule text | B/C explicitly consider dynamic loading scenarios |
How to specify correctly for global projects
If you sell or buy across regions, the safest approach is dual-language requirements:
A) OSHA jobsite compliance (installation criteria)
- Guardrail geometry and strength per 29 CFR 1926.502(b) (top rail height, midrail/infill, max openings, 200 lb/150 lb strength).
- Where falling-object risk exists, provide toeboards per OSHA criteria (commonly min. 3½”)
B) EN 13374 system performance (what the product must be)
- System must be designed/tested to EN 13374 Class __ (A/B/C) based on roof slope and fall-height scenario.
C) Reality check clause (protects both sides, especially supplier)
- “Supplier to confirm system class capability based on provided drawings and product configuration. Buyer to verify class selection matches actual site slope and fall risk assessment.”
This prevents the classic mistake: buying a “guardrail” that meets OSHA dimensions but is not validated for steep slope/dynamic risk conditions.
Quick decision guide
- Flat slabs / concrete frames (typical edges): OSHA criteria + EN 13374 Class A is often the baseline expectation on EN-driven sites.
- Low/medium pitch roofs: start evaluating Class B.
- Steep slopes / higher sliding risk: you’re in Class C territory.
Height compatibility “sweet spot” (Metric vs Imperial question):
- Dimensional trick: Many EN 13374 systems are designed around ~1 meter guardrail height (≈ 39.4 in). That can fit inside OSHA’s typical top-rail acceptance band (39″–45″, with 42″ ± 3″ as the standard).
- But: it’s only truly “cross-compliant” on height if the system is installed perfectly on the actual working surface (slab thickness variations, base offsets, uneven decks, or mis-set posts can push you outside tolerance).
FAQ
Q1: Can we write “OSHA compliant” in the RFQ and skip EN 13374?
If the project is in the U.S., OSHA language is essential—but for international jobs (or projects specified by consultants using EN terminology), you should also state EN 13374 Class (A/B/C). OSHA focuses on jobsite guardrail criteria, while EN 13374 is a system performance/class standard. Specifying both avoids mismatched expectations.
Q2: What should we ask the supplier to confirm vs what must the buyer verify?
- Supplier confirms: the system’s class capability (e.g., “This configuration is rated to EN 13374 Class B”), and provides configuration limits and documentation.
- Buyer verifies: the chosen class matches actual site conditions (slope, fall height, edge type, work method changes). This protects both sides when site conditions change after ordering.
Q3: What drawings/info should we include so the supplier can quote accurately?
Include: slab/beam edge detail, slab thickness range, fixing preference (clamp/socket/bolt/ballast), barrier length, corner count, gate requirements, and—if roof work—slope angle + fall height scenario. The more complete the inputs, the fewer surprises on install day.
Q4: If the system is EN-based (metric), will it pass OSHA on height?
Often yes on top rail height because many EN systems are ~1 m (~39.4″). That can fall within OSHA’s typical acceptance band (39″–45″). But it only works if installation height is measured from the actual walking/working surface and stays inside tolerance—so your RFQ should still state the OSHA height requirement explicitly.
Q5: Do we always need toeboards, or only sometimes?
Only “sometimes,” but those “sometimes” are common: if there’s a falling-object risk (tools/materials near the edge, multiple trades below, busy access routes), toeboards become a key requirement. Many projects fail inspection not because the top rail is wrong—but because the bottom edge protection was ignored.
Q6: What documents should the RFQ require (minimum pack)?
At minimum: system specification sheet, configuration statement (what’s included/excluded), and compliance declaration aligned to the specified standard(s). If you’re buying for higher-risk scopes (roofs, public interface, infrastructure), add a request for test evidence references and traceability identifiers for the supplied batches.
Q7: Can we mix components from different brands to “make it work”?
Only with caution. Mixing can change geometry, stiffness, connection strength, and effective height—exactly what inspectors measure. If mixing is expected, make it explicit in the RFQ and require the supplier to confirm compatibility assumptions (or state that mixed systems are outside declared capability).
French 
English 
Swedish 
Italian 
Arabic 
German 
Spanish 
Finnish 
Estonian 
Russian 