Walking-Working Surfaces and Personal Protective Equipment (Fall Protection Systems); Proposed Rule. | OSHA.gov | Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Publication Date:

05/24/2010
Publication Type:

Proposed Rule
Fed Register #:
75:28862-29153
Standard Number:

1910

1915

1926
Title:

Walking-Working Surfaces and Personal Protective Equipment (Fall Protection Systems); Proposed Rule.

[Federal Register: May 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 99)][Proposed Rules]
[Page 28862-29153]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24my10-15]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II

Department of Labor

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

29 CFR Part 1910

Walking-Working Surfaces and Personal Protective Equipment (Fall
Protection Systems); Proposed Rule

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1910

[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0072]
RIN 1218-AB80

Walking-Working Surfaces and Personal Protective Equipment (Fall
Protection Systems)

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
Department of Labor.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: OSHA proposes to revise the walking-working surfaces standards
and the personal protective equipment standards in our regulations. The
proposal is estimated to reduce the number of fall-related employee
deaths and injuries by updating the rule to include new technology
(including personal fall protection systems) and industry methods. OSHA
believes that the proper use of personal fall protection systems can
protect employees from injury and death due to falls to different
elevations. The proposal reorganizes the rule in a clearer, more
logical manner and provides greater compliance flexibility. The
proposed rule is written in plain-language to make it easier to
understand, thereby facilitating compliance. Additionally, the proposal
increases consistency between construction, maritime, and general
industry standards, and eliminates duplication.

DATES: Submit comments (including comments on the information-
collection (paperwork) determination described under the section titled
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of this document), hearing requests, and
other information by August 23, 2010. All submissions must bear a
postmark or provide other evidence of the submission date. (See the
following section titled ADDRESSES for methods you can use in making
submissions.)

ADDRESSES: Comments and hearing requests may be submitted as follows:
Electronic: Comments may be submitted electronically to http://www.regulations.gov,
which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for
submitting comments.
Facsimile: OSHA allows facsimile transmission of comments and
hearing requests that are 10 pages or fewer in length (including
attachments). Send these documents to the OSHA Docket Office at (202)
693-1648; hard copies of these documents are not required. Instead of
transmitting facsimile copies of attachments that supplement these
documents (e.g., studies, journal articles), commenters may submit
these attachments, in triplicate hard copy, to the OSHA Docket Office,
Technical Data Center, Room N-2625, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20210. These attachments must
clearly identify the sender's name, date, subject, and Docket ID (i.e.,
OSHA-2007-0072) so that the Agency can attach them to the appropriate
document.
Regular mail, express delivery, hand (courier) delivery, and
messenger service: Submit three copies of comments and any additional
material (e.g., studies, journal articles) to the OSHA Docket Office,
Docket ID OSHA-2007-0072 or RIN No. 1218-AB80, Technical Data Center,
Room N-2625, OSHA, Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-2350. (OSHA's TTY number is
(877) 889-5627.) Please contact the OSHA Docket Office for information
about security procedures concerning delivery of materials by express
delivery, hand delivery, and messenger service. The hours of operation
for the OSHA Docket Office are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
Instructions. All submissions must include the Agency name and the
OSHA Docket ID (i.e., OSHA-2007-0072). Comments and other material,
including any personal information, are placed in the public docket
without revision, and will be available online at http://www.regulations.gov.
Therefore, the Agency cautions commenters about submitting statements
they do not want made available to the public, or submitting comments
that contain personal information (either about themselves or others)
such as Social Security numbers, birth dates, and medical data.
Docket. To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or to the OSHA Docket Office
at the address above. Documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material)
is not publicly available to read or download through this
Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are
available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Contact
the OSHA Docket Office for assistance in locating docket submissions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General information and press
inquiries. Contact Ms. Jennifer Ashley, Director, Office of
Communications, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3647, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
1999 or fax (202) 693-1634.
Technical inquiries. Contact Ms. Virginia Fitzner, Directorate of
Standards and Guidance, Room N-3609, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor,
200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202)
693-2052 or fax (202) 693-1663.
Copies of this Federal Register notice. Available from the OSHA
Office of Publications, Room N-3101, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
1888.
Electronic copies of this notice. Go to OSHA's Web site (http://www.osha.gov),
and select "Federal Register," "Date of Publication," and then "2010."
Additional information for submitting documents. See section XI
("Public Participation") of this notice.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Replacement of previously proposed rule. This proposed revision of
subparts D and I replaces the proposed rules originally published in
the Federal Register (55 FR 47660) on April 10, 1990, and republished
in the Federal Register on May 2, 2003 (69 FR 23528).
References and exhibits. In this Federal Register notice, OSHA
references a number of supporting materials. References to these
materials are given as "Ex." followed by the number of the document
(e.g., Ex. 23). The referenced materials are posted in Docket Nos.
OSHA-2007-0072, OSHA-S041-2006-0666 (formerly Docket No. S-041), OSHA-
S029-2006-0662 (formerly Docket No. S-029), and OSHA-S057-2006-0680
(formerly Docket No. S-057) all of which are available at http://www.regulations.gov.
The documents are also available at the OSHA Docket Office
(see ADDRESSES section). For further information about
accessing exhibits referenced in this Federal Register notice, see the
"Public Participation" section of this document.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Analysis of Risk
III. Issues
IV. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Rule
V. Preliminary Economic and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Screening
Analysis
VI. Applicability of Existing National Consensus Standards
VII. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
VIII. Federalism
IX. State Plan States
X. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
XI. Public Participation
XII. Authority and Signature
XIII. Proposed Regulatory Text

I. Background

The majority of employees in general industry workplaces walk or
work on level surfaces, such as floors, where slips, trips, and falls
are common occurrences. These occurrences, however, are not likely to
result in major injuries or fatalities. On the other hand, there are
many employees who work on ladders, scaffolds, towers, outdoor
advertising signs, and similar surfaces where slips, trips, or falls
are likely to result in serious injury or death.
The existing OSHA general industry standards recognize the use of
guardrails and physical barriers as the primary methods for employee
protection against falls. However, those standards do not directly
recognize that personal fall protection systems can also provide
effective means for employee protection. OSHA believes that the
proposed rules will give employers the necessary flexibility to decide
which fall protection method or system works best for the work
operation being performed, while ensuring employees receive a level of
protection that is effective and necessary. OSHA believes many of these
slips, trips, and falls can be prevented and has devoted many years to
assembling and analyzing information aimed at the elimination and
prevention of hazards that cause these incidents. The Agency used that
information to form the basis for this proposed rule.
History of the earlier rulemaking effort. OSHA's efforts to address
slips, trips, and falls began with its initial standards. Those
standards, which address a variety of walking-working surface hazards,
were part of the initial package of standards promulgated by OSHA in
1971 under section 6(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (the Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.). Since that time, a number of
interested parties suggested changes to the standard. In particular,
the suggested changes addressed updating the existing standard to
reflect the current national consensus standards.
Subpart D. Efforts to revise the initial standards in subpart D
have been ongoing for many years. In September 1973, OSHA published a
proposed revision of subpart D in the Federal Register (38 FR 24300).
In April 1976, OSHA withdrew the 1973 proposal (41 FR 17227)
because it was outdated. In the same year, to obtain public input on
revising subpart D, OSHA conducted several informal public meetings
around the country. After reviewing the information gathered from the
public, OSHA determined that a more thorough, scientific and technical
research effort was needed to develop objective information upon which
an effective revision to the subpart D standard could be based.
From 1976 through the 1980s, OSHA accumulated a wide variety of
technical information. This included recommendations for fall
prevention, ladders, scaffolds, slip-resistance, and handrails from the
University of Michigan; studies concerning guardrails, slip-resistance,
scaffolds, and fall prevention from the National Bureau of Standards
(now the National Institute of Standards and Technology); analysis of
various walking-working surfaces from Texas Tech University; accident
and injury data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics; and various
national consensus standards from the American National Standards
Institute, American Society of Testing and Materials, and the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers. This technical information provided
the basis for a new proposal that was published in 1990; that proposal
was not finalized due to other regulatory activities that took
precedent.
Subpart I. Many of the Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
standards in subpart I, like subpart D, were also adopted by OSHA under
section 6(a) of the Act. Existing subpart I contains general
requirements for personal protective equipment, as well as specific
performance and use requirements for certain types of personal
protective equipment, including eye and face protection, respiratory
protection, head protection, foot protection, protective clothing, hand
protection, and electrical protective devices. Existing subpart I does
not, however, contain any specific requirements addressing the
performance or use of PPE used for fall protection; hence the need for
this proposal.
OSHA first proposed to revise subpart I to address fall protection
PPE in 1990 in combination with a proposal to revise subpart D. As
noted above, the 1990 rule was not finalized. On April 6, 1994, OSHA
updated other portions of the PPE standard (59 FR 16334) by adding new
requirements for employers to conduct hazard assessments; to select the
proper PPE; to remove defective or damaged PPE from service; and to
provide training in the proper use, care, and disposal of PPE. Those
provisions, however, only applied to PPE used for face and eye, head,
foot, and hand protection. In this rulemaking, OSHA proposes to require
the hazard assessments to address PPE used for fall protection as well.
The combined proposals for subparts D and I. On April 10, 1990,
OSHA proposed to revise both subparts D and I (55 FR 13360 and 55 FR
13423, respectively). The proposals were intended to remove ambiguities
and redundancies in the existing standards, simplify and consolidate
existing provisions, and use performance language instead of
specifications where possible. Additionally, OSHA proposed adding new
requirements to subpart I, Personal Protective Equipment, to set
performance and use criteria for fall protection equipment. The two
subparts were interdependent with respect to personal fall protection
systems; that is, the duty requirements for personal fall protection
systems were in subpart D and the criteria for the systems were in
subpart I. OSHA received comments and held a public hearing on the
proposals.
On May 2, 2003, OSHA reopened the rulemaking record and republished
the 1990 proposal (68 FR 23528) to refresh the record due to the length
of time that had elapsed since 1990. Based upon comments and
information received in that reopening, and because of technological
advances, particularly within the fall protection industry, OSHA
determined the best course of action was to issue a new proposal for
subparts D and I.
Today's proposed rule. Today's proposed rule replaces the 1990
proposals (55 FR 13360). OSHA proposes to revise subpart D to
accomplish the following:
(1) Reflect current industry practices and national consensus
standards;
(2) Harmonize provisions, when possible, with other OSHA provisions
(e.g., the construction standards in 29 CFR part 1926 and the Shipyard
Employment Standards in 29 CFR part 1915); and
(3) Use performance-oriented language when possible, rather than
specification-oriented language.
In subpart I, OSHA proposes to add new specific performance and use
requirements for personal fall protection equipment. Existing subpart I
contains general requirements for all types of personal protective
equipment, as well as specific performance and use requirements for
other types of personal protective equipment, but it does not
specifically contain criteria for fall protection PPE.
To be effective, fall protection systems must be both strong enough
to providethe necessary fall protection and capable of absorbing fall impact so
that the forces imposed on employees when stopping falls do not result
in injury or death. The ability of the human body to tolerate the
arresting force imposed on it by a fall protection system has been
addressed directly in general industry only by Sec. 1910.66, Powered
Platforms for Building Maintenance. Throughout this proposed rule, OSHA
will make reference to the general industry powered platform standard;
the construction industry standard for fall protection; and the
shipyard employment standards for personal fall protection systems.
Experience gained by the Agency in enforcing those rules provides
additional guidance in the development of this proposed rule. OSHA's
objective is to make consistent all of its requirements for the use of
personal fall protection systems. The listed fall protection standards
contain requirements that are identical to, or essentially the same as,
those proposed in this document.
The proposed rule for subpart I, to be codified at Sec. 1910.140
(Fall protection), would apply whenever another standard requires or
allows the use of fall protection PPE. In these situations, the system
used must comply with the requirements of Sec. 1910.140. For example,
subparts D, F, and R of the general industry standards (part 1910) each
contain a requirement (a duty) to use fall protection. Where an
employer uses a personal fall protection system to meet the duty, that
system would have to meet the criteria and performance requirements
proposed in this rule. Many of the requirements proposed here for
personal fall arrest systems are already in effect when employees are
working on platforms regulated by OSHA's general industry standard in
subpart F--Powered Platforms for Building Maintenance (Sec. 1910.66).
Appendix C of Sec. 1910.66 sets out mandatory requirements for
personal fall arrest systems. Therefore, the entire powered platform
rulemaking record is hereby incorporated into this proposed rulemaking
(Dockets S-700 and S-700A).
In addition to proposing new requirements for personal protective
equipment (PPE) used for fall protection, OSHA proposes to amend a
number of general industry standards that already set a duty to use PPE
by requiring that PPE meet the new requirements of subpart I. For
example, paragraph (g) of Sec. 1910.269 requires personal fall arrest
systems to meet the requirements of subpart M of part 1926 (the
construction industry requirements). This provision would be revised to
require personal fall arrest systems to meet the mostly parallel
criteria requirements of subpart I of 1910 (the general industry
requirements). Subpart M of part 1926 differs from proposed subpart I
in that subpart M addresses fall arrest systems used in the
construction of elevator shafts, while subpart I does not address the
construction of elevator shafts. In addition, subpart I uses
performance language with regard to anchorages for fall arrest systems,
while subpart M specifically prohibits the use of guardrails as
anchorage points.
Finally, OSHA proposes to add two non-mandatory appendices to
subpart I to provide examples of test methods and procedures that will
assist employers and PPE manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with
the criteria proposed in Sec. 1910.140.
OSHA believes that many equipment manufacturers are currently
following the criteria and test methods of the above-mentioned
standards. Therefore, the vast majority of equipment covered by the
proposed rule already complies with the requirements in this proposal.
Also, OSHA notes that equipment that meets the proposed standards is
readily available to any employer that does not already meet the
proposed standard because personal fall protection systems required to
be used by other OSHA standards (e.g., the construction standards in 29
CFR part 1926 and the Shipyard Employment Standards in 29 CFR part
1915) must meet essentially the same criteria and testing requirements
as in this proposed rule.
The OSH Act requires OSHA to make certain findings with respect to
standards. One of these findings, specified by section 3(8) of the OSH
Act, requires an OSHA standard to address a significant risk and to
reduce this risk significantly. (See Industrial Union Dep't v. American
Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607 (1980).) As discussed in section II
of this preamble, OSHA preliminarily finds that slips, trips, and falls
constitute a significant risk, and estimates that the proposed standard
will prevent 20 fatalities and 3,706 injuries annually. Section 6(b) of
the OSH Act requires OSHA to determine if its standards are
technologically and economically feasible. As discussed in section V of
this preamble, OSHA preliminarily finds that this proposed standard is
economically and technologically feasible.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, as amended) requires
that OSHA determine whether a proposed standard will have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small firms. As discussed in
section VI, OSHA examined the small firms affected by this standard and
certifies that the proposed standard will not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small firms.
Executive Order 12866 requires that OSHA estimate the benefits,
costs, and net benefits of proposed standards. The table below
summarizes OSHA's preliminary findings with respect to the estimated
costs, benefits, and net benefits of this standard. As is clear, the
annual benefits are significantly in excess of the annual costs.
However, it should be noted that under the OSH Act, OSHA does not use
the magnitude of net benefits as the decisionmaking criterion in
determining what standards to promulgate.

Net Benefits and Cost Effectiveness of the Proposed Revision to OSHA's
Walking-Working Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Annual Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Injuries Prevented......... 3,706.
Number of Fatalities Prevented....... 20.
Monetized Benefits (assuming $50,000 $328.5 million.
per injury and $7.2 million per
fatality prevented).
OSHA standards that are updated and Unquantified.
consistent with voluntary standards.
----------------------------------
Net Benefits (benefits minus $155.4 million.
costs).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Effectiveness: Compliance with the proposed standards would result
in the prevention of 1 fatality and 231 injuries for every $10 million
in costs, or alternatively, $1.90 in benefits per dollar of costs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Directorate of Evaluation and
Analysis, Office of Regulatory Analysis, 2009.

II. Analysis of Risk

Nature of the risk. Falls and other hazards associated with
walking-working surfaces, primarily resulting in slips, trips, and
falls, and hazards leading to combustible dust explosions and other
accidents, are addressed in this proposal. These hazards are
encountered by millions of employees working in industry sectors
regulated by OSHA under 29 CFR part 1910. There are many causal factors
for slips, trips, and falls, such as ice, wet areas, grease, loose
flooring or carpeting, inattention to surroundings, uneven scaffolding
planking, clutter, worn rope on descent systems, open desk drawers and
filing cabinets, damaged ladder steps, and a more subtle cause--a
belief that the action being taken will not lead to an accident. For
example, where a ladder is not readily available, employees may
improvise and use a chair, or even a 5-gallon bucket, as a way to reach
a higher level. In fact, accident data show that many falls could be
prevented if existing OSHA regulations and recommended safe practices
were followed. The hazards generally can be grouped into three (often
interrelated) factors: Equipment, human, and environmental. Examples of
some equipment factors include improper footwear, uneven surfaces,
foreign substances on surfaces such as oil or litter, and unguarded
sides and edges of elevated platforms. Some human factors are
inattention, haste, human error, failure to follow instructions, and
fatigue. Environmental factors may include poor lighting and weather-
related conditions. The presence of multiple factors increases the
risk. For instance, a polished marble floor may not present a slipping
hazard to someone wearing rubber-soled shoes; however, when the floor
is wet from mopping or snow being tracked in from the outdoors, the
risk of slipping greatly increases. The addition of other factors such
as poor lighting, inattention, and haste are likely to further increase
the risk.
Slips and trips can lead to falls that cause injuries such as back
strains or other injuries when individuals try to "catch" themselves.
Falls on the same level can cause injuries such as sprains, strains,
fractures, and contusions that may affect any area of the body and, on
occasion, can be fatal. Falling from an elevated surface increases
injury severity and the likelihood of fatalities. Falls from elevations
occur in all industries, in all occupations, and in a myriad of work
settings--from the employee washing windows from a rope descent system
40 feet from the ground, to the stock clerk retrieving goods from a
shelf using a 4-foot stepladder. These tasks represent only two of the
numerous tasks that can result in injury or death to employees caused
by failures to recognize fall hazards, to use fall protection
equipment, or to take appropriate action to abate fall hazards.
Identifying fall hazards and deciding how best to protect employees
is the first step in reducing or eliminating the hazards. Therefore,
OSHA is proposing to expand existing Sec. 1910.132(d), Hazard
assessment and equipment selection, to apply to hazards covered in new
Sec. 1910.140--Fall protection. This expansion would require employers
to assess the workplace to identify fall hazards and select and require
the use of appropriate PPE. In addition, the employer must train (see
Sec. 1910.132(f)) the employee on the proper use of PPE. Once
employers determine that the use of PPE is the most appropriate way to
protect their employees from falls, the proposed rule requires
employers to provide equipment that meets certain strength and
performance requirements.
Injury and fatality data. Recent employment data taken from the
U.S. Census Bureau's 2007 Statistics of U.S. Businesses and the Bureau
of Labor Statistics' (BLS) Occupational Employment Statistics indicate
that over 106 million employees work in over 6 million establishments
regulated by OSHA under its subpart D standards. Slips, trips, and
falls constitute 15 percent of all accidental deaths, and are second
only to motor vehicles as a cause of employee fatalities.
The BLS Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI) has listed
falls as one of the leading causes of traumatic injury and death in the
workplace for many years. Fall-related injury and fatality statistics
show that employees encounter hazards associated with walking-working
surfaces at their worksites on a daily basis.
Tables V-10 and V-11 of section V ("Preliminary Economic and
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis") depict BLS data
from 1992 to 2004. During this time period, BLS reported an annual
average of 300 fatal falls, 213 (71%) of which resulted from falling
from a higher level. Furthermore, of an annual average of 299,404 non-
fatal falls resulting in lost-workday injuries, 79,593 (26%) were as a
result of falling from a higher level.
An examination of more recent BLS data, shows that falls continue
to be a significant source of workplace fatalities.

Fatal Falls
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of
Fatal falls from fatal falls that
Fatal falls height were falls from
height
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1992-2004 (Average per Year)........................... 300 213 71
2005................................................... 320 257 80
2006................................................... 343 285 83
2007................................................... 357 267 75
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to this table, the number of falls resulting in death is
increasing, although the percentage of fatal falls that are due to
falls from heights dropped in 2007.
Significance of risk. As described more fully in section V of this
preamble, many of the falls that occur in general industry could be
prevented through the maintenance of safe conditions and the use of
safe work practices on walking-working surfaces, as well as through the
proper use of appropriate personal fall protection equipment when
necessary. The Agency estimates that compliance with the proposed
requirements in subparts D and I would prevent 20 fall-related
fatalities and 3,706 fall related lost-workday injuries annually (see
section V of this notice).
The Agency has concluded, on a preliminary basis, that these
proposed standards address a significant risk. Furthermore, OSHA
believes that compliance with these proposed requirements is reasonably
necessary to protect employees from fall hazards and would
substantially reduce this risk.
Basis for Agency action. In the 1990 proposed rule (55 FR 13361),
OSHA described a number of studies and investigations conducted by both
government agencies (OSHA, Consumer Product Safety Commission, the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the former National Bureau of
Standards, now called the National Institute for Standards and
Technology) and academia (University of Michigan, Texas A&M, and the
University of Texas). These studies, which are available in the earlier
rulemaking docket (S-029) or from the sources listed in Appendix C of
the 1990 proposed rule, provide useful information about the ways in
which employees fall from various surfaces, and the forces applied when
stepping on surfaces, particularly ladders and stairways. Additionally,
they provide information about the strength necessary for various
surfaces, the minimum and maximum spacing between rungs on ladders and
steps on stairways, and other similar details. They also address the
need for toe and hand clearances, the height of stair rail and
guardrail systems, and the size of openings in guardrails that would
permit passage of employees. Many of the recommendations contained in
referenced reports and studies are validated by inclusion of identical
or essentially similar requirements in the national consensus standards
applicable to the topic.
There are various ways of protecting employees from the hazards
associated with walking-working surfaces. This proposal, in conjunction
with the criteria for personal fall protection systems in the subpart I
proposed rule, addresses conventional fall protection systems such as
guardrail systems, safety net systems, and personal fall protection
systems (travel restraint systems, fall arrest systems, and positioning
systems). The proposal also includes non-conventional means such as
allowing employees to work in a designated area (without conventional
fall protection), provided they receive specific training and use safe
work practices.
OSHA intends to ensure that all PPE requirements for fall
protection in general industry are the same, and therefore is proposing
to replace existing requirements in other general industry standards
with references to subpart I, Personal Fall Protection Systems. This
change will facilitate compliance, since all general industry fall
protection criteria will be consolidated into subpart I.
Additionally, the rule requires employers to take easy-to-use
measures, such as placing covers over holes in floors and using
indicators or signs to warn employees that they are approaching a fall
hazard.
The proposed standard would also require employers to ensure that
walking-working surfaces are designed, constructed, maintained, and
used in a safe manner, and that proper work practices are used by the
employees. For example, when climbing a ladder, the employee must
always maintain three points of contact and never use the top of a
stepladder as a step. Many of the design requirements in the proposed
standard (such as those for step bolts, mobile ladder stands, and
portable ladders) reflect the manufacturing specifications prescribed
by national consensus standards. In most instances, the Agency used the
most recent version of consensus standards in writing this proposal.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Consensus standards are updated on a cyclical basis, thus
staying current with industry practice and technological advances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

OSHA proposes the requirements in subparts D and I as the minimum
necessary to protect employees from significant hazards that can cause
falls and other events which may result in serious injury and death.
OSHA believes that many employers are already in compliance with the
updated proposed rules because the majority of the proposed
requirements are either already in existing OSHA rules or are
prescribed by national consensus standards organizations in voluntary
standards on the topic. The Agency believes that codifying more current
consensus standard provisions, establishing personal fall protection
systems criteria in subpart I, and specifying training requirements
will lead to higher compliance with standards. The updated rules will
make it easier and more effective to prevent slips, trips, and falls
and other events.
A safety or health standard is a standard "which requires
conditions, or the adoption or use of one or more practices, means,
methods, operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate
to provide safe or healthful employment" (29 U.S.C. 652(8)). In
addition, all standards must be highly protective (see 58 FR at 16614-
16615; International Union, UAW v. OSHA, 37 F.3d 669 (DC Cir. 1994))
and, whenever practical, standards shall "be expressed in terms of
objective criteria and of the performance desired." Id. In this
preamble, OSHA discusses the hazards associated with walking and
working on elevated, slippery, or other surfaces, and explains why the
provisions of the proposed rule are reasonably necessary to protect
affected employees from those risks. The Agency estimates that
compliance with the revised walking-working surfaces
standard will reduce the risks associated with these
hazards by preventing an estimated 20 fatalities annually based upon
the 1992-2007 BLS data and 1995-2001 OSHA data. OSHA believes that this
constitutes a substantial reduction in the risk of material harm. Since
falls from heights result in more fatalities and more serious injuries
than falls on the same level, this proposed rule places emphasis on
falls from heights.

III. Issues

Issue 1--Fall Protection on Rolling Stock and Motor Vehicles

OSHA is requesting additional comment on whether specific
regulations are needed to cover falls from rolling stock and commercial
motor vehicles. Existing subpart D does not specifically address or
exclude fall protection on rolling stock or motor vehicles from
coverage. For the purposes of this issue, the term "rolling stock"
means any locomotive, railcar, or vehicle operated exclusively on a
rail or rails, or a trolley bus operated by electric power supplied
from an overhead wire. The term "motor vehicle" means commercial
buses, vans, and trucks (including tractor trailer trucks, tank trucks,
and hopper trucks). For the purposes of this rule, the term "motor
vehicle" does not include powered industrial trucks. OSHA is
specifically seeking comment on whether it should include requirements
specifying that when employees are exposed to falls from rolling stock
and motor vehicles at heights greater than 4 feet, protective work
practices, methods, or systems must be instituted. OSHA is also
requesting comment on how it should define "rolling stock" and
"motor vehicles," or if the terms as defined are sufficiently
inclusive.
The 1990 "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Walking-Working
Surfaces" (68 FR 23530) generated one comment on the subject. The
American Feed Industry Association said:

The section on Scope and Applications provides that this Subpart
D does not apply to "surfaces that are an integral part of self-
propelled, motorized mobile equipment". [Sec. 1910.21.] This is,
obviously and correctly, meant to exclude work surfaces that are on
railroad cars, truck trailers, and barges.
OSHA should add a line to section 1910.21(a)(1) that says:
Railroad cars, truck trailers, barges and similar equipment designed
for use with a separable source of propulsion are excluded from
coverage by this subpart even when temporarily detached from any
source of propulsion for purposes of loading or unloading.

In 1996, OSHA was asked to clarify its fall protection rules
involving the unloading of grain from rolling stock (meaning rail
cars). In response, OSHA issued a memorandum to its Regional
Administrators on October 18, 1996 (Ex. OSHA-S029-2006-0662-0018),
directing OSHA inspectors not to cite rolling stock under subpart D.
The memorandum also said that it would not be appropriate to use the
PPE standard (29 CFR 1910.132(d)) to cite employee exposure to fall
hazards on the tops of rolling stock unless the rolling stock was
positioned inside of or contiguous to a building or other structure
where the installation of fall protection is feasible. The memorandum
did not result in clear direction to the public or to OSHA's field
staff. As a result, OSHA raised the issue of fall protection on rolling
stock and motor vehicles in a separate Federal Register notice--the
2003 Reopening Notice. In response to that notice, OSHA received a
number of comments that supported and opposed the inclusion of specific
requirements regulating fall hazards from rolling stock and motor
vehicles.
Commenters expressed diverse views on the approach that OSHA should
pursue to regulate falls from rolling stock and motor vehicles. Some
commenters supported an exclusion of rolling stock and motor vehicles
from subpart D while other commenters supported the inclusion of new,
specific rules. Referring to advances in fall protection technology,
some of these commenters said they believed that it would be feasible
to protect employees from falls, and cited the type of equipment that
could be used to provide that protection. Other commenters simply
stated their support for the policy OSHA set forth in the 1996
memorandum. However, the understanding of the 1996 memorandum also
varied among commenters. Commenters provided little information to the
record regarding injuries and deaths associated with falls from rolling
stock and motor vehicles.
OSHA plans to continue gathering information and evidence to
determine whether there is a need to propose specific requirements for
the protection of employees exposed to falls from rolling stock and
motor vehicles. Additionally, OSHA needs more information about what
employers are presently doing and any feasibility and cost concerns
associated with a requirement to provide protection. Therefore, OSHA is
not including any specific requirements pertinent to rolling stock and
motor vehicles in proposed Sec. 1910.28. Rather, it will wait until
the record is more fully developed to determine the appropriate course
of action. If, in response to this issue, the Agency receives
sufficient comments and evidence to warrant additional rulemaking, a
separate proposed rule will be issued.
In an effort to collect and assemble the information needed for
OSHA to make an informed decision about the need for specific
provisions regulating fall hazards from rolling stock and motor
vehicles, the Agency requests comprehensive responses to the questions
posed below. The Agency requests that the responses be directed
specifically to individual questions and be clearly labeled with the
number of the question.
With respect to rolling stock, OSHA is not soliciting information
relating to personal fall protection equipment used on rolling stock
involved in "railroad operations," which include the movement of
equipment over rails. The Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA)
"Railroad Occupational Safety and Health Standards Policy Statement"
(the Policy Statement) sets out the respective areas of jurisdiction
between FRA and OSHA. That Policy Statement provides that FRA has
jurisdiction over railroad operations, including personal protective
equipment and walking-working surfaces on rolling stock. With regard to
FRA's jurisdiction over personal protective equipment, the FRA Policy
Statement notes, "OSHA regulations concerning personal protective
equipment apply according to their terms, except to the extent the
general requirements might be read to require protective equipment
responsive to hazards growing out of railroad operations." (See 43 FR
10583, 10588 (1978).) Addressing FRA's jurisdiction over walking-
working surfaces, the FRA Policy Statement reads, "[OSHA regulations]
would not apply with respect to the design of locomotives and other
rolling equipment used on a railroad, since working conditions related
to such surfaces are regulated by FRA as major aspects of railroad
operations." (Id. at 10587.) A copy of the FRA's Policy Statement can
be found on FRA's Web site. OSHA is, however, requesting comment and
information regarding rolling stock not involved in railroad
operations, such as, but not limited to, when rolling stock is being
loaded or unloaded off railroad property by non-railroad employees or
contractors to railroads, or when such rolling stock is being
retrofitted or repaired off railroad property.
In regard to rolling stock:
1. In your establishment and/or industry, how many or what
percentage of employees working on top of rolling stock are exposed to
fall hazards?
2. How are these employees protected from fall hazards while
working on such equipment?
3. If employee training on the recognition of fall hazards is
provided in your workplace, please describe the nature and frequency of
the training.
4. If fall protection equipment is used, please provide detailed
information on the types and costs of the fall protection used on
rolling stock and please explain how it is used.
5. If fall protection equipment is not used, please explain what
technological and/or economic obstacles to such use may be involved.
6. Are there alternative means to protect employees from fall
hazards while working on rolling stock? Please explain.
7. What is your safety experience with fall hazards on or from
rolling stock?
8. Should OSHA exclude rolling stock from coverage under subpart D?
Please explain and provide data and information to support your
comments.
In regard to motor vehicles:
9. In your establishment and/or industry, how many or what
percentage of employees working on top of motor vehicles are exposed to
fall hazards?
10. How are these employees protected from fall hazards while
working on such equipment?
11. If employee training on the recognition of fall hazards is
provided in your workplace, please describe the nature and frequency of
the training.
12. If fall protection equipment is used, please provide detailed
information on the types and costs of the fall protection used on motor
vehicles and please explain how it is used.
13. If fall protection equipment is not used, please explain what
technological and/or economic obstacles may be involved.
14. Are there alternative means to protect employees from fall
hazards while working on motor vehicles? Please explain.
15. What is your safety experience with fall hazards on or from
motor vehicles?
16. Should OSHA exclude motor vehicles from coverage under subpart
D? Please explain and provide data and information to support your
comments.

Issue 2--Fall Protection for Employees Standing or Climbing on
Stacked Materials (e.g., Steel and Precast Concrete Products)

OSHA is seeking comment on whether there is a need to promulgate a
specific requirement in subpart D to address those situations where an
employer can demonstrate that it is infeasible or creates a greater
hazard to use conventional fall protection to protect employees exposed
to falling 4 feet (1.2 m) or more from stacked materials. Some
commenters have recommended that OSHA allow the use of safe work
practices by trained employees in lieu of conventional fall protection
for certain activities. OSHA seeks comment on the current fall
protection measures that are in use, and the degree to which
conventional fall protection is infeasible or creates a greater hazard.
This issue was brought to OSHA's attention by the Precast Concrete
Institute (PCI) and the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI). OSHA
notes that neither the existing nor the proposed revision to subpart D
contains a specific requirement addressing fall protection for
employees who must climb onto and stand on stacked materials (e.g.,
stacks of steel or concrete products) to perform their work--for
example, rigging materials in preparation for transport. Rather, OSHA
has enforced the general fall protection rules of subpart D (Sec.
1910.23) and subpart I (Sec. 1910.132), as well as the general duty
clause (5)(a)(1) of the OSH Act, to protect workers. OSHA has
considered the comments of both PCI and AISI and has conducted an
information-gathering site visit to become more familiar with the
specific concerns raised by the commenters. At this point, OSHA is
unconvinced that its existing enforcement policy, which makes
allowances for situations where a greater hazard exists or where it is
infeasible to provide fall protection, does not adequately address the
concerns of the commenters. Nonetheless, OSHA is considering adding a
specific requirement to subpart D if sufficient information and support
is received to demonstrate the need for such a specific requirement.
Additionally, OSHA requests comment on whether there are other similar
situations where employees work on stacked materials.
For background, the PCI, in correspondence to OSHA from 2000 to
2003, outlined its concerns regarding the feasibility of providing fall
protection for employees working at precast concrete manufacturing
plants who are working/walking on precast concrete products.
Additionally, PCI expressed concern about the feasibility of providing
fall protection for employees who are rigging precast products, placing
them on trailers, and securing them for transport to construction
sites. Specifically, in a letter dated January 3, 2000 (Ex. 1), PCI
asked for an "interpretation and exception for riggers loading/
unloading precast concrete products on trucks * * * and for riggers
stacking, storing, loading or unloading precast concrete products in
the plant, relative to fall protection. * * *" PCI provided the
following rationale:

When stacking, storing, loading or unloading precast concrete
products, the need for employees to access the top of concrete
products in excess of four (4) feet, for very short periods [of]
time, to connect or disconnect lifting devices or rigging is
necessary. The use of a conventional fall protection system is a
greater hazard and in most cases infeasible because, while
installing a fall protection system, employees are exposed to a fall
hazard for an extended period of time. Since conventional fall
protection is infeasible, employees shall be given individual
instruction as well as have a mentor system hands-on process for
training.

PCI also noted that OSHA does not require fall protection for
employees off-loading the precast concrete products at construction
sites because the definition of a walking-working surface in the
construction rule excluded "vehicles or trailers on which employees
must be located to perform their job duties." PCI included the
following recommended work procedure:

A ladder shall be used to climb onto or off the vehicle deck and
product. Employees shall not jump off [the] trailer or from product
to product. Corrective and detail work shall be completed at ground
level or from a ladder or mobile elevating work platform.

On May 20, 2004, the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI)
raised the same concern in its response to a request for comments from
the Office of Management and Budget (67 FR 15014) on the "Draft Report
to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations." (Ex. 2)
The AISI identified OSHA's subpart D as needing revision to permit
employees standing on stacks of steel to work without fall protection
when fall protection is not practical. Specifically, AISI said the
following:

OSHA requires employers to provide either guardrails or tie-off
protection to workers who must perform their duties 48 inches or
greater above the ground (1910.23 and 1910.66). These requirements
are infeasible for operations that exist in steel and steel products
companies where individuals need to stand on "stacks" of product
that have a large surface area in order to rig bundles for crane
lifts and similar activities. These rules also affect the loading of
product onto truck trailers and railcars that are, with rare
exception, over 48 inches above the ground. OSHA's list of
"solutions" are to build guardrails around the product stacks, use
magnet cranes, or provide safety lines around trailers and railcars,
but these solutions are not feasible. Use of fixed guardrails around
truck trailers and railcars is not feasible and would, additionally,
create its own serious safety hazard. The use of magnet cranes that
do not require a rigger is also infeasible because magnet [sic]
cannot connect to only a single bundle. Providing safety lines
around the stacks, trailers and railcars is infeasible because
customer orders necessitate bundles to be in varied stack heights,
based on quantity ordered. Finally, because product placement for
shipment requires traversing the trailers and railcars, it would
require product to move through required safety lines. These rules
should provide employers with some flexibility by stating that
activities that are over 48 inches above the ground should use
either guardrails or tie-off protection, "where practical." In
situations where their use is not practical, the employer should be
permitted to use an alternative practice and to provide appropriate
training to the employee.

OSHA requests comment on PCI's recommended procedures and AISI's
position. The Agency also refers readers to Issue 1 above
which also pertains to providing fall protection for employees on
vehicles and railcars.

Issue 3--Qualified Climber

In the 1990 proposal (55 FR 13366), OSHA first introduced the
concept of a "qualified climber." A qualified climber was defined as
"an employee who, by virtue of physical capabilities, training, work
experience, and job assignment is authorized by the employer to
routinely climb fixed ladders, step bolts or similar climbing devices
attached to structures." OSHA proposed that rather than always
providing conventional fall protection (cages, wells, ladder safety
systems, or other fall protection) to employees climbing fixed ladders
over 24 feet (7.3 m), the employer could allow qualified climbers to
climb without fall protection provided certain criteria were met.
On March 1, 1991, OSHA granted a variance to Gannett Outdoor
Companies (56 FR 8801) permitting it to use qualified climbers as
defined in the 1990 NPRM for outdoor advertising (billboard)
applications. On January 26, 1993, OSHA issued a compliance directive
applying these conditions to all outdoor-billboard applications.
The criteria included that the ladder be climbed two or fewer times
per year and that installing a ladder safety system, cage, or well
would create a greater hazard. The premise of the proposal was that
many fixed ladders in use at the time were not equipped with cages or
wells as required by the existing standard. In addition, installing
them would be extremely costly and the installation process itself
might pose a greater hazard to workers than simply climbing the ladder
without fall protection. Newer, anecdotal information available to OSHA
indicates just the opposite--that most fixed ladders over 24 feet (7.3
m) in height are already equipped with a well, cage, or some other type
of fall protection (ladder safety system or personal fall protection
system). OSHA notes that newer fall protection systems have emerged
that can be installed in one climb of a fixed ladder. Some ladders are
even manufactured with a ladder safety system already installed as an
integral part of the ladder. For these reasons OSHA is not proposing
the use of qualified climbers in this rule, except in the outdoor
advertising (billboard) industry. Permitting the exception for
billboard applications would codify the aforementioned 1993 variance.
However, considering the advances in fall protection since publication
of the 1990 proposed rule, OSHA requests comment on the need for the
qualified-climber provision for the outdoor advertising industry.
Removing this proposed provision would result in requiring fall
protection for this industry that is the same as on all other fixed
ladders covered by subpart D; therefore, commenters are requested to
also address the technological and economic feasibility of removing
this proposed provision. Commenters should provide supporting rationale
for all responses.
OSHA is not proposing to impose a duty to provide fall protection
where an existing subpart D standard already requires the use of fall
protection equipment. Thus, the proposed rule would not apply to
electric power generation, transmission, or distribution work covered
by Sec. 1910.269(g)(2)(v), or to telecommunications work covered by
Sec. 1910.268(n)(7) or (n)(8). These two industry-specific standards
generally permit employees to free climb to work locations on poles,
towers, and similar structures without the use of fall protection
equipment. These standards protect employees by requiring adequate
training in climbing (Sec. Sec. 1910.268(c) and 1910.269(a)(2)(i))
and, in the case of the electric power generation standard in Sec.
1910.269, by ensuring that employees are proficient in safe climbing
techniques (Sec. 1910.269(a)(2)(vii)). OSHA invites comment on whether
Sec. Sec. 1910.268(n)(7) and (n)(8) and 1910.269(g)(2)(v), which
generally require fall protection only after the employee reaches the
working position, adequately protect employees. In addition, the Agency
requests information on the technological feasibility of requiring fall
protection for employees climbing and changing position on electric
power and telecommunications poles and structures, and the costs and
benefits of complying with such a requirement.

Issue 4--Building Anchorages for Rope Descent Systems

Section 1910.27(b) of the proposal addresses rope descent systems
and includes a provision (in proposed Sec. 1910.27(b)(2)(iv))
requiring "sound" anchorages. OSHA believes that sound anchorage
points are necessary to ensure that rope descent systems can be safely
attached to the building for any type of suspended work, not just
window cleaning. The ideal solution is for anchorages to be installed
and maintained as part of the regular schedule for renovating and
inspecting commercial buildings.
Existing subpart D does not address the installation and
maintenance of anchorages on buildings or other structures. Under the
proposed rule, separate anchorages are required for personal fall
arrest systems and for rope descent systems. The requirements for
anchorages for personal fall arrest systems are contained in proposed
subpart I, Sec. 1910.140. However, no specific requirements for
anchorages used with rope descent systems are included in this subpart
D proposal, other than to specify that they be "sound."
OSHA raised this issue in the 1990 proposal (55 FR 29224, 29227-28,
July 18, 1990) and again in the 2003 Reopening Notice (68 FR 23534). In
those documents, OSHA requested comment on whether it should add an
installation and maintenance provision to subpart D for "all
structures where it is reasonably foreseeable that employees will need
anchorage points" to attach rope descent systems and other equipment.
OSHA raised the issue after the International Window Cleaning
Association (IWCA) and small window cleaning companies told OSHA that
quite often there were no anchorage points on rooftops for attaching
their lines. Since they did not own the building, they had no control
over the presence or location of anchorage points. They urged OSHA to
require building owners to install anchorages on rooftops or designate
existing structural members that would be strong enough to serve as
anchor points to attach scaffolds, control descent devices, and safety
lines (Ex. OSHA-S041-2006-0666-0543; Ex. OSHA-S041-2006-0666-1252, pp.
311, 313, 330-31; Ex. OSHA-S041-2006-0666-1253, pp. 483-84, 503, 543-
44, 565-66, 596-97, 629-30).
OSHA also noted that the Building Owners and Managers Association
International (BOMA) objected to requiring building owners to provide
anchor points, stating that window cleaners were generally able to
find supports on which to tie off (Ex. OSHA-S041-2006-0666-1255, p. 1443)
but agreed that new buildings completed two to five years after the
effective date of the final rule should be equipped with anchor points
(Ex. OSHA-S041-2006-0666-1212).
The ANSI standard for Window Cleaning Safety, ANSI I-14.1-2001 (Ex.
OSHA-S029-2006-0662-0014), in section 3.9 prescribes criteria for
anchorages used for rope descent systems and independent life lines,
specifying, "Building owners and window cleaning contractors shall not
allow suspended work to be performed unless it has been determined that
the building has provided, identified and certified anchorages * * *."
OSHA notes that IWCA and BOMA participated on the ANSI committee that
developed the national consensus standard addressing safety in window
cleaning operations. According to the ANSI standard, anchorages must be
capable of sustaining a 5,000 pound (2268 kg) load, or a minimum 4-to-1
safety factor, whichever is greater, in any direction that the load may
be applied, among other requirements. It should be noted that ANSI/IWCA
I-14.1 contained a recommendation in Appendix A that the requirements
be implemented within 5 years of its publication on October 25, 2001.
OSHA requests comment on whether it should include the language of the
ANSI/IWCA standard in the final rule or should it require some other
criteria for building anchorages?
For example, under Sec. 1910.66, Powered platforms for building
maintenance, OSHA requires building owners to provide an employer with
a certification of inspection, testing, and maintenance of anchorages
for powered platforms used in building maintenance. OSHA requests
comments on whether it should require building owners to provide
employers with the same information required by Sec. 1910.66.
OSHA is aware that some window cleaning companies are using the
powered platform certified anchorages for rope descent systems. If OSHA
were to adopt the same requirement, those building's owners would have
no additional obligation to comply with the language under
consideration.
OSHA believes that many building owners already meet the Sec.
1910.66 requirements or the provisions of ANSI/IWCA I-14.1. For
instance, it is the Agency's understanding that the General Services
Administration (GSA) updated its policy to require building anchors to
be installed during construction or extensive remodeling of government
buildings.

Issue 5--Technological Advances in Fall Protection and Fall
Arrest

The Agency is aware of a newer dual-mode operation self-retracting
lanyard that, in the event of a fall, arrests the fall and then
automatically lowers the worker at a controlled, slow rate of speed to
the ground or to the next lower level. These devices show promise, for
example, in rescuing some workers following a fall. OSHA requests
comment regarding the current use and effectiveness of these devices,
appropriate and inappropriate conditions of use, as well as relevant
costs and benefits.
In addition, OSHA requests information on other new fall protection
and fall arrest equipment that is not mentioned in this proposal.
Please include a detailed explanation of the equipment, sources of
supply, costs and benefits, applications, and conditions of use.

IV. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Rule

A. Format of Proposed Changes to Subparts D and I

OSHA's proposed revisions to subpart D include a reorganization of
the existing rule to make the rule clearer, necessitating reformatting
the entire subpart. OSHA's proposed format changes are set forth in the
following redesignation table:

Redesignation Table
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing Proposed rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1910.21 Definitions. Sec. 1910.21 Scope, application,
and definitions.
Sec. 1910.22 General Sec. 1910.22 General
requirements. requirements.
Sec. 1910.23 Guarding floor and Sec. 1910.23 Ladders.
wall openings and holes.
Sec. 1910.24 Fixed industrial Sec. 1910.24 Step bolts and
stairs. manhole steps.
Sec. 1910.25 Portable wood Sec. 1910.25 Stairways.
ladders.
Sec. 1910.26 Portable metal Sec. 1910.26 Dockboards (bridge
ladders. plates).
Sec. 1910.27 Fixed ladders. Sec. 1910.27 Scaffolds (including
rope descent systems).
Sec. 1910.28 Safety requirements Sec. 1910.28 Duty to have fall
for scaffolding. protection.
Sec. 1910.29 Manually propelled Sec. 1910.29 Fall protection
mobile ladder stands and scaffolds systems criteria and practices.
(towers).
Sec. 1910.30 Other working Sec. 1910.30 Training
surfaces. requirements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Agency seeks comment regarding this reorganization of subpart
D, and rationale, to support any suggested modification(s). OSHA's
proposed revisions to subpart I includes the addition of a new Sec.
1910.140 and appendices C and D.

B. Proposed Changes to Subpart D

As mentioned earlier in the Summary statement of this notice, OSHA
is publishing proposed rules for subpart D, Walking-Working Surfaces
and subpart I, Personal Protective Equipment for Fall Protection
concurrently. Proposed subpart D establishes requirements for general
industry walking-working surfaces and prescribes the use of fall
protection systems (including personal fall protection systems) to
protect employees from falls. Proposed subpart I contains performance
criteria for personal fall protection systems only. OSHA notes that
wherever subpart D makes specific reference to the requirements in
subpart I, the reference is to the pertinent provisions in the proposed
rule of subpart I (which accompanies this proposed rule), and not to
the existing subpart I requirements, unless specifically stated.
The following discussion explains the purpose of the proposed rule,
and explains the differences between the proposed rule and existing
standards. The rulemaking history is quite lengthy; to date two
proposals have been issued, one in 1973 and one in 1990. Since the
earlier proposals, technology has advanced greatly and many of the
requirements proposed by OSHA in the two earlier rulemakings are no
longer appropriate. Similarly, OSHA believes that many of the comments
received on those proposals are no longer relevant. Therefore, OSHA
will only discuss comments from the 1990 proposal that are pertinent to
today's proposal. However, all the comments are available for review in
Docket No. S-041, located in the OSHA Docket Office.
References in parentheses are to exhibits in the current rulemaking
record and are available in the OSHA Docket Office under Docket No.
OSHA-2007-0072. Where references are made to the earlier proposal
(1990), and the reopening of that record (2003), both the exhibit and
docket number will be noted.
Throughout this proposal, where possible, performance-oriented
language is used. Any employer who experiences difficulty applying
these performance-oriented standards may consult the applicable
national consensus standards for additional information.
Section 1910.21 Scope, Application, and Definitions
Paragraph (a) Scope and Application
Proposed Sec. 1910.21 sets the scope and application for subpart D
and also lists and defines the major terms used. Existing subpart D
does not contain a scope and application section for the entire
subpart, but it does contain several separate "application"
requirements in various sections of subpart D. For example, each of the
following existing sections contains "application" statements: the
introductory text to Sec. 1910.22 General requirements; paragraph (a)
of Sec. 1910.24 Fixed industrial stairs; paragraph (a) of Sec.
1910.25 Portable wood ladders; paragraph (e)(3) of Sec. 1910.27, Fixed
ladders; and paragraph (a)(1) to Sec. 1910.29 Manually propelled
mobile ladder stands and scaffolds (towers). None of the other sections
in existing subpart D address the scope or application.
Proposed paragraph (a) provides to the public a clear understanding
of the rule and is consistent with the Agency's interpretation and
enforcement of subpart D since its inception. That is, as a whole,
existing subpart D applies to all general industry workplaces. However,
as proposed, there are some sections within subpart D that do not apply
to certain operations or activities. These exceptions are addressed in
individual sections of this subpart.
An exclusion contained in a specific section applies to that
section only; all other sections in subpart D do apply. For example, if
an employee is working on a ladder on an entertainment stage, the
applicable requirements of proposed Sec. 1910.23, Ladders, apply, as
would Sec. 1910.22, General requirements, even though Sec. 1910.28,
Duty to have fall protection, does not apply to exposed perimeters of
entertainment stages.
Paragraph (b) Definitions
Proposed paragraph (b) of Sec. 1910.21 lists and defines all major
terms used in the proposed standard. The existing rule defines 125
terms and, in some cases, the same term is defined differently several
times due to the context in which it is used. For example, in existing
Sec. 1910.21(a)(4) the term "platform" is defined as "A working
space for persons, elevated above the surrounding floor or ground; such
as a balcony or platform for the operation of machinery and
equipment." In existing Sec. 1910.21(b)(4), "platform" is defined
as "an extended step or landing breaking a continuous run of stairs."
Another example of the same term being defined differently in the
existing rule is the term "handrail." In existing Sec.
1910.21(a)(3), the term is defined as "A single bar or pipe supported
on brackets from a wall or partition, as on a stairway or ramp, to
furnish persons with a handhold in case of tripping," whereas Sec.
1910.21(b)(1) and (g)(8) define "handrail" as "a rail connected to a
ladder stand running parallel to the slope and/or top step."
Likewise, the term "toeboard" is defined in Sec. 1910.21(a)(9)
as "a vertical barrier at floor level erected along exposed edges of a
floor opening, wall opening, platform, runway, or ramp to prevent falls
of materials," whereas in Sec. 1910.21(g)(16) the term is defined as
"a barrier at platform level erected along the exposed sides and ends
of a scaffold platform to prevent falls of materials."
In today's proposal, all major terms are listed and defined in
paragraph (b), and the term will have the same meaning in all sections
of proposed subpart D. Many of the definitions are the same as those in
the existing standard, although some have been reworded for uniformity
or clarity.
OSHA seeks to improve subpart D by making it easier to understand,
as well as consistent with other Agency rules regulating the same
topics. To that end, where terms used in subpart D have been defined in
other general industry, construction, or maritime standards, the Agency
has, where possible, used the same definition. OSHA believes such
consistency will lead to a better understanding of the rules, and to
greater compliance, resulting in increased employee safety. The
following terms are defined in the proposed rule: alternating tread-
type stair; authorized; cage; carrier; combination ladder; designated
area; dockboard (bridge plate); equivalent; extension ladder; failure;
fall hazard; fall protection; fixed ladder; grab bars; guardrail
system; handrail; hoist area; hole; individual rung ladder; ladder;
ladder safety system; lower level; manhole steps; maximum intended load
(designed working load); mobile; mobile ladder stand (ladder stand);
mobile ladder stand platform; open riser; opening; platform; portable
ladder; qualified; qualified climber; ramp; riser; rope descent system;
rung, step, or cleat; runway; safety factor; scaffold; ship stairs
(ship ladders); side-step ladder; single-point adjustable suspension
scaffold; spiral stairway; stair rail system; standard stairs;
stepladder; step-bolt (pole step); stepstool; through ladder; tieback;
toeboard; tread; unprotected sides and edges; walking-working surface;
and well.
Some terms defined in the existing standard are not defined in the
proposal because they are: (1) not used in the proposal, or (2) do not
need to be defined because their meaning is clear without further
explanation. An example of a term that does not need definition is the
term "working level." This term does not need to be defined because
it is obvious that the level at which the employee is working is the
working level.
Many of the existing terms and definitions pertain to scaffolds.
Because OSHA is proposing that scaffolds used in general industry
comply with the construction industry scaffold requirements of subpart
L of part 1926 (Sec. Sec. 1926.450 through 1926.454), there is no need
to define scaffold terms in this general industry proposal. For
example, the term "check" refers to the lengthwise separation of wood
in scaffold planking. Because subpart D is referring to Sec. 1926 for
scaffolding requirements, there is no need for this definition in Sec.
1910.21(b).
Although many definitions remain unchanged, the following proposed
terms have been added or revised from the existing definitions:
Alternating tread-type stair. This term means a series of treads
usually attached to a center support in an alternating manner so that a
user of the stair normally does not have both feet on the same level at
any time whether ascending, descending, or standing. The proposed
definition is consistent with ANSI A1264.1-1995(R2002), Safety
Requirements for Workplace Floor and Wall Openings, Stairs and Railing
Systems.
Authorized. This term describes an employee who is approved or
assigned by the employer to perform a specific type of duty or an
employee who is permitted by the employer to be at a specific location.
Cage. This term means a barrier mounted on the side rails of a
fixed ladder or fastened to the structure behind the fixed ladder
designed to encircle the climbing space of the ladder to safeguard the
employee while climbing the ladder. A cage may also be called a "cage
guard" or "basket guard." The proposed definition is essentially the
same as the definition in existing paragraph (e)(11), but was revised
for clarity. This proposed definition is also consistent with ANSI
A14.3-2002, American National Standard for Ladders--Fixed--Safety
Requirements.
Combination ladder. This term means a portable ladder that can be
used as a stepladder, single extension ladder, trestle ladder, or a
stairwell ladder. Its components may be used as a single ladder. This
definition is consistent with ANSI A14.1-2000, American National
Standard for Safety Requirements for Portable Wood Ladders; A14.2-2000,
American National Standard for Safety Requirements for Portable Metal
Ladders; and A14.5-2000, American National Standard for Safety
Requirements for Portable Reinforced Plastic Ladders.
Designated area. This term means a distinct portion of a walking-
working surface delineated by a perimeter warning line in which
temporary work may be performed by employees without additional fall
protection. The concept of a designated area is patterned after
controlled access zones and warning line systems used in OSHA's
construction standards at subpart M of part 1926.
Dockboard (bridge plate). This term means a portable or fixed
device for spanning the gap or compensating for the difference in level
between loading platforms and carriers.
Equivalent. This term means alternate designs, materials, or
methods that the employer can demonstrate will provide an equal or
greater degree of safety for employees compared to the design,
material, or method specified in this subpart. The existing definition
in paragraph (g)(6) has been revised for consistency with OSHA's
construction standards at subpart M of part 1926. To be deemed
"equivalent," the employer would have the burden of demonstrating
that the alternate designs, materials, or methods will provide an equal
or greater degree of safety for employees than the design, material, or
method specified in this subpart.
Extension ladder. This term means a non-self-supporting portable
ladder, adjustable in length. This proposed definition is consistent
with ANSI A14.1-2000, ANSI A14.2-2000, and ANSI A14.5-2000, and removes
the overly specific measurement criteria and is clearer and more
concise than the definition in existing paragraphs (c)(4) and (d)(4) of
Sec. 1910.21.
Failure. This term means a load refusal, breakage, or separation of
component parts. Load refusal is the point where the ultimate strength
is exceeded. This term is consistent with OSHA's construction fall
protection standard at Sec. 1926.500(b), Definitions.
Fall hazard. This term means any condition on a walking-working
surface that exposes an employee to injury from a fall on the same
level or to a lower level.
Fall protection. This term means any equipment, device, or system
that prevents an employee from experiencing a fall from elevation or
that mitigates the effect of such a fall. Examples of fall protection
include, but are not limited to, guardrail systems, ladder safety
systems, and personal fall arrest systems.
Fixed ladder. This term means a ladder, including an individual
rung ladder, which is permanently attached to a structure, building, or
equipment. It does not include ship stairs or manhole steps. This
definition is essentially the same as existing paragraph (e)(2) of
Sec. 1910.21, and clarifies that the term includes individual rung
ladders but not ship stairs or manhole steps. The proposed definition
is consistent with ANSI A14.3-2002.
Grab bars. This term means individual handholds placed adjacent to
or as an extension of ladder side rails for the purpose of providing
access beyond the limits of a ladder.
Guardrail system. This term means a barrier erected to prevent
employees from falling to lower levels. Existing subpart D uses the
terms "guardrail" and "standard railing." Both terms are defined as
a barrier to prevent falls to lower levels. OSHA proposes to use one
term--guardrail system to describe this type of barrier. The proposed
definition is consistent with both subparts L--Scaffolds, and M--Fall
Protection of the construction industry standards.
Handrail. This term means a rail used to provide employees with a
handhold for support. There are three definitions for the term
"handrail" in existing subpart D. OSHA proposes to define the term to
be consistent with Subpart X--Stairways and Ladders of the construction
industry standards.
Hoist area. This term means any elevated access opening to a
walking-working surface where hoisted equipment or materials are loaded
or received. The existing rule does not use the term "hoist area,"
whereas the proposed rule does.
Hole. This term means a gap or void 2 inches (5 cm) or more in its
least dimension, in a floor, roof, or other walking-working surface.
The existing standard defines holes and openings separately; however,
the treatment of each is essentially the same. The existing rule
defines a floor hole as an opening less than 12 inches (30 cm) but more
than 1 inch (3 cm) in its least dimension through which materials may
fall, and defines a floor opening as a hole measuring 12 inches (30 cm)
or more in its least dimension through which persons may fall. To bring
clarity to the terms and consistency with its fall protection rules in
construction industry standards, OSHA is proposing to use the term
"hole" to describe all voids and gaps (holes and openings) in floors,
roofs, and other walking-working surfaces. Likewise, OSHA is proposing
to use the term "opening" to describe voids and gaps in vertical
surfaces such as walls and partitions.
Individual rung ladder. This term means a ladder consisting of
rungs individually attached to a structure, building, or piece of
equipment. It does not include manhole steps. The proposed definition
has been editorially revised from the existing definition in paragraph
(e)(3) to clarify its meaning, and to make it clear that manhole steps
are not considered individual rung ladders.
Ladder. This term means a device with rungs, steps, or cleats
typically used to gain access to a different elevation. This proposed
definition for the term is consistent with the definitions used in the
ANSI A14 consensus standards that are applicable to various types of
ladders. Additionally, the proposed language is more concise than the
existing definitions of the term.
Ladder safety system. This term means a device, other than a cage
or well, designed to eliminate or reduce the possibility of falls from
ladders. A ladder safety system usually consists of a carrier (the
track of flexible cable or rigid rail), safety sleeve (moving component
which travels on the carrier), lanyard, connectors, and body belt or
harness. The term "ladder safety system" is not used or defined in
existing OSHA standards; however, the synonymous term "ladder safety
device" is defined in existing construction industry standards for
fixed ladders at subpart X. The proposed definition is consistent with
the definition in the national consensus standard applicable
to fixed ladders, ANSI A14.3-2002.
Lower level. This term means an area to which an employee could
fall. Such areas include ground levels, floors, roofs, ramps, runways,
excavations, pits, tanks, materials, water, equipment, and similar
surfaces. This definition is consistent with that located in the
construction industry standards in subpart M.
Manhole steps. This term means steps individually attached or set
into the walls of a manhole structure.
Maximum intended load. This term (also referred to as the
"designed working load") means the total load of all employees,
equipment, tools, materials, transmitted loads, and other loads
reasonably anticipated to be applied to a walking-working surface. It
is based on and consistent with the definition in the construction
industry standards in subpart M.
Mobile. This term means manually propelled and/or movable. This is
a clarification of existing paragraph (g)(12) which simply defines the
term as "manually propelled." The proposed definition is consistent
with ANSI A14.7-2006, Safety Requirements for Mobile Ladder Stands and
Mobile Ladder Stand Platforms, and facilitates the definition of the
next two terms. OSHA requests comment on whether the term "mobile" is
so common that defining it in the final rule is unnecessary.
Mobile ladder stand. This term (also known as "ladder stand")
means a mobile, fixed-size, self-supporting ladder consisting of wide
flat treads in the form of steps accessing a top step. The assembly may
include handrails and is intended for use by one employee. This
definition is consistent with ANSI A14.7-2006, American National
Standard for Mobile Ladder Stands and Mobile Ladder Stand Platforms.
The definition for ladder stand in existing paragraph (g)(9) of Sec.
1910.21 has been incorporated into the proposed definition of "mobile
ladder stand."
Mobile ladder stand platform. This term means a mobile fixed-
height, self-supporting unit having one or more standing levels,
provided with means of access to or egress from the platform or
platforms. This definition is consistent with ANSI A14.7-2006, American
National Standard for Mobile Ladder Stands and Mobile Ladder Stand
Platforms.
Opening. This term means a gap or void 30 inches (76 cm) or more
high and 18 inches (46 cm) or more wide in any wall or partition
through which employees can fall to a lower level. This definition is
consistent with ANSI A10.18-1996, Safety Requirements for Temporary
Floor Holes, Wall Openings, Stairways and Other Unprotected Edges--
American National Standard for Construction and Demolition Operations,
and the construction industry standard at Sec. 1926.500, and would
replace existing paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(11) of Sec. 1910.21 that
defined "floor opening" and "wall opening" (see above discussion
under "hole"). This is another area where the Agency would harmonize
construction and general industry regulations to make them more
understandable, thereby increasing compliance and employee safety.
Platform. This term means a walking-working surface elevated above
the surrounding area. This definition is based on and consistent with
the construction industry standard at Sec. 1926.450(b), and would
replace existing definitions in paragraphs (a)(4) and (b)(4) of Sec.
1910.21.
Portable ladder. This term means a ladder that can readily be moved
or carried and usually consists of side rails joined at intervals by
steps, rungs, cleats, or rear braces. The definition is identical to
ANSI A14.1-2000, American National Standard for Safety Requirements for
Portable Wood Ladders, ANSI A14.2-2000, American National Standard for
Ladders--Portable Metal--Safety Requirements, and ANSI A14.5-2000,
American National Standard for Safety Requirements for Portable
Reinforced Plastic Ladders.
Qualified. This term describes a person who, by possession of a
recognized degree, certificate, or professional standing, or who by
extensive knowledge, training, and experience has successfully
demonstrated the ability to solve or resolve problems relating to the
subject matter, the work, or the project. This definition is consistent
with proposed subpart I, the shipyard employment standards, and the
construction industry standard in Sec. 1926.32.
Qualified climber. This term means an employee engaged in outdoor
advertising work who, by virtue of physical capabilities, training,
work experience and job assignment, is authorized by the employer to
climb fixed ladders without using fall protection.
Rope descent system. This term means a suspension device that
supports one employee in a chair (seat board) and allows the user to
descend in a controlled manner and to stop at any time at a desired
level of descent. A rope descent system is a variation of the single-
point adjustable suspension scaffold. It is also known as a controlled
descent device, controlled descent equipment, or controlled descent
apparatus. Existing subpart D does not regulate rope decent systems,
thus there is no existing definition for the term. The proposal, on the
other hand, contains new requirements for rope decent systems since
these are widely used in general industry. The proposed definition is
based on the national consensus standard ANSI/IWCA I-14.1-2007, Window
Cleaning Safety.
Rung, step, or cleat. This term means, when used on a ladder, a
cross-piece on which a person may step to ascend or descend. The
proposed definition combines the existing definitions for rungs, steps,
and cleats.
Runway. This term means a passageway for employees, elevated above
the surrounding floor or ground level, such as a catwalk, a foot walk
along shafting, or a walkway between buildings. The proposed definition
is consistent with the existing definition, and has been revised for
clarity.
Safety factor. This term means the ratio of the design load and the
ultimate strength of the material.
Scaffold. This term means any temporary elevated or suspended
platform, and its supporting structure, including points of anchorage,
used to support employees or materials or both. The term "scaffold"
would not include crane or derrick suspended personnel platforms. This
term is consistent with Sec. 1926.450(b), and replaces the definitions
in existing paragraphs (f)(27) and (g)(15) of Sec. 1910.21.
Ship stairs (ship ladders). This term means a stairway that is
equipped with treads and stair rails that has a slope between 50 and 70
degrees from the horizontal and has open risers. Ship stairs are also
called "ship ladders."
Spiral stairway. This term means a stairway having a helical
(spiral) structure attached to a supporting pole.
Stair rail or stair rail system. This term means a vertical barrier
(such as rails, decorative panels, and mesh) erected along open sides
of stairways to prevent employees from falling to lower levels. The top
surface of a stair rail system may also serve as a handrail. The
proposed definition would replace existing definitions in paragraphs
(a)(8), (b)(5), and (e)(5) of Sec. 1910.21.
Standard stairs. This term means a permanently installed stairway.
Ship stairs, spiral stairs, and alternating tread-type stairs are not
standard stairs.
Stepladder. This term means a self-supporting portable ladder, non-
adjustable in length, with flat steps and a hinged back. The definition
would replace those found in existing paragraphs (c)(2) and (d)(2) of
Sec. 1910.21 that also contain specifications for length measurements.
Step bolt (pole step). This term means a bolt or rung attached at
intervals along a structural member and used for foot placement during
climbing or standing. Step bolts are also called "pole steps." This
definition is consistent with the one found in Sec. 1910.269.
Stepstool. This term means a self-supporting, foldable, portable
ladder, nonadjustable in length, 32 inches (81 cm) or less in overall
size, with flat steps and without a pail shelf, designed so that the
ladder top cap, as well as all steps, can be climbed on. The side rails
may continue above the top cap. This definition is consistent with ANSI
A14.2-2000.
Through ladder. This term means a type of fixed ladder designed to
allow a person to get off at the top by stepping through the ladder to
reach a landing. The existing term found in Sec. 1910.21(e)(15) is
revised for clarity.
Tieback. This term means an attachment from an anchorage (e.g.,
structural member) to a supporting device. This definition is
consistent with ANSI A10.8-2001, American National Standard for
Construction and Demolition Operations--Safety Requirements for
Scaffolding.
Toeboard. This term means a low protective barrier that will
prevent the fall of materials and equipment to lower levels and provide
protection from falls for employees. This definition is consistent with
OSHA's construction industry standards at Sec. 1926.500(b), and is
consistent with, and would replace, the existing definition in Sec.
1910.21(a)(9), (f)(31), and (g)(16).
Unprotected sides and edges. This term means any side or edge of a
walking-working surface (except at entrances to points of access) where
there is no wall or guardrail system at least 39 inches (99 cm) high.
This definition is consistent with Sec. 1926.500(b) and replaces the
phrase "open-sided floors, platforms, and runways" used in existing
Sec. 1910.23(c)(1).
Walking-working surface. This term means any surface, horizontal or
vertical, on or through which an employee walks, works, or gains access
to a workplace location. Walking-working surfaces include, but are not
limited to, floors, stairs, steps, roofs, ladders, ramps, runways,
aisles, and step bolts.
Section 1910.22 General Requirements
OSHA proposes to revise the existing requirements contained in
Sec. 1910.22, and introduce new requirements addressing general
hazards associated with all walking-working surfaces. The existing
requirements in Sec. 1910.22 address the scope of subpart D--
housekeeping, aisles and passageways, covers and guardrails, and floor
loading protection. Where language of the existing standards
appropriately addresses surface hazards, OSHA proposes to use that
language with editorial corrections as necessary. The revised
performance-oriented provisions are designed to eliminate detailed
specifications and facilitate compliance.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1) requires that all places of employment,
passageways, storerooms, and service rooms be kept clean and orderly,
and in a sanitary condition. Proposed paragraph (a)(2) requires that
floors of workrooms be maintained in a clean and, so far as possible,
dry condition. It also requires that, where wet processes are used,
drainage be maintained, and false floors, platforms, mats, or other dry
standing places be provided when practicable. OSHA does not expect all
surfaces to be maintained in a pristine manner; however, surfaces must
be maintained in a condition that will prevent slips, trips, falls, and
other hazards. These two provisions are identical to existing Sec.
1910.22(a)(1) and (a)(2).
Historically, OSHA interpreted these provisions as applying to
combustible-dust accumulations associated with fire and explosion
hazards. Regarding this interpretation, one court stated that "the
housekeeping standard is not limited to tripping and falling hazards,
but may be applied to [a] significant accumulation of combustible
dust." Con Agra, Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Com'n,
672 F.2d 699, 702 (8th Cir. 1982), citing Bunge Corp. v. Secretary of
Labor, 638 F.2d 831, 834 (5th Cir. 1981), which reached the same
conclusion. (See, also, Farmer's Co-op, 1982 WL 2222661 (O.S.H.R.C.);
CTA Acoustics (KY 2003), CSB Report No. 2003-09-I-KY (February 2005);
Hayes Lemmerz Int'l (Indiana 2003), CSB Report No. 2004-01-I-IN
(September 2005).)
As these cases show, Sec. 1910.22(a) serves as one of OSHA's most
important enforcement tools for preventing combustible-dust
accumulations, and it continues to be an important element of OSHA's
enforcement strategy for this hazard; see, e.g., "Combustible Dust in
Industry: Preventing and Mitigating the Effects of Fire and
Explosion," OSHA Safety and Health Information Bulletin (SHIB) 07-31-
2005, (2005, July 31), available at http://www.osha.gov/dts/shib/
shib073105.html; "Hazard Alert: Combustible Dust Explosions," OSHA
Fact Sheet (2008, March), available at http://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/
data_General_Facts/OSHAcombustibledust.pdf; and OSHA Compliance
Directive CPL-03-00-008, "Combustible Dust National Emphasis
Program," (March 11, 2008), (replacing CPL 03-00-006, "Combustible
Dust National Emphasis Program," October 18, 2007) available at
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=DIRECTIVES&p_id=3830.
The Agency seeks comment on whether it should include an explicit
reference to combustible dust or other hazardous material in the
regulatory language of the final rule. This language would merely
clarify OSHA's long-held interpretation: That Sec. 1910.22(a) is not
limited to the hazards of slips, trips, and falls, but also addresses
any hazard that can be created when floors and work areas are not
maintained in an orderly, clean, dry, and sanitary condition.
Therefore, OSHA is seeking comment on the following questions: (1)
Should OSHA reference combustible dust in either paragraph (a)(1) or
(a)(2), or both; and (2) should OSHA reference other types of dust or
other materials? Please explain your answers.
On December 27, 2007, in the notice of proposed rulemaking for
General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment (FR 72:72451), OSHA
used the following language in proposed Sec. 1915.81(d):

The employer shall ensure that the floor or deck of every work
area shall be maintained, so far as practicable, in a dry condition.
Where wet processes are used, drainage shall be maintained and the
employer shall provide false floors, platforms, mats or other dry
standing places. Where this is not practicable, the employer shall
provide appropriate waterproof footgear, such as rubber overboots,
in accordance with Sec. 1915.152.

The Agency requests comment on whether it would be appropriate to use
similar language in place of that proposed in paragraph 1910.22(a)(2).
Furthermore, OSHA requests comment on the costs and benefits of this
alternative.
In proposed paragraph (a)(3), OSHA requires employers to ensure
that all surfaces be designed, constructed, and maintained free of
recognized hazards that can result in death or serious injury to
employees. This requirement's performance language replaces the more
specific language in existing paragraph (a)(3) of Sec. 1910.22.
Proposed paragraph (b) sets requirements for the application of
loads. Proposed paragraph (b)(1) requires employers to ensure that all
walking-working surfaces are designed, constructed, and maintained to
support their maximum intended load. These surfaces include, for example,
platforms used with fixed ladders, and dockboards. Proposed paragraph
(b)(2) would prohibit exceeding the maximum intended load. Proposed
paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) would replace existing paragraphs (d)(1)
and (d)(2) of Sec. 1910.22, which addressed floor and roof load
limits. The intent of the proposed provisions is to ensure that
walking-working surfaces are strong enough to support loads placed on
them to protect employees from injury. The proposed language imposes
essentially the same burden as the existing rule, but has been reworded
for clarity and ease of understanding.
Additionally, the proposed provisions do not continue the existing
requirement that employers post plates indicating load limits of the
building/structure. This information was posted to indicate how much
weight could safely be loaded onto a walking-working surface.
Currently, this information is available from building plans, and usage
and expected loads are taken into consideration when surfaces are
designed. The proposed requirement puts the burden on the employer to
ensure walking-working surfaces are strong enough to support any loads
placed on them. OSHA believes the proposed language provides adequate
protection to employees without the added burden on employers to gather
and post information.
Proposed paragraph (c) requires employers to provide, and ensure
use of, a safe means of access and egress from one level to another.
This provision is patterned after a similar provision in the
construction industry standards. The proposed language clearly
expresses the Agency's intent--to ensure that employees are provided
with and use appropriate, suitable means (such as stairways, ladders,
or ramps) to go from one walking-working surface to another.
Proposed paragraph (d) is new and addresses the maintenance and
repair of walking-working surfaces in general industry. Proposed
paragraph (d)(1) requires the employer to ensure through regular and
periodic inspection and maintenance that walking-working surfaces are
in a safe condition for employee use. Proposed paragraph (d)(2)
requires the employer to ensure that all hazardous conditions are
corrected, repaired, or guarded to prevent employee use until repairs
are made. Proposed paragraph (d)(3) requires that where hazardous
conditions may affect the structural integrity of the walking-working
surface, a qualified person must perform or supervise the maintenance
or repair of that surface.
The intent of proposed paragraph (d) is to ensure that the
employer, or the employer's designee, monitors walking-working surfaces
to identify hazards that may lead to injury or death and to address
those hazards promptly. A qualified person must perform or supervise
the repair where hazards are of such a nature that the structural
integrity of the walking-working surface may be affected. While the
provision does not require the employer to develop an inspection
schedule, or keep records of inspections, it does require the employer
to ensure that inspections are conducted frequently enough so that
hazards are corrected in a timely manner.
OSHA notes that the existing requirements in Sec. 1910.22(b) and
(c) are not retained in proposed subpart D because they duplicate
provisions in Sec. 1910.176, or the hazards are addressed elsewhere in
the proposed rule, such as in the fall protection section.
Section 1910.23 Ladders
Proposed Sec. 1910.23 is a revision and consolidation of existing
ladder requirements in Sec. Sec. 1910.25, 1910.26, and 1910.27, that
regulate portable wooden, portable metal, and fixed ladders,
respectively. Many of these requirements are retained in the proposed
rule as OSHA believes they provide a reasonable and appropriate level
of safety. Some requirements are revised for reasons of clarity,
consistency, or to improve safety. Requirements common to all types of
ladders are located in proposed paragraph (b), General requirements.
Requirements specific to a particular type of ladder are located in
proposed paragraphs (c), Portable ladders, or (d), Fixed ladders.
Proposed paragraph (e) regulates mobile ladder stands and mobile ladder
stand platforms. The proposed requirements have been updated and
rewritten to be consistent with OSHA's construction industry ladder
standard and the national consensus standards, i.e., the ANSI A14
series for ladders.
Throughout this proposal, OSHA uses performance language whenever
appropriate. However, in this section, a number of specifications are
proposed with regard to clearances and rung widths for ladders. OSHA
believes the specifications in this section, which are based upon human
factors engineering (Ex. OSHA-S041-2006-0666-0004), are necessary and
reflect the requirements of the ANSI A14 series for ladders.
Paragraph (a) Application
Proposed paragraph (a) states that Sec. 1910.23 covers all ladders
used in general industry, except ladders that are designed into (an
integral part of) a machine or piece of equipment and ladders that are
used only for firefighting or rescue operations. OSHA recognizes that
it would not be reasonable or practicable to write standards for
ladders designed into a part of a machine or piece of equipment because
of variable design restrictions such as limited space and unlimited
equipment configurations. Therefore, OSHA is exempting such equipment
from specific ladder requirements. However, OSHA reminds employers that
any surface on which employees walk or work would still have to meet
the general requirements of proposed Sec. 1910.22.
OSHA is also proposing to exempt ladders used in firefighting or
rescue operations because such ladders are used only in emergency
situations. The Agency notes that the primary concern expressed in the
design of some of those ladders, such as single-rail ladders, is for
fast placement and access. By contrast, this proposed paragraph focuses
on the need to protect employees who use ladders routinely, in non-
emergency situations. Therefore, given the circumstance in which
firefighting and rescue operations are conducted, OSHA believes that it
would be inappropriate to regulate firefighting and rescue ladders
under proposed Sec. 1910.23. When employees are members of a company
fire brigade they must be trained as required by Sec. 1910.156 in the
use of such ladders.
Paragraph (b) General Requirements for All Ladders
As noted above, OSHA is consolidating some of the existing
requirements for portable and fixed ladders. Requirements that apply in
general to all types of ladders are included in paragraph (b), reducing
redundancy and enhancing consistency of ladder requirements.
Proposed paragraph (b)(1) requires ladder rungs and steps to be
parallel, level, and uniformly spaced when the ladder is in position
for use. The proposed provision is consistent with and based upon
existing Sec. 1910.25(c)(2)(i)(b) for portable wood stepladders and
existing Sec. 1910.27(b)(1)(ii) for fixed ladders. The proposed
language is consistent with the construction industry standard at Sec.
1926.1053(a)(2).
Proposed paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) provide spacing requirements
for rungs, cleats, and steps. Spacing is measured between the center lines of the
rungs, cleats, and steps.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2) applies to all ladders except ladders in
elevator shafts and telecommunication towers. Proposed paragraph (b)(2)
permits flexibility in rung, step, and cleat spacing, as long as the
rungs are parallel, level, and uniformly spaced, as required in the
preceding paragraph. The proposed paragraph is a revision of
requirements in existing Sec. 1910.26(a)(1)(iii) which requires rungs
to be spaced 12 inches (30 cm) apart, and existing paragraphs Sec.
1910.25(c)(2)(i)(b) and Sec. 1910.27(b)(1)(ii), which require rungs to
be spaced not more than 12 inches (30 cm) apart. The proposed
provision, which permits spacing of not less than 10 nor more than 14
inches apart, is consistent with the construction industry standard at
Sec. 1926.1053(a)(3)(i). It will not require any change to ladders
that are already in compliance with the existing standard.
An exception to the spacing requirement in proposed paragraph
(b)(2) of this section provides that rungs and steps on ladders in
elevator shafts must be spaced no less than 6 inches (15 cm) apart, nor
more than 16.5 inches (42 cm) apart, as measured along the ladder
siderails. Another exemption is provided for fixed ladders on
telecommunication towers which sets rung or step spacing at a maximum
of 18 inches (46 cm). These exceptions are necessary due to the space
restrictions in these areas. The latter part of the provision is
consistent with the existing requirements for rungs and steps in Sec.
1910.268(h)(2).
Proposed paragraph (b)(3) requires rungs, cleats, and steps of
stepstools to be spaced between 8 inches (20 cm) and 12 inches (30 cm)
apart, as measured between center lines of the rungs, cleats, or steps.
There is no existing requirement regulating spacing on stepstools. OSHA
is proposing this requirement because it believes that stepstools are
routinely used in general industry and they should not be treated as
portable ladders. This provision is consistent with the construction
industry standard at Sec. 1926.1053(a)(3)(ii) and is based on the
national consensus standards ANSI A14.1-2000 and ANSI A14.2-2000. OSHA
believes that virtually all stepstools currently in use already meet
the proposed requirements.
Proposed paragraph (b)(4) requires ladder rungs and steps to have a
minimum clear width of 11.5 inches (29 cm) for portable ladders and 16
inches (41 cm) for individual rung and fixed ladders. The proposal
consolidates existing requirements in Sec. 1910.25(c)(2)(i)(c), Sec.
1910.26(a)(2)(i), and Sec. 1910.27(b)(1)(iii). The proposed revision
is consistent with both the construction industry standard at Sec.
1926.1053(a)(4)(i) and (a)(4)(ii) and the national consensus standards
in the ANSI A14 series for ladders. A note to proposed paragraph (b)(4)
explains how to measure the width when a ladder safety system is used
on a fixed ladder. An exception to the provision is provided in
(b)(4)(i) for narrow rungs that are not designed to be stepped on, such
as those on the top end of fruit pickers' ladders.
Proposed paragraph (b)(4)(ii) provides an exception for manhole
entry ladders that are supported by manhole openings, and requires that
they have rungs or steps with a clear width of at least 9 inches (23
cm). The width would increase the available climbing space for
employees to pass through the manhole opening.
A final exception is provided in proposed paragraph (b)(4)(iii),
which permits rolling ladders used in the telecommunication industry to
have a minimum clear step or rung width of 8 inches (20 cm). This
provision has been moved, without change, from Sec. 1910.268(h)(5).
Proposed paragraph (b)(5) prohibits wooden ladders from being
coated or covered with any material that may obscure structural
defects. For the purposes of this paragraph, OSHA does not consider
manufacturer-applied warning and informational labels to be coverings
that obscure structural defects. This requirement is consistent with
the construction industry standard at Sec. 1926.1053(a)(12) and
national consensus standard, ANSI A14.1-2000.
Proposed paragraph (b)(6) requires that metal ladders be protected
against corrosion. For example, ladders may be made more corrosion
resistant by painting or the ladder may be made of a material that is
inherently corrosion-resistant. The proposed requirement is essentially
the same as existing requirements in Sec. 1910.26(a)(1) and Sec.
1910.27(b)(7)(i), which require employers to take some action to
protect against corrosion.
Proposed paragraph (b)(7) requires ladder surfaces to be free of
puncture or laceration hazards. The proposed provision is a
consolidation of similar requirements found in existing Sec.
1910.25(b)(1)(i) and (c)(2)(i)(f), Sec. 1910.26(a)(1) and
(a)(3)(viii), and Sec. 1910.27(b)(1)(iv).
Proposed paragraph (b)(8) requires that ladders be used only for
the purposes for which they were designed. This proposed requirement is
based on requirements applicable to portable wooden ladders in existing
Sec. 1910.25(d)(2) and portable metal ladders in existing Sec.
1910.26(c)(3)(vii). The intent of this requirement is to prohibit the
use of a ladder as a scaffold plank, gangway, material hoist, brace, or
other application unless it is designed for that application. The
intent of the proposed paragraph is not to prohibit employees from
working while on ladders, for example, performing painting activities
while on a ladder. OSHA believes the requirement is reasonable for all
ladders, and no additional burden is anticipated.
Proposed paragraph (b)(9) requires ladders to be inspected before
use to identify any visible defects that could cause employee injury.
This requirement is essentially the same as requirements in existing
Sec. 1910.25(d)(1)(x) for portable wooden ladders and Sec. 1910.27(f)
for fixed ladders. It is also consistent with requirements in the ANSI
A14 series national consensus standards for ladders.
OSHA's intent is that a short visual inspection of the ladder be
made to ensure that it is properly set up and safe to use. The
inspection may include such things as checking for firm footing,
engagement of spreader or locking devices (if so equipped) and missing
or damaged components of the ladder. OSHA does not expect a ladder to
be inspected multiple times per work shift, unless there is a reason to
believe a ladder may have been damaged due to an event such as being
dropped. After the employee is trained to inspect ladders (see Sec.
1910.30, Training) the actual inspection process could be accomplished
as the employee sets up, approaches, or climbs the ladder.
Proposed paragraph (b)(10) requires ladders with structural or
other defects to be tagged "Do Not Use" or with similar language, in
accordance with Sec. 1910.145. It also requires the ladder to be
removed from service until repaired, in accordance with Sec.
1910.22(d), or replaced. This proposed paragraph is a consolidation and
editorial revision of existing requirements in Sec. 1910.25(d)(1),
Sec. 1910.26(c)(2), and Sec. 1910.27(b).
Proposed paragraphs (b)(11), (b)(12), and (b)(13), together, enable
employees to climb ladders safely by using proper climbing techniques
and prohibiting employers from permitting employees to carry materials
that would prevent them from having both hands free to hold onto the
ladder. The proposed paragraphs are consistent with the construction
industry standards at Sec. 1926.1053(b)(20), (b)(21), and (b)(22),
and generally consistent with the ANSI A14 series consensus standards
for ladders. OSHA's intent is for employers to ensure that employees
maintain three points of contact with the ladder when ascending or
descending. (Please note this requirement only addresses the act of
moving up or down a ladder, not working from a ladder.)
Paragraph (c) Portable Ladders
Proposed paragraph (c) sets specific, additional requirements for
portable ladders. OSHA proposes to: (1) Remove many existing paragraphs
that contain detailed specifications for the design and construction of
portable ladders, and (2) no longer address special-purpose ladders,
such as painter's stepladders and mason's ladders, in individual
paragraphs. In this rulemaking, OSHA uses performance-oriented
language, where possible.
Proposed paragraph (c)(1) requires that rungs and steps of portable
metal ladders be corrugated, knurled, dimpled, coated with skid-
resistant material, or otherwise treated to minimize the possibility of
slipping. This provision is nearly identical to existing Sec. 1910.26
(a)(1)(v), and has been editorially changed for clarity.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2) requires that each stepladder or any
combination ladder that is used in a stepladder mode be designed with a
metal spreader or locking device to hold the front and back sections
securely in an open position while in use. This requirement has been
changed for clarity and is consistent with existing requirements in
Sec. 1910.25(c)(2)(i)(f) and Sec. 1910.26(a)(3)(viii).
Proposed paragraph (c)(3) prohibits loading ladders beyond the
maximum intended load for which they were designed and tested, or
beyond the manufacturer's rated capacity. The maximum intended load, as
defined in proposed paragraph Sec. 1910.21(b), includes the weight of
the worker and all tools and supplies carried. Manufactured ladders are
designed, tested, and in most cases, load-rated and labeled.
Proposed paragraph (c)(4) requires that ladders be used only on
stable and level surfaces unless the ladders are secured or stabilized
to prevent accidental displacement. The proposed paragraph replaces
similar language in existing Sec. 1910.25(d)(2)(iii) and Sec.
1910.26(c)(3)(iii) and is consistent with the construction industry
standard at Sec. 1926.1053(b)(6) and ANSI A14.1-2000.
Proposed paragraph (c)(5) prohibits the use of portable single-rail
ladders. The provision is consistent with the construction industry
ladder standard at Sec. 1926.1053(b)(19). In the preamble to the final
rule of that standard (55 FR 47681, November 14, 1990), OSHA said it
was prohibiting their use because it believed "that single-rail
ladders are inherently difficult to use and hazardous because of their
instability * * *." OSHA believes that single rail ladders are also
unsafe in general industry.
Proposed paragraph (c)(6) is new and requires that ladders not be
moved, shifted, or extended while occupied by an employee. Moving a
ladder while it is occupied is unsafe, whether an employee on a ladder
"hops" with the ladder in a lateral direction, or a ladder is
extended or moved laterally by one employee while occupied by another.
This is identical to the construction industry requirement at Sec.
1926.1053(b)(11).
Proposed paragraph (c)(7) requires that ladders placed in any
location where they can be displaced by other activities or by traffic,
such as ladders used in passageways, doorways, or driveways, be secured
to prevent accidental displacement unless a temporary barricade, such
as a row of traffic cones, is used to keep the activities or traffic
away from the ladder. The proposed paragraph is clearer than existing
Sec. 1910.25(d)(2)(iv) and identical to the existing construction
industry requirement at Sec. 1926.1053(b)(8).
Proposed paragraph (c)(8) is an editorial revision of existing
Sec. 1910.25(d)(2)(xii) which prohibits the top of a stepladder from
being used as a step because it may decrease stability.
Proposed paragraph (c)(9) prohibits the use of a non-self-
supporting ladder on slippery surfaces unless it is secured and
stabilized to prevent accidental displacement. This paragraph is
consistent with existing requirements in Sec. 1910.25(d)(2)(i) and the
construction industry standard at Sec. 1926.1053(b)(7). It is based
upon ANSI A14.1-2000.
Proposed paragraph (c)(10) requires the top of a non-self-
supporting ladder be placed with the two rails supported unless it is
equipped with a single support attachment. Such an attachment is
designed to provide greater stability. This is consistent with the
existing requirement in Sec. 1910.26(c)(3)(iv) and the construction
industry standard at Sec. 1926.1053(b)(10).
Proposed paragraph (c)(11) requires that when portable ladders are
used to gain access to an upper landing surface, the ladder side rails
must extend at least 3 feet (0.9 m) above that upper landing surface.
This additional length enables an employee to hold onto the ladder
while stepping from the ladder onto the upper landing surface,
providing safer access. The proposed paragraph is consistent with the
existing requirement in Sec. 1910.25(d)(2)(xv) and ANSI A14.1-2000.
OSHA notes that after-market ladder extensions, such as walk-through
railing systems, may be used to increase the length of a ladder to meet
this requirement. When the ladder's top rung is level with or slightly
below the upper landing surface, and the rail extensions are securely
attached (that is, secured to the extent necessary to stabilize the
extension and not expose the employee to a falling hazard from the
extension's displacement), the rail extensions would be considered part
of the ladder itself. The use of ladder extensions would also have to
meet the requirements of proposed (c)(14) of this section which states
that ladders shall not have their reach increased by other means unless
specifically designed for the application.
Proposed paragraph (c)(12) requires that when work is performed on
or near electrical circuits, the work practice requirements of subpart
S, Electrical, apply to protect against electrical hazards. The
proposed requirement is essentially the same as existing Sec.
1910.26(c)(3)(viii).
Proposed paragraph (c)(13) prohibits ladders and ladder sections
from being tied or fastened together to provide a longer length unless
they are specifically designed for such use. The proposed provision is
essentially the same as existing Sec. 1910.26(c)(3)(vi), and is
intended to prevent employees from using unsafe rigging methods.
Proposed paragraph (c)(14) prohibits ladders and ladder sections
from having their reach increased by other means (for example, placing
a box under a ladder), unless the length extension is specifically
designed for the application. This proposed requirement replaces
existing Sec. 1910.25(d)(2)(v), which explicitly lists boxes and
barrels, with more general language. This proposed paragraph is
consistent with the ANSI A14 series consensus standards.
Paragraph (d) Fixed Ladders
In paragraph (d), OSHA proposes to revise existing Sec. 1910.27 to
eliminate unnecessary, overly specific requirements and to clarify and
update others. To assist in compliance, OSHA has included figures D-2
through D-5 in the regulatory language.
In paragraph (d)(1), OSHA proposes that fixed ladders be capable of
supporting their maximum intended load. This provision replaces the
current specification requirement with a more general performance requirement.
The Agency requests comment on whetherthe existing provisions should
be maintained in lieu of the proposed requirement.
Proposed paragraph (d)(2) would apply to new installations,
requiring that fixed ladders installed on or after the effective date
of the final rule be designed, constructed, and maintained as proposed
in (d)(2)(i) and (ii).
Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(i) requires that fixed ladders be capable
of supporting at least two live loads of at least 250 pounds (113 kg)
each, concentrated between any two consecutive attachments, as well as
anticipated loads caused by ice buildup, winds, rigging, and impact
loads (e.g., impact load resulting from an employee falling onto the
ladder). If it is anticipated that the ladder will be used by more than
two employees simultaneously, then the number and position of
additional concentrated live loads of 250 pounds (113 kg) must also be
included in determining the capabilities of fixed ladders. Proposed
paragraph (d)(2)(ii) requires that each step or rung be capable of
supporting at least a single concentrated load of 250 pounds (113 kg)
applied in the middle of the step or rung.
OSHA proposes the two provisions in (d)(2)(i) and (d)(2)(ii) as a
replacement for existing requirements in Sec. 1910.27(a)(1)(i) to
(iv). Existing Sec. 1910.27(a)(1)(i) requires the ladder to support
only a single concentrated load of 200 pounds, whereas the proposal
requires the ladder to support greater loads. The proposal is
consistent with the national consensus standard, ANSI A14.3-2002, and
OSHA's construction industry standard at Sec. 1926.1053(a)(1)(iii).
The Agency notes that the ANSI requirement, which is based on loads of
250 pounds (113 kg), reflects OSHA's belief that 250 pounds (113 kg) is
the average weight of an employee with tools.
Proposed paragraph (d)(3) requires that the minimum perpendicular
distance from the centerline of the steps and rungs, or grab bars, or
both, to the nearest permanent object in back of the ladder be 7 inches
(18 cm), except in the case of an elevator pit ladder, for which a
minimum perpendicular clearance of 4.5 inches (11 cm) is required. In
addition, the employer must ensure that grab bars do not protrude on
the climbing side beyond the rungs of the ladder which they serve. The
proposed requirement is a revision of existing Sec. 1910.27(c)(4) and
(c)(5) in which OSHA has removed the language that allows for a
reduction of the minimum clearance to account for unavoidable
obstructions. As OSHA stated in the final rule to the construction
industry standard, "[it] believes that, in general, the minimum
clearance requirement is necessary, regardless of any obstructions, so
that employees can get safe footholds on ladders." (55 FR 47675.) This
change is consistent with the most recent edition of the pertinent
provisions of the national consensus standard, ANSI A14.3-2002, as well
as the construction industry standard at Sec. 1926.1053(a)(13).
Proposed paragraphs (d)(4) through (d)(8) address ladder extensions
and grab bars. To provide safe transition from a fixed ladder to a
landing surface, fixed ladders (except those at the top of manholes)
must extend above the access or egress level or landing platform either
by the continuation of the rungs for use as horizontal grab bars or by
providing vertical grab bars. Proposed paragraph (d)(4) requires side
rails of through or side-step ladders to extend 42 inches (1.1 m) above
the top of the access level or landing platform served by the ladder.
For a parapet ladder, the access level must be the roof if the parapet
is cut to permit passage through the parapet; if the parapet is
continuous, the access level must be the top of the parapet.
Proposed paragraph (d)(5) requires the steps or rungs of through
ladder extensions to be omitted from the extensions. In addition, the
extensions of the side rails must be flared to provide not less than 24
inches (61 cm) nor more than 30 inches (76 cm) clearance between side
rails. Where ladder safety systems are provided, the maximum clearance
between side rails of the extensions must not exceed 36 inches (91 cm).
Proposed paragraph (d)(6) requires the side rails and the steps or
rungs of side-step ladders to be continuous in the extension.
The proposed requirements in (d)(4), (d)(5), and (d)(6) are a
revision and update of the existing requirement at Sec. 1910.27(d)(3).
The proposed provisions are consistent with OSHA's construction
industry standard at Sec. Sec. 1926.1053(a)(24) through (a)(26) and
with the national consensus standard, ANSI A14.3-2002.
Proposed paragraphs (d)(7) and (d)(8) specify criteria for grab
bars. The proposed requirements are consistent with existing Sec.
1910.27(d)(4), but are editorially revised for clarity.
Proposed paragraph (d)(9) addresses ladders that terminate at hatch
covers. The proposed provision requires that the opening be large
enough for the employee to pass and that it be counterbalanced to
remain open, thus preventing accidental closure. The proposed
requirement replaces the overly specific provision of existing Sec.
1910.27(c)(7) and is consistent with similar provisions in the national
consensus standard, ANSI A14.3-2002.
Proposed paragraph (d)(10) requires fixed individual rung ladders
to be constructed to prevent the employee's feet from sliding off the
end. This requirement replaces existing Sec. 1910.27(b)(1)(v) and is
consistent with the construction industry standard at Sec.
1926.1053(a)(5).
Proposed paragraph (d)(11) prohibits the use of fixed ladders
having a pitch greater than 90 degrees from the horizontal. The
proposed provision is a revision of the existing requirements in Sec.
1910.27(d)(1) through (d)(4). The existing requirements are overly
specific and complex, whereas the proposed provisions are easier to
understand.
Proposed paragraph (d)(12) addresses the step-across distance from
the centerline of the steps or rungs of a fixed ladder. Proposed
paragraph (d)(12)(i) requires that the step-across distance for through
ladders be between 7 inches (18 cm) and 12 inches (30 cm) to the
nearest edge of the structure, building, or equipment accessed.
Proposed paragraph (d)(12)(ii) requires that the step-across distance
be between 15 inches (38 cm) and 20 inches (51 cm), measured from the
centerline of the ladder, at the point of access and egress to a
platform edge for side-step ladders. (See Figure D-2.) The proposed
provisions are based on existing Sec. 1910.27(c)(6), which address the
step-across distances for all fixed ladders. In the proposal, OSHA
addresses step-across distances for through ladders and side-step
ladders separately. OSHA believes the revised language allows greater
flexibility and provides the same degree of safety. It is also
consistent with the construction industry standard at Sec.
1926.1053(a)(16) and the national consensus standard for fixed ladders,
ANSI A14.3-2002.
Proposed paragraph (d)(13) addresses fixed ladders without cages or
wells. Proposed paragraph (d)(13)(i) requires ladders without cages or
wells to have a clear width of at least 15 inches (38 cm) on each side
of the centerline of the ladder to the nearest permanent object to
allow safe climbing clearance (see Figure D-2). This proposed provision
revises existing Sec. 1910.27(c)(2) for clarity. It is also consistent
with the construction industry standard at Sec. 1926.1053(a)(17) and
the national consensus standard for fixed ladders, ANSI 14.3-2002.
Proposed paragraph (d)(13)(ii) requires a minimum perpendicular
distance of 30 inches (76 cm) from the center line of the steps and rungs
to the nearest object on the climbing side to allow safe climbing clearance.
This proposed provision would replace a number of specifications
found at existing Sec.1910.27(c)(1) for clearance distances based
on the pitch of the ladder.
The proposed language removes the overly detailed information and
establishes a single, minimum clearance distance regardless of pitch.
This proposed provision is consistent with the construction industry
standard at Sec. 1926.1053(a)(14) and the national consensus standard
for fixed ladders, ANSI A14.3-2002. An exception is permitted when
unavoidable obstructions on the climbing side of a fixed ladder are
encountered. The minimum clearance then may be reduced to 24 inches (61
cm), as long as deflector plates are provided to protect the employee's
head. A similar exception may be found in existing Sec. 1910.27(c)(7)
and its accompanying Figure D-5. This proposed paragraph is consistent
with the construction industry standard at Sec. 1926.1053(a)(15) and
national consensus standard, ANSI A14.3-2002.
Paragraph (d) ends with a note stating that the duty to provide
fall protection for employees working on fixed ladders is found at
proposed Sec. 1910.28 and the criteria for such fall protection
systems is found at proposed Sec. 1910.29.
Paragraph (e) Mobile Ladder Stands and Mobile Ladder Stand Platforms
(Mobile Ladder Stands and Platforms)
Proposed paragraph (e) covers mobile ladder stands and mobile
ladder stand platforms (mobile ladder stands and platforms). The
proposed design requirements are a performance language revision of the
design specifications provided in existing paragraphs (a) and (f) of
Sec. 1910.29. All of the requirements proposed in this paragraph are
consistent with the consensus standard, ANSI A14.7-2006.
Proposed paragraph (e)(1) addresses general design requirements for
mobile ladder stands and platforms. Proposed paragraph (e)(1)(i)
requires mobile ladder stands and platforms to have a step width of at
least 16 inches (41 cm). Proposed paragraph (e)(1)(ii) requires steps,
standing levels, and platforms of mobile ladder stands and platforms be
provided with a slip-resistant surface. This surface may be an integral
part of the structure or may be provided by a durable, secondary
process or operation, e.g., dimpling, knurling, shot-blasting, coating,
metal spraying, or slip-resistant tape. These requirements provide
employees with a reasonable level of safe footing.
The next two proposed paragraphs are important to the stability of
the unit and the balance of the employee using it. Proposed paragraph
(e)(1)(iii) requires that wheels or casters, when under load, be
designed to support their proportional share of four times the rated
load, plus the proportional share of the unit's weight. This
requirement is consistent with the existing provision at Sec.
1910.29(a)(4).
Proposed paragraph (e)(1)(iv) requires mobile ladder stands and
platforms, which use wheels or casters, to be equipped with a system to
impede horizontal movement. This proposed provision is written in
performance language, replacing the existing specification requirements
in Sec. 1910.29(a)(4).
Proposed paragraph (e)(1)(v) requires that the maximum work surface
heights of mobile ladder stands and platforms not exceed four times the
least base dimension without additional support. When greater heights
are needed to prevent toppling, outriggers, counterweights, or
comparable means must be used to maintain this minimum base ratio. The
proposed paragraph would replace similar existing requirements in Sec.
1910.29(a)(3)(i) and (f)(2).
Proposed paragraph (e)(1)(vi) requires mobile ladder stands and
platforms to be capable of supporting at least four times their
intended load. This proposed paragraph replaces a similar requirement
in existing Sec. 1910.29(f)(5), which requires a safety factor of
four.
Proposed paragraph (e)(1)(vii) prohibits moving mobile ladder
stands and platforms when occupied. This new requirement is based on
the national consensus standard ANSI A14.7-2006, and is intended to
prevent employees from falling from a mobile ladder stand or platform
when it is being moved. When the additional weight of an employee is
added to the top of a unit, the center of gravity is raised and the
unit is less stable than when there is no weight on it. Also, an
employee may lose his or her balance when a unit moves suddenly, or
when simply riding on a unit.
Proposed paragraph (e)(2) addresses design requirements for mobile
ladder stands. Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(i) requires that steps be
uniformly spaced and arranged with a rise of not more than 10 inches
(25 cm), and a depth of not less than 7 inches (18 cm). The slope of
the step stringer (inclined side step support) to which the steps are
attached must not be more than 60 degrees measured from the horizontal.
This proposed paragraph is essentially the same as existing Sec.
1910.29(f)(3) except that the existing provision requires the slope of
the steps section to be a minimum of 55 degrees, and a maximum of 60
degrees, measured from the horizontal.
Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(ii) requires all ladder stands with a top
step height between 4 and 10 feet (1.2 m and 3 m) to be provided with
handrails having a vertical height of 29.5 inches (75 cm) to 37 inches
(94 cm) as measured from the front edge of a step. The use of removable
gates or non-rigid members, such as chains, is permitted for special
use applications. This proposed requirement is essentially the same as
the existing provision at Sec. 1910.29(f)(4)(ii), except that the
existing requirement does not set a maximum height.
Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(iii) requires all ladder stands with a
top step over 10 feet high (3 m) to have the top step protected on
three sides by a handrail that has a vertical height of at least 36
inches (91 cm). The use of removable gates or non-rigid members such as
chains is permitted for special use applications. Top steps that are 20
inches (51 cm) or more, front to back, must be provided with a midrail
and toeboard.
Proposed paragraphs (e)(2)(ii) and (e)(2)(iii) replace existing
paragraph Sec. 1910.29(f)(4)(i), which requires units to be equipped
with handrails when they have more than five (5) steps or measure 5
feet (1.5 m) in vertical height to the top step. This provision ensures
employees have a handhold to prevent falling while they climb.
Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(iv) is new and requires the standing
areas of mobile ladder stands to be within the base frame. This
requirement enhances the stability of the unit by keeping the center of
gravity within the base frame, thus reducing the chance of tipping.
Proposed paragraph (e)(3) addresses design requirements for mobile
ladder stand platforms. Proposed paragraph (e)(3)(i) requires steps on
a ladder stand platform to conform to paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this
section. An exception to this requirement is provided when the employer
demonstrates that conforming to paragraph (e)(2)(i) is not practicable.
Steeper slopes or vertical ladders may be used, provided the unit is
stabilized to prevent its overturning. OSHA realizes that in a few
applications the steps to a mobile ladder stand platform may have to be
greater than the required 60 degree maximum prescribed in proposed
paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this paragraph. OSHA does not seek to prohibit
the use of such units; however, this exception acknowledges that need
and still provides for employee safety.
Proposed paragraph (e)(3)(ii) requires all mobile ladder stand
platforms with a platform height between 4 feet and 10 feet (1.2 m and
3 m) to be provided with handrails having a vertical height of 29.5
inches (75 cm) to 37 inches (94 cm) measured from the front edge of a
step. Handrails in the platform area are required to have a vertical
height of at least 36 inches (91 cm) and include a midrail to protect
employees from the fall hazard. This requirement is a clarification of
the general provision found in proposed Sec. 1910.29(b)(1). The use of
removable gates or non-rigid members, such as chains, is permitted for
special-use applications. This proposed requirement is essentially the
same as the existing provision at Sec. 1910.29(f)(4)(ii), except the
existing requirement does not set a maximum height. OSHA is proposing a
maximum height in accordance with anthropomorphic studies (Ex. OSHA-
S041-2006-0666-0004).
Proposed paragraph (e)(3)(iii) requires all mobile ladder stand
platforms with a platform height of over 10 feet (3 m) to have
guardrails and toeboards provided on the exposed sides and ends of the
platform. The use of removable gates or non-rigid members, such as
chains, would be permitted for special-use applications. Toeboards
prevent objects from falling onto employees who may be below the unit.
The requirements in proposed paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3) are based on
ANSI A14.7-2006, American National Standard for Mobile Ladder Stands
and Mobile Ladder Stand Platforms.
Section 1910.24 Step Bolts and Manhole Steps
Proposed Sec. 1910.24 establishes requirements for step bolts and
manhole steps. Step bolts and manhole steps are used in the
telecommunications industry, gas and electric utility industries, and
some large manufacturing plants, usually in lieu of conventional
ladders (e.g., fixed ladders). While the Agency has a number of
requirements addressing ladders, those requirements are not
consistently or directly applicable to step bolts and manhole steps.
For this reason OSHA is proposing requirements that address the design,
capacity, and strength of step bolts and manhole steps. OSHA believes
that these requirements provide for the safe use of this equipment. The
provisions include the general requirements in existing Sec.
1910.268(h) for pole steps and manhole ladders. Pole steps (normally
used on wooden utility poles) and step bolts (normally used on metal
poles or towers) are covered jointly under the proposed provisions for
step bolts, and are based upon provisions in Sec. 1910.268,
Telecommunications, and the national consensus standards, American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) C 478-07, Standard
Specification for Precast Reinforced Concrete Manhole Sections, and
ANSI/TIA/EIA 222G-1996 and 2006, Structural Standard for Antenna
Supporting Structures and Antennas.
OSHA recognizes that many workplaces already have step bolts or
manhole steps installed, and that it could be unreasonably disruptive
and burdensome to require employers to retrofit those bolts and steps
to comply with certain provisions of the proposed standard. Therefore,
OSHA is proposing certain design changes to step bolts and manhole
steps on new installations performed 90 days after the standard's
effective date. These proposed provisions are described individually
below.
As part of this proposal, OSHA is removing the requirements in
Sec. 1910.268(h), and instead requiring that the telecommunications
industry comply with the provisions for ladders, step bolts, and
manhole steps in subpart D. Additionally, as per Sec. 1910.269
(Electric power generation, transmission, and distribution), ladders,
step bolts, and manhole steps used in the electric power industry must
meet the requirements of subpart D. Therefore, OSHA is proposing Sec.
1910.24 as the minimum requirements necessary to ensure the safety of
employees climbing and descending step bolts and manhole steps. These
provisions are essentially the same as those in the 1990 proposed rule
(55 FR 13360).
The rules in proposed Sec. 1910.24 are performance-based where
possible. For example, proposed paragraph Sec. 1910.24(a)(6) sets
performance-based strength requirements that do not specify the types
or sizes of materials that must be used. Where dimensions are
specified, such as in paragraphs (b)(2)(iii) and (b)(2)(iv), they are
based on anthropometrics, existing Sec. 1910.268, and current industry
practices and standards, such as the national consensus standard, ASTM
C 478-07.
Paragraph (a) Step Bolts
Proposed paragraph (a) addresses the design, capacity, and use of
step bolts. Proposed paragraph (a)(1) requires that all step bolts
installed on or after the effective date of the final rule that are
used in corrosive environments be constructed of, or coated with, a
material that will retard corrosion of the step or bolt. This is
important to protect against deterioration, and the resultant weakening
of the step bolt.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2) requires step bolts to be designed to
prevent the employee's foot from slipping or sliding off the end of the
step bolt, which could contribute to a fall.
Proposed paragraph (a)(3) requires step bolts to be spaced
uniformly, 12 inches (30 cm) minimum center to center, alternately
spaced, and an 18 inches (46 cm) maximum spacing. To assist in
compliance, OSHA has included figure D-6 in the proposed regulatory
text. The proposed paragraph matches existing Sec. 1910.268(h)(2) and
the 1996 version of ANSI/EIA/TIA 222, both of which allow step bolts to
be spaced as much as 18 inches (46 cm) apart, 36 inches (91 cm) on any
one side. An exception to this requirement permits the spacing from the
entry and exit surface to the first step bolt to be different from the
spacing between the other step bolts. This exception allows the height
of the entry or exit surface to be modified without necessitating the
reinstallation of all the step bolts.
OSHA notes that the 2006 version of ANSI/EIA/TIA 222 specifies that
the center to center spacing between alternately spaced step bolts be
10 inches (25 cm) minimum and 16 inches (41 cm) maximum as opposed to
the 12- and 18-inch (30 and 46 cm) requirements of the proposal. The
Agency requests comment on whether to adopt the language of the 2006
ANSI/EIA/TIA standard.
Proposed paragraph (a)(4) requires that the minimum clear width of
each step bolt be 4.5 inches (11 cm). Proposed paragraph (a)(5)
requires the minimum perpendicular distance between the centerline of
the step bolt to the nearest permanent object in back of the bolt to be
at least 7 inches (18 cm). Where obstructions cannot be avoided, toe
clearances may be reduced to 4.5 inches (11 cm). Both of these
provisions ensure there is adequate room both on and behind the step
bolt to enable the employee to stand securely.
Proposed paragraph (a)(6) requires step bolts installed before the
effective date of the final rule to be capable of supporting their
maximum intended load. All walking-working surfaces must be capable of
supporting employees and equipment, without failure. The proposed
language of (a)(6) "grandfathers," or allows the continued use of,
existing step bolts that are capable of supporting their maximum
intended load.
Proposed paragraph (a)(7) requires each step bolt installed on or
after the effective date of the final rule to be capable of supporting,
without failure, at least four times its maximum intended load.
OSHA believes that this requirement is necessary to
provide a safety factor to ensure that step bolts do not fail during
use. Common engineering practice demands that a safety factor be
provided in any product design to account for any unanticipated factors
that may stress the product beyond its designed capabilities. OSHA's
understanding is that a \5/8\-inch (1.6-cm) diameter steel step bolt is
normally expected to meet this requirement, and step bolts of this size
are currently used in the industry.
Proposed paragraph (a)(8) requires step bolts to be visually
inspected before each use and to be maintained in accordance with
proposed Sec. 1910.22. This provision reinforces the necessity to meet
the general requirements of all walking-working surfaces. As with the
requirements in proposed Sec. 1910.22, this visual inspection is not
intended to be burdensome, and can be performed as the employee climbs
the unit.
Proposed paragraph (a)(9) requires step bolts that are bent more
than 15 degrees from the perpendicular to be removed and replaced with
bolts that meet the requirements of this section. The proposed
requirement is intended to apply to displacement in any direction the
bolt may be bent. The intent of this provision is to replace bolts that
are bent to such a degree that an employee's foot may slip or slide off
the end of the step bolt, which may cause an employee to fall.
Paragraph (b) Manhole Steps
Proposed paragraph (b) addresses the design, capacity, and use of
manhole steps. Proposed paragraph (b)(1) requires manhole steps
installed before the effective date of the final rule to be capable of
supporting their maximum intended load. The proposed language
"grandfathers," or allows the continued use of, existing manhole
steps. Under proposed Sec. 1910.22(b), employers would be obligated to
ensure that all walking-working surfaces are designed, constructed, and
maintained to support their maximum intended load. This provision is
consistent with the requirements in existing Sec. 1910.268(h) that
address steps in manholes used in the telecommunications industry.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2) sets requirements for the design of
manhole steps. The requirements apply to manhole steps installed on or
after the effective date of the final rule. Proposed paragraph
(b)(2)(i) requires that all manhole steps be provided with slip-
resistant surfaces such as corrugated, knurled, or dimpled surfaces.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(ii) requires all manhole steps that are
used in corrosive environments to be constructed of, or coated with, a
material that will retard corrosion of the step. This corrosion
resistance will help prevent deterioration that can lead to failure of
the manhole step, which may cause the employee to fall.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(iii) requires that manhole steps have a
minimum clear step width of 10 inches (25 cm). Proposed paragraph
(b)(2)(iv) requires that steps be spaced uniformly, not more than 16
inches (41 cm) apart. As in proposed paragraph (a)(3) above, an
exception to this requirement permits the spacing from the entry and
exit surface to the first manhole step to be different from the spacing
between the other steps. This exception allows for the height of the
entry or exit surface to be modified without necessitating the
reinstallation of the entire set of manhole steps.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(v) would require manhole steps to have a
minimum perpendicular distance between the centerline of the manhole
step to the nearest permanent object in back of the step of at least
4.5 inches (11 cm). Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(vi) requires the steps be
designed to prevent the employee's foot from slipping or sliding off
the end of the manhole step, which may result in a fall.
Proposed paragraph (b)(3) requires manhole steps to be visually
inspected before each use and maintained in accordance with proposed
Sec. 1910.22. The purpose of the inspection is to ensure that no
manhole steps are damaged or missing. This proposed paragraph is
essentially a restatement of the requirements in proposed Sec. 1910.22
for inspecting and maintaining walking-working surfaces. The visual
inspection is expected to take only a few seconds before use of each
step.
Section 1910.25 Stairways
Proposed Sec. 1910.25 provides stairway design and installation
criteria. This proposed section combines, clarifies, and updates
existing requirements, and adds new provisions for stairs and
stairways. The majority of the requirements for this section are
derived from existing Sec. 1910.24, Fixed industrial stairs, and are
consistent with American National Standard Institute (ANSI) A1264.1-
2007, Safety Requirements for Workplace Walking/Working Surfaces and
Their Access; Workplace, Floor, Wall and Roof Openings; Stairs and
Guardrail Systems, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 101-
2006, Life Safety Code, and the International Code Council's (ICC's)
International Building Code ICC-2003.
On March 28, 2002, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
published a request for comment regarding the "Draft Report to
Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations" (67 FR
15014), specifically requesting nominations of rules and regulations in
need of reform. In response to this request, the Copper and Brass
Fabricators Council (CBFC) (Ex. 3) identified OSHA's subpart D as in
need of revision to permit use of ship and spiral stairs. Specifically,
CBFC requested that OSHA revise its existing rule in Sec. 1910.24(b),
which requires fixed stairs (referred to as standard stairs in this
proposal) and prohibits spiral stairs except for special limited use
and secondary access situations where it is not practical to provide a
conventional stairway. CBFC suggested that OSHA revise this standard to
permit the installation and use of ship stairs and spiral stairs in
more circumstances. In the earlier rulemaking (1990), OSHA had proposed
to allow more flexibility in the use of these stairs. In this proposed
rule, OSHA would permit the installation of spiral, ship, and
alternating tread-type stairs for limited secondary use where it is not
practical to provide a standard stairway and provides design criteria
for them. Provisions to prevent employees from falling from unprotected
sides or edges of stairway landings are provided in proposed Sec.
1910.28, Duty to have fall protection.
Paragraph (a) General Requirements
Proposed paragraph (a) contains general requirements applicable to
all stairways. In this proposed rule, the Agency is using the term
"standard stairs" in place of the term "fixed industrial stairs"
which is used in the existing standard. OSHA has used the term "fixed
industrial stair" since 1971 because the term was used in the national
consensus standard ANSI A64.1-1968 (now ANSI A1264.1-2007) that
prescribed requirements for them. OSHA believes the term "standard
stairs" is clearer and easier to understand and therefore is proposing
to use the new term. The Agency is proposing to define the term
"standard stairs" to mean a permanently installed stairway and to
make it clear that ship stairs, spiral stairs, and alternating tread-
type stairs are not standard stairs.
OSHA's proposed change in terminology is consistent with current
industry codes and standards that use the terms "standard stairs,"
"stairways," and "fixed stairs" interchangeably. The Life Safety
Code (NFPA 101-2006)
includes requirements for "standard stairs" that are similar to
OSHA's requirements for "fixed industrial stairs," but does not
define "standard stairs." The International Building Code (IBC-2003)
defines "stairways," but not "fixed" or "standard stairs," and
also includes requirements similar to OSHA's for "fixed industrial
stairs." The consensus standard ANSI A1264.1-2007 uses the term
"fixed stairs." The Agency requests comment on whether this change in
terminology (from fixed industrial stairs to standard stairs) is
appropriate or whether it leaves a gap in the coverage of stairways.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1) establishes the scope of this section,
making it clear that generally all stairs, including standard stairs,
spiral stairs, ship stairs, and alternating tread-type stairs, are
covered. Additional requirements for stairs serving as required exit
routes are located in subpart E, Means of Egress. This provision is
based on existing paragraph Sec. 1910.24(a) and is consistent with
ANSI A1264.1-2007. It also makes clear that this section does not cover
stairs serving floating roof tanks, stairs on scaffolds, stairs
designed into a machine or piece of equipment, or stairs on self-
propelled motorized mobile equipment. To ensure consistency among OSHA
standards and assist those working in both construction and general
industries, requirements for stairs on scaffolds also are provided in
the construction industry standards at Sec. 1926.451. Stairs serving
floating roof tanks, stairs designed into a machine or piece of
equipment, and stairs on self-propelled motorized mobile equipment are
not covered by recognized industry standards, and the Agency does not
have any information or sufficient evidence on how to regulate these
types of stairs. OSHA requests comments on whether there is a need to
regulate these stairs.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2) is intended to protect employees from
falling off unprotected sides and edges. It requires that stairs be
equipped with handrails and stair rail systems that meet the
requirements of proposed Sec. 1910.28, Duty to have fall protection.
OSHA notes that the top rail of a stair rail system may also serve as a
handrail when installed in accordance with proposed Sec. 1910.29(f).
Paragraph (a)(3) proposes that the vertical clearance above any
stair tread to an overhead obstruction must be at least 6 feet, 8
inches (1.8 m) measured from the leading edge of the tread, except as
proposed in (c)(3) below. This is a change from the existing rule,
found in Sec. 1910.24(i), where the clearance is required to be at
least 7 feet (2.1 m). This proposed change is consistent with national
consensus standards (i.e., ANSI A1264.1-2007).
In paragraphs (a)(4) through (a)(6), OSHA proposes requirements for
riser heights and stairway landing platform widths. All three
provisions are based on requirements in existing subpart D but are
rewritten in performance-based language for ease of compliance and
enforcement. These proposed requirements are the minimum criteria OSHA
feels are necessary to ensure employee safety when traversing stairs.
In paragraph (a)(4), OSHA proposes that stairs be installed with
uniform riser heights and tread depths between landings. This provision
is essentially the same as the existing requirement in Sec.
1910.24(f).
OSHA proposes, in Sec. 1910.25(a)(5), that stairway landings and
platforms be no less than the width of the stair and not less than 30
inches (76 cm) in length as measured in the direction of travel. The
proposed language is essentially the same as that in existing Sec.
1910.24(g).
In paragraph (a)(6), OSHA proposes to revise the platform width
requirements where doors or gates open directly on a stairway.
Specifically, OSHA proposes that when a door or a gate opens directly
on a stairway, a platform must be provided, and the swing of the door
or gate must not reduce the effective usable depth to less than 20
inches (51 cm) for platforms installed before 90 days after the
effective date of the final rule; and 22 inches (56 cm) for platforms
installed thereafter. The 20 or 22 inches (51 or 56 cm) is measured
beyond the swing radius of the door after the door is opened fully.
(See Figure D-7.) This change increases the effective usable depth of
the platform, required in existing Sec. 1910.23(a)(10), by 2 inches (5
cm), making OSHA's proposal consistent with the national consensus
standard, ANSI A1264.1-1995 (R2002). OSHA notes that the 2007 version
of ANSI/ASSE A1264.1, section 6.11, Door and Gate Openings, states,
"Stairs shall have landings at door openings and gate openings. During
its swing, the door shall leave not less than one-half of the required
width of the landing unobstructed. The door shall project not more than
seven inches (180 mm) into the required width of the landing when the
door is fully open." OSHA requests comment on how much clear,
unobstructed space is necessary on landing platforms where doors or
gates open directly onto them.
In paragraph (a)(7), OSHA proposes that stairs be designed and
constructed to carry five times the normal anticipated live load, but
never less than a concentrated load of 1,000 pounds (454 kg) applied at
any point. This provision is nearly the same as existing Sec.
1910.24(c), which applies to fixed industrial stairs, except that the
proposed provision will apply to all stairs covered by this section. In
addition, it is consistent with ANSI/ASSE A1264.1-2007.
In paragraph (a)(8), OSHA proposes that standard stairs be provided
for access from one walking-working surface to another where operations
necessitate regular and routine travel between levels and for access to
operating platforms for equipment. An exception allows the use of
winding stairways on tanks and similar round structures where the
diameter of the structure is five (5) feet (1.5 m) or more. OSHA
recognizes that standard stairs are the principal means of providing
safe access from one working level to another. Therefore, this
provision is designed to ensure that employees have a reasonable means
of access to different walking-working surfaces. This provision is
essentially the same as the existing requirement in Sec. 1910.24(b)
except that it has been rewritten for clarity. OSHA does not intend for
this section to preclude the use of fixed ladders for access to
elevated tanks, towers, and similar structures, or to overhead
traveling cranes, when the use of fixed ladders is common practice. The
proposed provision is consistent with the national consensus standard,
ANSI/ASSE A1264.1-2007.
In paragraph (a)(9), OSHA proposes to limit the use of spiral
stairs, ship stairs, or alternating tread-type stairs to "special
limited usage" and "secondary access" situations when the employer
demonstrates that it is not practical to provide a standard stairway.
This is consistent with the national consensus standard, ANSI/ASSE
A1264.1-2007. ANSI does not define "special limited usage" or
"secondary access." The ICC Building Code, however, refers to
"special limited use" as "a space not more than 250 square feet (23
m\2\) in area and serving not more than five occupants, or from
galleries, catwalks and gridirons. * * *" The proposal would require
employers to demonstrate that it is not practical to provide a standard
stairway before using an alternate type of stairway in "special
limited use" situations; therefore, it may be helpful to employers if
OSHA defines special limited usage. For the purpose of this proposed
rule, OSHA's use of the term is the same as the ICC's; however there
may be other usages that warrant inclusion. OSHA requests comment on
these points. The term "secondary access" is self explanatory and
refers to any stairway that is not used as a primary means of egress.
OSHA notes that where spiral stairs, ship stairs, or alternating
tread-type stairs are permitted, those stairs must meet the general
requirements in proposed Sec. 1910.25(a) and the dditional specific
a requirements for each stair type in paragraphs (c),(d), or (e) of
proposed Sec. 1910.25, respectively. Proposed
paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) for spiral stairways, ship stairs, and
alternating-type stairs respectively, are new and have no counterparts
in existing Sec. 1910.24.
Paragraph (b) Standard Stairs
In paragraph (b), OSHA proposes specific requirements for standard
stairs. The proposed requirements are the minimum criteria OSHA
believes are necessary to allow adequate clearance for employees to
negotiate standard stairs safely. These requirements apply in addition
to the general requirements in proposed paragraph (a) above. All of the
proposed requirements in this paragraph are consistent with the
national consensus standard, ANSI/ASSE A1264.1-2007. For compliance
assistance, OSHA has included figures D-7 through D-10 in the
regulatory language.
Paragraph (b)(1) proposes that standard stairs be installed at
angles between 30 and 50 degrees from the horizontal, which is
equivalent to existing Sec. 1910.24(e). However, the existing rule
allows any combination of riser height and tread depth necessary to
achieve the 30 to 50 degree angle, whereas the proposed rule sets a
maximum and minimum range, respectively. Proposed paragraphs (b)(2) and
(b)(3) set the maximum riser height and the minimum tread depth,
allowing an exception when open risers are used. In paragraph (b)(2),
OSHA proposes that standard stairs have a maximum riser height of 9.5
inches (24 cm). In paragraph (b)(3), OSHA proposes that standard stairs
have a minimum tread depth of 9.5 inches (24 cm) except when open
risers are used; that is, standard stairs having open risers can have
tread depths of less than 9.5 inches (24 cm). Proposed paragraph (b)(3)
differs from the existing rule in that it uses the term "tread depth"
instead of "tread run." OSHA believes that stairs currently used in
general industry already meet these requirements.
In paragraph (b)(4), OSHA proposes that standard stairs have a
minimum width of 22 inches (56 cm) between vertical barriers (such as a
stair rail, guardrail, or wall). This requirement is essentially the
same as existing Sec. 1910.24(d).
The proposed criteria for spiral stairs, ship stairs, and
alternating tread-type stairs presented below in proposed paragraphs
(c), (d), and (e), respectively, parallel the provisions provided for
standard stairs. They represent the minimum requirements OSHA believes
are necessary for employees to traverse spiral stairs, ship stairs, and
alternating tread-type stairs safely.
Paragraph (c) Spiral Stairs
In paragraph (c), OSHA proposes specific requirements for spiral
stairs. These requirements apply in addition to the general
requirements in proposed paragraph (a) above. These provisions are
based on NFPA 101-2006.
Proposed paragraph (c)(1) requires that spiral stairways have a
clear width not less than 26 inches (66 cm). Proposed paragraph (c)(2)
requires spiral stairways to have risers with a maximum height of 9.5
inches (24 cm). In paragraph (c)(3), OSHA proposes that spiral stairs
have a minimum amount of headroom above the spiral stairway of 6 feet,
6 inches (2 m) measured vertically from the center of the leading edge
of the tread. To maintain a safe tread depth and size for spiral
stairs, OSHA proposes in paragraph (c)(4) that spiral stair treads have
a minimum depth of 7.5 inches (19 cm) at a point 12 inches (30 cm) from
the narrowest edge. Proposed paragraph (c)(5) requires that spiral
stairs have uniform size treads.
Paragraph (d) Ship Stairs
In paragraph (d), OSHA proposes specific requirements for ship
stairs. These requirements apply in addition to the general
requirements in proposed paragraph (a) above. Proposed paragraph (d)(1)
requires that ship stairs be installed at a slope of 50 to 70 degrees
from the horizontal. Paragraph (d)(2) proposes that ship stairs have
open risers. In paragraph (d)(3), OSHA proposes that ship stairs have
treads with a minimum depth of 4 inches (10 cm), a minimum width of 18
inches (46 cm), and a vertical rise between tread surfaces in the range
of 6.5 to 12 inches (17 to 30 cm). These provisions are based on the
national consensus standard, ANSI A1264.1-2007.
Paragraph (e) Alternating Tread-Type Stairs
In proposed paragraph (e), OSHA proposes specific requirements for
alternating tread-type stairs. These requirements apply in addition to
the general requirements in proposed paragraph (a) above. Proposed
paragraph (e)(1) requires that alternating tread-type stairs be
installed at a slope between 50 and 70 degrees from the horizontal.
Proposed paragraph (e)(2) requires that the distance between handrails
be between 20 and 24 inches (51 to 61 cm). Proposed paragraph (e)(3)
requires that the stairs have treads with a minimum depth of 8.5 inches
(22 cm). Proposed paragraph (e)(4) requires that alternating tread-type
stairs have open risers if the depth is less than 9.5 inches (24 cm),
and proposed paragraph (e)(5) requires treads that are a minimum of 7
inches (18 cm) wide at the leading edge of the step (nosing). The
proposed requirements of this paragraph are based on ANSI A1264.1-2007,
NFPA 101-2006, and the 2003 International Building Code.
Section 1910.26 Dockboards (Bridge Plates)
Proposed Sec. 1910.26 establishes requirements for dockboards
(bridge plates). This section relocates, updates, and clarifies
requirements for dockboards located in existing Sec. 1910.30, Other
working surfaces. In addition, two requirements in existing Sec.
1910.30(b) and (c), Forging machine and Veneer machinery, respectively,
would be revoked because the hazards addressed in those provisions are
already covered elsewhere in proposed subpart D (e.g., Sec. 1910.22)
or in other subparts in the general industry standards (e.g., subpart
O, Machinery and Machine Guarding, and in particular Sec. 1910.218,
Forging machines).
In paragraph (a), OSHA proposes that portable and powered
dockboards be capable of supporting their maximum intended load. This
requirement essentially restates the general requirement for load
support in proposed Sec. 1910.22(b) for all walking-working surfaces,
and it is essentially the same as existing provision Sec.
1910.30(a)(1).
In paragraph (b), OSHA proposes that dockboards put into service at
least 90 days after the effective date of the final rule be designed,
constructed, and maintained to prevent equipment (such as hand trucks
and vehicles) from running off the edge. This performance language
provision requires that where equipment is used on dockboards, the
dockboard must be provided with a means, such as edging or curbing, to
prevent equipment from running off the edge. This is a new requirement,
which is being proposed to protect employees from injury in the event
the equipment falls off the edge of the dockboard.
OSHA proposes in paragraph (c) that portable dockboards be secured
in position, either by being anchored or equipped with devices that
will prevent their slipping. Where this is infeasible,
the employer must ensure there is substantial contact between the
portable dockboard and the unattached surface or surfaces. The
dockboard and the unattached surface or surfaces should overlap with
one another so that the dockboard does not rock, slide, or slip while
being used by employees. The provision is essentially the same as
existing provision Sec. 1910.30(a)(2) and is based on ANSI/ASME B56.1-
2000, Safety Standard for Low Lift and High Lift Trucks (sections
4.13.2 and 4.13.5).
In paragraph (d), OSHA proposes that vehicles onto which a
dockboard has been placed must be prevented from moving (e.g., by using
wheel chocks) while the dockboard is being used by employees. If a
vehicle rolls forward when a dockboard is in use, the dockboard may
fall off the end of the vehicle and an employee may fall as well. The
provision identifies positive steps to prevent movement of vehicles
rolling forward away from the dock and is essentially the same as the
existing Sec. 1910.30(a)(5). The paragraph is consistent with ANSI
MH30.2-2005, Portable Dock Leveling Devices: Safety, Performance and
Testing.
OSHA proposes in paragraph (e) that portable dockboards be equipped
with handholds or other means to permit safe handling. The provision is
essentially the same as existing Sec. 1910.30(a)(4) and is based on
ANSI/ASME B56.1-2000, Safety Standard for Low Lift and High Lift Trucks
(section 4.13.3).
Section 1910.27 Scaffolds (Including Rope Descent Systems)
In Sec. 1910.27, OSHA is proposing significant revisions to the
existing general industry scaffold standards. First, OSHA is proposing
to remove all the existing scaffolding requirements now located at
Sec. 1910.28 and Sec. 1910.29, with the exception of mobile ladder
stand requirements in existing Sec. 1910.28(f). Instead, in paragraph
(a), it is proposing to require that employers comply with the
construction industry standards in Sec. 1926 subpart L, Scaffolds.
Requirements for mobile ladder stands are relocated to proposed Sec.
1910.23(e). Second, in paragraph (b) OSHA is proposing to add new
requirements for rope descent systems (sometimes called controlled
descent systems)--a type of scaffold not now regulated by either OSHA's
general industry or construction industry standards.
Paragraph (a) Scaffolds
The primary reason for the proposed changes is to ensure
consistency among OSHA standards for scaffolds. The construction
industry scaffold standards (subpart L of 29 CFR part 1926) were
updated on August 30, 1996 (61 FR 46026), and contain requirements for
the same types of scaffolds that are now regulated by the general
industry standards. Rather than updating the part 1910 standard to
harmonize with the part 1926 standard, OSHA concluded that a better way
to ease compliance and ensure regulatory consistency, both now and in
the future, is to refer general industry employers to the construction
industry standards. OSHA believes that this will ensure consistency in
worker protection in both industries, increase understanding of the
rules, and reduce any confusion that might occur when employers are
subject to two sets of rules for scaffolds--one that applies when
general industry work (such as maintenance) is being done and another
when construction work is being done. In addition, OSHA believes that
many general industry employers who use scaffolds also perform work
covered by the construction industry standards and are, therefore,
already familiar, and in compliance, with the construction industry
scaffold standards. OSHA believes that using just one set of
regulations will simplify both compliance and enforcement of the
scaffold standards and result in greater employee protection. OSHA
notes that all 21 types of scaffolds currently regulated by the general
industry standards are also regulated by the construction industry
standards.
The following table lists the different types of scaffolding
addressed in the existing part 1910 general industry standards, and the
corresponding paragraphs in part 1926 construction industry standards.

List of Comparable Scaffolding Standards in Existing Parts 1910 and 1926
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing 1910 Existing 1926 Subpart L
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.28 (b).............................. Wood pole scaffolds.... .452 (a)............... Pole scaffolds.
.28 (c).............................. Tube and coupler .452 (b)............... Tube and coupler
scaffolds. scaffolds.
.28 (d).............................. Tubular welded frame .452 (c)............... Fabricated frame
scaffolds. (tubular welded)
scaffolds.
.28 (e).............................. Outrigger scaffolds.... .452 (i)............... Outrigger scaffolds.
.28 (g).............................. Two-point suspension .452 (p)............... Two-point adjustable
scaffolds. suspension scaffolds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.28 (h).............................. Stone setter's .452 (q)............... Multi-point adjustable
adjustable multipoint suspension scaffolds,
suspension scaffolds. stone setters' multi-
point adjustable
suspension scaffolds,
and masons' multi-
point adjustable
suspension scaffolds.
.28 (f).............................. Masons' adjustable
multi-point suspension
scaffolds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.28 (i).............................. Single-point adjustable .452 (o)............... Single-point adjustable
suspension scaffolds. suspension scaffolds.
.28 (j).............................. Boatswain's chair......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.28 (k).............................. Carpenters' bracket .452 (g)............... Form scaffolds and
scaffolds. carpenters' bracket
scaffolds.
.28 (l).............................. Bricklayers' square .452 (e)............... Bricklayers' square
scaffolds. scaffolds.
.28 (m).............................. Horse scaffolds........ .452 (f)............... Horse scaffolds.
.28 (n).............................. Needle beam scaffolds.. .452 (u)............... Needle beam scaffolds.
.28 (o).............................. Plasterers', .452 (d)............... Plasterers',
decorators', and large decorators', and large
area scaffolds. area scaffolds.
.28 (p).............................. Interior hung scaffolds .452 (t)............... Interior hung
scaffolds.
.28 (q).............................. Ladder jack scaffolds.. .452 (k)............... Ladder jack scaffolds.
.28 (r).............................. Window-jack scaffolds.. .452 (l)............... Window-jack scaffolds.
.28 (s).............................. Roofing bracket .452 (h)............... Roof bracket scaffolds.
scaffolds.
.28 (t).............................. Crawling boards or .452 (m)............... Crawling boards
chicken ladders. (chicken ladders).
.28 (u).............................. Float or ship scaffolds .452 (s)............... Float (ship) scaffolds.
.29 (e).............................. Mobile work platforms.. .452 (w)............... Mobile scaffolds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OSHA is aware that by requiring general industry employers to
comply with the construction industry scaffold requirements, some
employers may encounter new requirements. However, the Agency
anticipates there will be minimal new compliance burdens or new costs
associated with requiring compliance with the construction industry
rules. The Agency believes that any requirements in the construction
industry scaffold standard that would be "new" to general industry
employers are requirements that only apply when construction work is
being done. For example, Sec. 1926.451(g)(2) requires, under certain
conditions, that employees be protected from falls while erecting and
dismantling supported scaffolds. There is no similar requirement in the
existing general industry scaffold standard. However, OSHA believes
that most work performed from supported scaffolds is construction work
that is already subject to the Sec. 1926.451(g)(2) requirement.
OSHA requests comment on its position as discussed here. Is there
general industry work--maintenance work, for example--performed while
working from supported scaffolds that would cause employers to be
subjected to a new rule? Are there other requirements in the
construction industry rule that would impose new obligations on general
industry employers because of OSHA's proposed action to require
employers to comply with the construction scaffold rule? If so, what
are those requirements and how would general industry employers be
impacted?
Paragraph (b) Rope descent systems (RDS).
Rope descent systems (RDS), newly covered in proposed paragraph
(b), are suspension-type devices that support one employee in a chair
(seat board) and allow the user to descend in a controlled manner,
stopping at desired points during the descent. RDS are a variation of
single-point adjustable suspension scaffolds, but operate only in a
descending direction. The use of rope descent systems is prevalent in
the United States, frequently used in building cleaning, maintenance,
and inspection. RDS are also known as "controlled descent devices"
(CDD), and have been referred to as such in previous Federal Register
notices (see example in following paragraph). To reduce confusion, in
this notice OSHA will only use the term RDS.
In the July 18, 1990, Federal Register, OSHA solicited comments on
regulating the use of RDS (CDD). On May 2, 2003, OSHA again raised the
issue (68 FR 23534):

In a March 12, 1991, memorandum to its Regional Administrators,
OSHA stated that employers who use CDD to perform building cleaning,
inspection, and maintenance must do so in accordance with the
manufacturer's instructions, warnings, and design limitations. In
addition, OSHA said it expected employers using CDD to implement
eight specific safety provisions covering the following areas:
employee training, inspection of equipment, proper rigging, separate
fall arrest systems, installation of lines, rescue, prevention of
rope damage, and stabilization (Docket S-029; Ex. 1-16-3). These
eight provisions also are included in the current national consensus
standard, ANSI I-14.1-2001--Window Cleaning Safety (Docket S-029;
Ex. 1-13). The ANSI standard also limits the use of CDD, which it
refers to as rope descent systems (RDS) to window cleaning
operations performed 300 feet (91 m) or less above grade, unless the
windows cannot be safely and practicably accessed by other means
such as powered platforms.

The inclusion of these eight provisions in the ANSI standard on window
cleaning indicates industry acceptance of these specific safety
precautions. Comments to the earlier rulemaking record, both written
and in public hearings, indicate that there are basically two view
points on the RDS issue--either strongly in support of their use or
strongly opposed to their use.
The supporting comments noted that RDS are a vital piece of
equipment for the window cleaning industry (along with powered
platforms, ladders, and other devices). Comments were made that, in
some instances, such as certain multi-level roofs, saw-tooth roof
edges, and buildings without parapets, RDS were the safest equipment to
use (Ex. OSHA-S041-2006-0666-1253, p. 489).
Mr. Steve Powers, an owner/operator of a high-rise window cleaning
company testified:

[T]he only solution to reducing the number of injuries and
fatalities is in proper training, not in banning or restricting
equipment. Human error and the lack of proper training is the
primary cause of injuries and fatalities in our industry, not the
equipment (Tr. 685).

The opposing commenters discussed the advantages of powered
platforms over RDS. A window cleaning company owner expressed the
belief that most window cleaners in this country do not have the proper
training to use RDS in a safe manner (Ex. OSHA-S041-2006-0666-1254, p.
997). Many members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
also opposed the use of RDS (e.g., Ex. OSHA-S029-2006-0662-0277 through
Ex. OSHA-S029-2006-0662-0284).
Since issuing its policy on the use of RDS over 19 years ago, OSHA
is not aware of any fatalities involving RDS when all eight of the
safety provisions outlined in the March 12, 1991, memorandum have been
followed. Therefore, at this time, OSHA believes that RDS may address a
need and can be used safely so long as proper procedures are followed.
Due to the design of some structures, the use of RDS may be the only
way to perform some maintenance work and, if RDS is the only feasible
method, OSHA believes that requirements are essential to protect
employees while they are using this equipment.
To have the most complete information on RDS incidents, OSHA
requests comment on incidents, including fatalities, injuries, and near
misses, that have occurred while using this equipment. Additionally,
OSHA requests information regarding any other provisions that should be
included in the final rule to increase worker safety, including whether
or not RDS should be prohibited or should be allowed only when the
employer can demonstrate that other methods, such as powered platforms,
are not feasible or pose additional safety risks. Please include
comment on how such feasibility and safety risk determinations could be
made, as well as applicable rationale, costs, and benefits for all
comments on RDS.
The specific requirements in this proposed rule are based on the
eight provisions of OSHA's 1991 memorandum and the national consensus
standard, IWCA I-14.1-2001. These provisions are described in the
following paragraphs. Additionally, although some provisions of this
section are essentially the same as provisions in proposed subpart I,
OSHA believes it is appropriate for the provisions to be presented
here, in proposed subpart D, as a complete unit for ease of compliance
and enforcement.
Proposed paragraph (b)(1) prohibits the use of RDS at heights
greater than 300 feet (91.4 m) above grade unless the employer can
demonstrate that access cannot otherwise be attained safely and
practicably. Therefore, RDS would be permitted at heights of 300 feet
(91.4 m) or less.
While the March 12, 1991, memorandum did not include a 300-foot
limitation, the national consensus standard, IWCA I-14.1-2001 (section
5.7.12), prescribes the limitation. OSHA uses IWCA I-14 (section
5.7.11) as the basis for this prohibition, noting that the greater the
length of rope used for a descent, the greater the adverse effects of
environmental factors such as wind gusts, microbursts, or tunneling
wind currents; these effects increase the risk of injury to employees.
for this reason, OSHA believes it is appropriate to propose this prohibition.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2) establishes eleven requirements employers
must meet when RDS are used. Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(i) requires RDS
to be used in accordance with the instructions, warnings, and design
limitations set by manufacturers and distributors. Equipment is to be
used only as the manufacturer designed it to be used. For instance,
ropes and equipment that are designed and sold for recreational
climbing are not always rated for industrial use. OSHA is aware that
some elements of one manufacturer's system may be compatible with
elements of a different manufacturer's system; however, incompatibility
of systems can be disastrous. OSHA requests comment on whether changing
the provision to read "set by manufacturers or qualified persons"
(using the word "qualified" as defined in proposed Sec. 1910.21)
would be more appropriate.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(ii) requires employee training in
accordance with proposed Sec. 1910.30. OSHA believes that RDS can be
safely used only if employees are thoroughly knowledgeable in the
equipment and its proper use. Please see the training discussion below.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(iii) requires daily inspection of all
equipment used in RDS before use. Also, any damaged equipment must be
removed from service. This inspection enables changes and defects (such
as abrasions and cracks) that occurred during the last use or during
storage to be discovered, and appropriate action taken. This provision
is reflected in a similar requirement in proposed Sec. 1910.140,
Personal fall arrest systems.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(iv) requires proper rigging, including
sound anchorages and tiebacks, with particular emphasis on providing
tiebacks when counterweights, cornice hooks, or similar non-permanent
anchorages are used. Sound anchorage and tiebacks are essential to the
safety of RDS. Emphasis is placed upon non-permanent anchorages because
of the increased possibility of damage during transport and improper
installation. The Agency requests comment on whether this provision is
sufficient to ensure the safety of anchorages, and whether OSHA should
include any specific requirements for anchorages beyond those presented
here.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(v) requires a separate, independent
personal fall arrest system meeting the requirements of subpart I of
this part to be used so that any failure in a friction device, support
seat, support line, or anchorage system will not affect the ability of
the fall arrest system to operate and quickly stop the employee's fall.
This requirement is consistent with existing Sec. 1910.66(j) and Sec.
1926.451(g), and is reflected in proposed Sec. 1910.140.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(vi) requires that all lines be capable of
sustaining a minimum tensile load of 5,000 pounds (2,268 kg). This
requirement does not preclude the use of a knot, swage, or eye splice
that reduces the tensile strength of a rope, but it does require that
when such a knot, swage, or splice is used, the rope must have a
resulting strength capable of supporting a minimum tensile load of
5,000 pounds (2,268 kg). This provision is the same as a requirement in
proposed Sec. 1910.140, Personal fall arrest systems.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(vii) requires the employer to provide for
prompt rescue of employees in the event of a fall. This provision is
the same as a requirement in proposed Sec. 1910.140.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(viii) requires ropes to be effectively
padded when they contact edges of the building, anchorage,
obstructions, or other surfaces that might cut or weaken the rope.
Padding protects ropes from abrasions that can weaken the tensile
strength of a rope.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(ix) requires stabilization at employee
work locations when descents are greater than 130 feet (39.6 m). As
required in ANSI/IWCA I-14 (section 5.7.12), stabilization at the
specific work station reduces risks imposed by sway. The Agency
requests information on stabilization methods commonly used, and other
stabilization methods not commonly used that may increase employee
safety. Please include information regarding costs and benefits of
these methods.
The greater the length of rope used for a descent, the greater the
adverse effects of environmental factors such as wind gusts,
microbursts, or tunneling wind currents; these effects increase the
risk of injury to employees. OSHA requests information on the use of
RDS during inclement weather. Should the use of RDS be prohibited in
certain weather conditions? If so, what are those conditions? How
should an employer determine whether the conditions are severe enough
to prevent the use of RDS? The term "excessive winds" as used in the
consensus standard is subjective and open to differing interpretations.
How should the term be defined? Is a specific wind speed appropriate?
What speed and why? Should wind speed be monitored, and if so, how?
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(x) requires equipment, including tools,
squeegees, and buckets, to be secured to prevent equipment from
falling, thus protecting any workers below from being struck by falling
equipment. This provision is based on IWCA I-14.1-2001, which is
written for the protection of the general public. However, OSHA
believes this provision also is necessary to protect employees working
below RDS from injuries resulting from dropped equipment.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(xi) requires suspension ropes to be
protected from exposure to open flames, hot work, corrosive chemicals,
or other destructive conditions that can weaken them. This requirement
is essentially the same as existing Sec. 1910.28(a)(21).
Section 1910.28 Duty To Have Fall Protection
This is the first of three new sections in subpart D that
consolidate requirements pertinent to fall protection. The new sections
(Sec. Sec. 1910.28, 1910.29, and 1910.30), when viewed together,
represent a comprehensive approach to managing fall hazards. OSHA
believes this revised approach will ensure a better understanding of
employer obligations; provide flexibility for employers when choosing a
fall protection system that works best for them; and most importantly,
will significantly reduce the number of falls in general industry.
Proposed Sec. 1910.28 specifies the areas and operations where
fall protection systems are required. The criteria to be met for fall
protection systems and the training necessary to use the systems
properly are covered in proposed Sec. Sec. 1910.29 and 1910.30,
respectively. In addition, criteria to be met when personal fall
protection systems are used are covered in subpart I of this part at
Sec. 1910.140. New Sec. 1910.28 is patterned after Sec. 1926.501,
Duty to have fall protection, of the construction industry standards
and contains many similar requirements. As indicated in proposed Sec.
1910.21, Scope and application, OSHA intends that this new section will
consolidate most general industry fall protection requirements. There
are, however, some exceptions. OSHA is not proposing to relocate the
existing "duty to have fall protection" requirements in Sec. 1910.66
(for powered platforms), Sec. 1910.67 (for aerial lifts), Sec.
1910.268 (for telecommunications operations), or Sec. 1910.269
(electric power generation, distribution and transmission operations).
In addition, nothing in this section applies to fall hazards from the
perimeter of entertainment stages or rail
(subway) station platforms. In these contexts, the use of guardrails or
other fall protection systems could unreasonably interfere with work
operations or would create a greater hazard than would otherwise be
present. OSHA recognizes that there may be limited circumstances where
fall protection may be feasible in these occupational settings, and
encourages the use of fall protection when possible.
The duty to have fall protection in general industry is not new.
Existing subpart D already requires employees to be protected from
falls and, in general, requires that protection be provided whenever an
employee is exposed to falling 4 feet (1.2 m) or more to a lower level.
The origin of the 4-foot rule in subpart D is the American National
Standard, ANSI A12.1-1967, Safety Requirements for Floor and Wall
Openings, Railings, and Toe Boards. Historical records indicate that,
generally, the 4-foot rule was prescribed in consensus standards as far
back as 1932 (see ANSI A12.1-1932). Therefore, it is reasonable to
conclude that providing fall protection when employees are exposed to
falls of 4 feet (1.2 m) or more has been the accepted practice in
general industry for more than 75 years.
Furthermore, a 1978 University of Michigan study (An Ergonomic
Basis for Recommendations Pertaining to Specific Sections of OSHA
Standard 29 CFR Part 1910, Subpart D-Walking and Working Surfaces, Ex.
OSHA-S041-2006-0666-0004) supports maintaining the 4-foot rule. For
these reasons, OSHA believes it would be unreasonable to change this
trigger height. The Agency requests more recent studies or information
that support or contradict this position.
OSHA notes that its construction industry rules require, except for
certain specific work or operations, that employees be protected
whenever the fall distance is 6 feet (1.8 m) or more to lower levels.
Comments to OSHA's 2003 Reopening Notice indicated that some members of
the public believed that the trigger height for providing fall
protection in general industry is 6 feet (1.8 m), which is the
construction industry trigger. OSHA wishes to be clear on this point:
for general industry, the trigger height for providing fall protection
has--for more than 75 years--been 4 feet (1.2 m). Exceptional trigger
heights have been established for construction, work performed on
scaffolds or fixed ladders, or utility work. Throughout its entire
history, OSHA has consistently reinforced the policy in public
statements, as well as in documents issued to clarify and interpret the
standard. For example, as far back as 1978, OSHA, in a letter of
interpretation to Mr. John Reilly
(http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=18715)
restated the requirement for fall protection for open-sided surfaces more than 4
feet above adjacent levels.
A major difference between the proposed requirements in Sec.
1910.28, and the existing requirements of subpart D, is that under the
proposed rule, employers will be able to choose from several options in
providing fall protection. The existing rule, for the most part,
mandates the use of guardrail systems (see, e.g., Sec. 1910.23),
thereby limiting the employer's ability to choose the system that works
best for the particular situation or work activity. The proposed rule
allows employers to choose from several options in providing fall
protection. These include conventional fall protection systems such as
guardrail systems, safety net systems, and personal fall protection
systems (travel restraint systems, fall arrest systems, and positioning
systems), and non-conventional means. An example of non-conventional
means would be the establishment of a designated area in which an
employee is to work. An employee working in a designated area must be
trained in safe work practices specific to that area and must be
required to use those safe work practices. OSHA believes that an
important key to protecting employees is allowing employers flexibility
to select the fall protection systems or methods that will work best
for the particular work activities or operations, thereby allowing
employers to consider factors such as exposure time, availability of
attachment points, and feasibility and cost constraints.
OSHA believes that the reorganized format presented here will
reduce confusion about fall protection requirements, as well as reduce
the need for interpretations of those requirements. As noted above, by
patterning this section after the construction industry standards, OSHA
intends to ensure that employees in both industries, when exposed to
similar fall hazards, are afforded similar protection. The proposed
subpart D fall protection requirements also reflect today's technology
and recognize the use of innovative fall protection measures, such as
working in designated areas or using travel restraint systems, as
reasonable and appropriate ways to protect employees from fall hazards.
Once an employer has chosen a system or method from the options allowed
in proposed Sec. 1910.28, that system/method would have to meet the
requirements in proposed Sec. 1910.29, and employees would have to be
trained on the use of the chosen system per proposed Sec. 1910.30.
OSHA believes the proposed fall protection requirements will allow for
a much higher level of compliance, leading to a higher level of
protection and may, at the same time, reduce employer costs.
Paragraph (a) General
Proposed paragraph (a) of Sec. 1910.28 contains two general
requirements relating to an employer's obligation, or duty, to have
fall protection. In proposed paragraph (a)(1), OSHA establishes the
employer's obligation to provide fall protection and clarifies that all
fall protection systems used must conform to the criteria and work
practices set forth in proposed Sec. 1910.29, except that, when
personal fall protection systems are used, compliance with the criteria
and work practices of proposed Sec. 1910.140 in subpart I would be
required. Proposed Sec. 1910.28 does not apply to powered platforms
because the duty to have fall protection is already provided in Sec.
1910.66, the general industry standard for powered platforms. Proposed
Sec. 1910.28 also does not apply to aerial lifts (Sec. 1910.67),
telecommunications (Sec. 1910.268), or electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution (Sec. 1910.269) because each of these
sections, like Sec. 1910.66, already contains a requirement specifying
the employer's duty to have fall protection. OSHA notes that most of
the requirements in this proposed section allow several choices for
providing fall protection, but some requirements limit the choices. For
example, only the use of guardrail and handrail systems is permitted to
protect employees on dockboards (bridge plates). Here, OSHA believes
these systems offer the appropriate type of fall protection.
As stated above, existing subpart D requires employers to provide
guardrails as the primary method of protecting employees from fall
hazards (for example, see proposed Sec. 1910.23(c)). The 1990 proposed
revision of subpart D (55 FR 13401) continued the concept of using
guardrails as the primary fall protection method, allowing other
alternatives in limited situations. Thus, the subpart D proposal
established a hierarchy of controls. However, in the 2003 Reopening
Notice (68 FR 23533), OSHA acknowledged that it may not always be
feasible to provide guardrails and raised this as an issue. Issue
4, Hierarchy of Fall Protection Controls, elicited comment on
whether OSHA should permit employers to provide
other fall protection systems such as personal fall arrest systems,
positioning systems, or restraint systems to protect employees from
falls. In raising the issue, OSHA noted that the final Fall Protection
rule for the construction industry did not have a hierarchy of fall
protection systems. Instead, that standard included a list of options
which employers would be permitted to follow (59 FR 40672, August 9,
1994). In the 2003 reopening, OSHA said that, to achieve consistency
between OSHA's construction standards and general industry standards,
it could abandon the hierarchy of fall protection controls that had
been proposed in 1990 in favor of a more flexible approach (68 FR
23533).
Comments on Issue 4 overwhelmingly favored removal of the
hierarchy and promulgation of rules consistent with those already
established for the construction industry. Today's proposal reflects
those comments and removes the hierarchy in favor of provisions
establishing several fall protection systems that offer equivalent
protections, and allows employers flexibility to select among them. It
is OSHA's belief that the alternatives (or options) listed for each
work activity operation will allow employers to choose the system that
they determine is most appropriate and cost effective. OSHA has limited
the employer's choices to those systems that it believes will provide
an appropriate and equal level of safety.
In an earlier Federal Register (59 FR 40680) document, OSHA
discussed its position that all employers are responsible for obtaining
information about the workplace hazards to which their employees may be
exposed and for taking appropriate action to protect affected employees
from any such hazards. OSHA also noted that "[t]he [Occupational
Safety and Health Review] Commission has held that an employer must
make a reasonable effort to anticipate particular hazards to which its
employees may be exposed in the course of their scheduled work." (Id.
40680.) Specifically, an employer must inspect the area to determine
what hazards exist or may arise during the work before permitting
employees to work in that area, and the employer must then give
specific and appropriate instructions to prevent exposure to unsafe
conditions. This is particularly important when employees are allowed
to work in a "designated area" and are not protected by conventional
fall protection systems.
Additionally, when general industry employers contract with others
to provide work at their site, OSHA expects both the host employer and
contract employer to work together to identify and address fall
hazards. One method of accomplishing this is to conduct a hazard
assessment following the guidelines in Appendix B to subpart I of part
1910, Non-Mandatory Compliance Guidelines for Hazard Assessment and
Personal Protective Equipment Selection. Another resource is consensus
standards. ANSI/ASSE Z359.2-2007, Minimum Requirements for a
Comprehensive Managed Fall Protection Program, provides procedures for
eliminating and controlling fall hazards. OSHA, of course, encourages
employers to go beyond its minimum requirements and to take additional
measures to address fall hazards in a comprehensive manner, starting
with a discussion about the elimination of fall hazards and ending with
a plan to rescue employees if they fall.
In this proposed rule, OSHA requires employers to protect employees
performing work from fall hazards, and sets criteria for the proper
implementation of fall protection through the requirements in subparts
D and I, specifically in the requirements at Sec. Sec. 1910.28-1910.30
and Sec. 1910.140.
In paragraph (a)(2), OSHA proposes to require that employers ensure
that any walking-working surface on which they allow employees to work
has the strength and structural integrity to support employees safely.
OSHA is proposing to add this new requirement, which is identical to
Sec. 1926.501(a)(2) of the construction fall protection standard, to
ensure that the surfaces can support the weight of employees,
equipment, and materials. OSHA's intent is that a simple inspection of
the work surface be made before work begins. If conditions warrant, a
more involved inspection will be necessary to ensure the surface is
safe for employees. OSHA is aware of incidents when employees have
fallen through floors or roofs because they were not inspected before
the work began to ensure that the surfaces would support the loads
imposed (employees, equipment, and material). OSHA believes this is
particularly true when employees are doing maintenance and servicing
work of equipment on roofs, platforms, and runways. The hazards
addressed by the proposed provision are similar to the hazards
addressed in proposed Sec. 1910.22, a revision of existing Sec.
1910.22(d), which is concerned with ensuring employees work on surfaces
that can support them so they will not fall onto or through the
walking-working surface. The provision in proposed Sec. 1910.28(a)(2),
while similar to proposed Sec. 1910.22(a) (which requires that
surfaces be designed, constructed, and maintained free of hazards), is
intended to focus the attention of the employer on the need to inspect
work surfaces (especially non-routine work surfaces) before employees
are required to walk or work on them. It is noted that while some
surfaces are not specifically designed as a walking or working surface,
employees walk on or work from them from time to time. OSHA believes
that this approach is consistent with the approach described in the
preamble to the construction rule (59 FR 40681).
Paragraph (b) Protection From Fall Hazards
Proposed paragraph (b) contains 13 requirements that set forth the
options from which employers may choose to protect employees exposed to
fall hazards when on a walking-working surface, as defined in proposed
Sec. 1910.21. OSHA is using the term "walking-working surfaces"
instead of the existing term "floor" to indicate clearly that subpart
D addresses all surfaces where employees perform work. The Agency has
always maintained that the OSHA general industry fall protection
standards cover all walking-working surfaces. In fact, although OSHA
never mentioned the term "roof" in the existing rule, it has
consistently held that falls from roofs are covered by the existing
rule. OSHA notes that the consensus standards on which the original
fall protection requirements were based, ANSI A12.1 and A64, now
combined at ANSI A1264.1, includes the term "roof" in its title. The
revised rule reaffirms the existing Agency interpretation and practice
and clarifies the language of the standards in that regard. Also, OSHA
has consistently held that subpart D addresses the hazards of falling
from a walking-working surface to any kind of lower level (e.g., solid,
liquid, or colloid).
Under paragraph (b) of the proposal, employers are required to
select and use a fall protection system (or combination of systems) as
provided by paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(14). Each individual
paragraph addresses the fall protection needs of particular walking-
working surfaces and lists the fall protection systems that OSHA
believes are appropriate to those surfaces. Only the systems listed are
permitted to be used. The revised rule requires essentially the same
coverage as the existing rule--protection of employees from falls of 4
feet or more to lower levels, with a few exceptions. One exception is
when employees are working over dangerous equipment (see proposed
paragraph( b)(6) below).
In that situation, employees must be protected from
falls regardless of the height. On the other hand, when employees are
working on scaffolds or fixed ladders, it is reasonable to allow a
higher trigger height, hence the 10- and 24-foot (3 and 7.3 m) trigger
heights proposed. Also, as mentioned above, the proposed general
industry fall protection standards have been reorganized and formatted
to be similar to the construction industry fall protection rule to
bring consistency to the two rules.
Proposed paragraph (b)(1) sets forth the requirements for fall
protection from unprotected sides and edges of walking-working
surfaces. It provides that employees must be protected when they are
exposed to falls from unprotected sides and edges of walking-working
surfaces which are 4 feet (1.2 m) or more above lower levels. The
options from which an employer can choose to provide this protection
include both conventional systems--guardrail systems, safety net
systems, personal fall protection systems, and travel restraint
systems--and having employees work in a "designated area." OSHA
defines a "designated area" in proposed Sec. 1910.21(b) as a
distinct portion of a walking-working surface delineated by a perimeter
warning line in which temporary work may be performed without
additional fall protection. A "designated area" is similar to a
"controlled access zone" at construction worksites. Except for the
"designated area" option, the proposed requirements are essentially
the same as the existing general industry requirements in Sec.
1910.23(c) and are similar to the construction standard at Sec.
1926.501(b)(1).
This proposed standard does not specify a distance from the edge
that is considered safe, i.e., a distance at which fall protection is
not required. Instead, it allows the employer to designate an area in
which employees can work without fall protection. The criteria for
designated areas and other fall protection systems are set forth in
proposed Sec. 1910.29. It is essential for authorized employees in
designated areas exposed to fall hazards to be trained in accordance
with provisions set forth in Sec. 1910.30.
An exception to proposed paragraph (b)(1) applies to the
unprotected side or edge of the working side of platforms used in
slaughtering facilities, loading racks, loading docks, and teeming
tables used in molten metal work. The exception states that when the
employer demonstrates that use of guardrails on the working side of
these platforms is infeasible, the work may be done without guardrails
provided: (1) The work operation for which guardrails are infeasible is
in process; (2) access to the platform is limited to authorized
employees; and, (3) the authorized employees have been trained in
accordance with proposed Sec. 1910.30. Note that the exception is only
for that part of the guardrail that would normally be installed on the
working side of the platform. Employees must still be protected from
falls from the other sides and edges of the platform. When work
operations for which guardrails are infeasible are not in process, for
example, during cleaning or maintenance, the exception does not apply.
This is because OSHA is aware that, in some cases, work cannot be done
when access is blocked by guardrails, or the guardrails touch carcasses
and pose a health issue. These situations are not present during
cleaning or maintenance. The Agency requests comment regarding the
technological feasibility of requiring other means of fall protection
(e.g., travel restraint systems) in these applications. Please include
supporting rationale, as well as information on the costs and benefits
of such a provision.
Paragraph (b)(2) proposes fall protection requirements for
employees in hoist areas of walking-working surfaces that are 4 feet
(1.2 m) or more above lower levels. Employees must be protected through
the use of guardrail systems, personal fall arrest systems, or travel
restraint systems. If guardrails (or chains or gates if they are being
used in lieu of guardrails at the hoist area) are removed to facilitate
hoisting operations, then employees who lean through the access opening
or out over the edge of the access opening to perform their duties are
at risk and must be protected by the use of personal fall arrest
systems. The proposed requirement is consistent with the existing
general industry standard in Sec. 1910.23(b)(1)(i). Except that the
trigger height for providing fall protection is 4 feet (1.2 m) in the
proposed general industry rule, the proposed requirement is also
consistent with the construction industry standard at 1926.501(b)(3).
The existing subpart D standard does not address fall protection at
hoist areas separately from other holes and wall openings. In this
proposal, holes are addressed in paragraph (b)(3) and wall openings in
paragraph (b)(7) below. The criteria for grab handles are located at
proposed Sec. 1910.29(l).
Paragraph (b)(3) of this proposed rule requires that employees be
protected from hazards associated with holes. Employees may be injured
or killed if they step into holes, trip when caught in holes, fall
through holes, or are hit by objects falling through holes. Some
workplaces may present all of these hazards while others may have
fewer. The proposed rule specifies protective measures applicable to
each hazard.
Proposed paragraph (b)(3)(i) requires that employees be protected
from falling into or through holes (including skylight openings) 4 feet
(1.2 m) or more above lower levels by covers over the hole, erecting a
guardrail system around the hole, or by the use of a personal fall
arrest system. Proposed paragraph (b)(3)(ii) requires that covers be
used to protect employees from tripping in or stepping into holes, and
proposed paragraph (b)(3)(iii) requires that covers be used to protect
employees from objects falling through overhead holes. The proposed
requirements are essentially the same as those in existing general
industry standards at Sec. 1910.23(a)(4), (a)(8), and (a)(9), and the
construction standard at Sec. 1926.501(b)(4) except that the trigger
height for providing fall protection for employees falling through
holes is 4 feet (1.2 m) in the proposed general industry rule.
Proposed paragraph (b)(4) addresses fall protection from dockboards
(bridge plates). Proposed paragraph (b)(4)(i) states that each employee
on a dockboard (bridge plate) be protected from falling 4 feet (1.2 m)
or more to lower levels by guardrail or handrail systems, except as
provided by proposed (b)(4)(ii) of this section. Proposed paragraph
(b)(4)(ii) provides that no fall protection (guardrail or handrail
system) is required when motorized equipment is being used on
dockboards (bridge plates) solely for material handling operations,
provided that: (A) Employees are exposed to fall hazards of less than
10 feet (3 m); and (B) employees have been trained as provided by
proposed Sec. 1910.30. The proposed provision, in permitting employers
to rely on training rather than on the use of conventional fall
protection systems, is consistent with the proposed requirements for
repair pits and assembly pits in Sec. 1910.28(b)(8). An example of
when this situation might occur would be the transfer of material
between boxcars. Materials handling exposure is generally of limited
duration, and requires ready access to the open sides. Guardrails would
interfere with the transfer and could create a greater hazard to
employees. The 10-foot (3 m) limitation in proposed paragraph Sec.
1910.28(b)(4)(ii)(A) is consistent with similar requirements for work
on elevated surfaces such as scaffolds (see proposed Sec. Sec.
1910.27, and 1926.451(g)).
Additional requirements related to positioning and securing ramps and
bridging devices are found in proposed Sec. 1910.26, Dockboards
(bridge plates).
In paragraph (b)(5), OSHA proposes that employees on runways and
similar walkways be protected from falling 4 feet (1.2 m) or more to
lower levels by guardrails. The proposed paragraph is essentially the
same as existing Sec. 1910.23(c)(1) and (2) and is consistent with the
construction standard at Sec. 1926.501(b)(6), except that the trigger
height for providing fall protection is 4 feet (1.2 m) in the proposed
general industry rule.
An exception to proposed paragraph (b)(5) permits runways used for
special purposes (such as filling tank cars) to have the railing on one
side omitted when the employer demonstrates that operating conditions
necessitate such an omission. In these circumstances, the employer must
minimize the fall hazard by providing a runway that is at least 18
inches (46 cm) wide, and providing employees with, and ensuring the
proper use of, personal fall arrest systems or travel restraint
systems. This proposed exception is consistent with ANSI 1264.1-2007.
The Agency invites comment on current practices involving runways that
are used for special purposes. Where are such runways used and how are
employees who work on them protected?
Proposed paragraph (b)(6) addresses dangerous equipment. It
proposes two requirements to protect employees from falling into or
onto dangerous equipment. Examples of dangerous equipment include
protruding objects, machinery, pickling or galvanizing tanks,
degreasing units, or similar equipment. Proposed paragraph (b)(6)(i)
addresses situations where employees are less than 4 feet (1.2 m) above
dangerous equipment, and it requires that employees be protected by the
use of guardrail systems or travel restraint systems unless the
equipment is covered or otherwise guarded to eliminate the hazard.
Proposed paragraph (b)(6)(ii) addresses situations where employees are
more than 4 feet above dangerous equipment, and it requires employees
to be protected by guardrail systems, safety net systems, personal fall
arrest systems, or travel restraint systems. OSHA is proposing
different methods for protecting employees depending on the fall
distance. The Agency does not believe the use of safety net systems or
personal fall arrest systems that meet the requirements of proposed
Sec. 1910.29 are appropriate when the fall distance is less than 4
feet (1.2 m), since there will not be sufficient distance below the
employee for the system to work and the employee could make contact
with the dangerous equipment. The proposed paragraph is essentially the
same as the existing general industry standard at Sec. 1910.23(c)(3)
and the construction standard at Sec. 1926.501(b)(8), except that the
trigger height for providing fall protection is 4 feet (1.2 m) in both
the proposed and existing general industry rules.
Paragraph (b)(7) proposes to require protection for employees who
are exposed to the hazard of falling out or through wall openings.
Under the proposal, wall openings (defined as a gap or void 30 inches
(76 cm) or more high and 18 inches (46 cm) or more wide in any wall or
partition through which employees can fall to a lower level) must be
equipped with a guardrail system, safety net system, travel restraint
system, or personal fall arrest system. OSHA believes the most
practical method of compliance is the guardrail system because it
provides protection at all times and for all employees who may have
exposure at the wall opening. However, there may be cases where
employers choose to use safety net systems, travel restraint systems,
or personal fall arrest systems, which also will provide an appropriate
level of protection. For that reason the provision has been written to
permit the use of these other systems. This provision is essentially
the same as the existing general industry standard at Sec. 1910.23(b)
and also with the construction industry rule for wall openings found in
Sec. 1926.501(b)(14), except that the trigger height for fall
protection is 4 feet (1.2 m) in both the proposed and existing general
industry rules.
The earlier (1990) proposed revision of subpart D proposed that in
addition to providing conventional fall protection, employers also
install grab handles on each side of the wall opening whenever the work
activity required employees to reach through an unprotected opening.
That requirement was based on existing Sec. 1910.23(b)(1)(i) and
(e)(10). OSHA is not including a requirement for grab handles at wall
openings in this proposal because, unlike the 1990 proposal, this
document contains a separate, specific requirement (see proposed
paragraph (b)(2) above) for hoist areas, which includes a requirement
to install grab handles. OSHA is not including the requirement for grab
handles for all wall openings because OSHA intends that, when employees
lean out and through a wall opening, that opening constitutes a "hoist
area" and the requirements of proposed paragraph (b)(2) apply. The use
of grab handles as a handhold is, of course, permitted at wall
openings.
Proposed paragraph (b)(8) is a new provision, proposed to address
the specific fall hazard created by vehicle repair pits and assembly
pits. These pits are designed to provide employee access to the
underside of a vehicle without elevating the vehicle. Typically, a
vehicle is driven over the pit and the employee enters the pit via a
flight of stairs. The employee then performs work on the underside of
the vehicle.
OSHA currently requires fall protection for these pits, and has
addressed their hazards through section 5(a)(1) (the general duty
clause) of the OSH Act. This proposal sets out specific requirements to
address this fall hazard. Under the proposal, employees exposed to
falling a distance between 4 and 10 feet (1.2 and 3 m) into a vehicle
repair pit need not be protected as required in proposed Sec.
1910.28(b)(1) for unprotected sides and edges, provided the employer
institutes the three specific work practices that OSHA believes will
provide an appropriate level of protection. The option to use work
practices is being proposed in recognition that repair and assembly
pits present a unique problem in terms of striking a balance between
protecting employees from falls and ensuring that the employees can
reach the work area and perform their work. Conventional fall
protection systems may not always be the most appropriate way to
protect employees. For example, the use of guardrails for perimeter
protection could interfere with driving vehicles over, or away from,
the pit. Likewise, the use of personal fall arrest or travel restraint
systems might prevent employees from reaching the area where the work
needs to be performed. Further, once a vehicle is placed over the pit,
the fall hazard is normally eliminated. The primary fall hazard to
employees exists when there is no vehicle over the pit, but it is
OSHA's understanding that employees are unlikely to be in the vicinity
of a repair pit when there is no vehicle over the pit.
OSHA believes that adequate fall protection for employees can be
provided by the methods proposed in paragraph (b)(8). Access to the
edge (within 6 feet (1.8 m)) of the pit must be limited to trained,
authorized employees (proposed (b)(8)(i)); the floor must be marked
(proposed (b)(8)(ii)) to designate the unprotected area; and caution
signs must be posted to warn employees of the unprotected area
(proposed (b)(8)(iii)). OSHA believes such a well-marked designated
area, extending back 6 feet (1.8 m) from the rim of the pit, provides
sufficient earlywarning to employeesto protect them from
unexpectedly falling into the pit.
The use of caution signs that effectively notify employees of the
presence of the fall hazard would restrict the area to authorized
employees and would further limit employee exposure to the open
perimeter. This provision only applies to pits less than 10 feet (3 m)
deep; however, where employees are exposed to falling 10 feet (3 m) or
more into a pit, conventional fall protection in accord with proposed
paragraph (b)(1) must be used. OSHA notes that caution signs must meet
the requirements of Sec. 1910.145.
In proposed paragraph (b)(9), OSHA addresses fall hazards related
to fixed ladders. Under the proposed standard, no fall protection is
required when employees are exposed to falls from fixed ladders of less
than 24 feet (7.3 m). Proposed paragraph (b)(9)(i) requires that fixed
ladders be provided with cages, wells, ladder safety systems, or
personal fall protection systems where the length of the climb is less
than 24 feet (7.3 m) but the top of the ladder is more than 24 feet
(7.3 m) above lower levels. Proposed paragraph (b)(9)(ii) addresses
fall hazards where the total length of a climb equals or exceeds 24
feet (7.3 m). In the latter situation, additional measures also apply
when cages, wells, ladder safety systems, or personal fall protection
systems are used. If an employer chooses a personal fall protection
system, rest platforms must be installed at intervals no greater than
150 feet (45.7 m). If the employer chooses a cage or well, no ladder
sections may exceed 50 feet (15.2 m) in length, and each section must
be offset from adjacent sections with landing platforms at maximum
intervals of 50 feet (15.2 m). If an employer chooses a ladder safety
system, no additional measures are proposed.
The existing standard imposes similar requirements but provides
fewer fall protection options. Section 1910.27(d)(1)(ii) requires that
either cages or wells be provided "on ladders of more than 20 feet to
a maximum unbroken length of 30 feet," and Sec. 1910.27(d)(2)
requires landing platforms at 30-foot (9.1 m) intervals. This language,
which is based on a 1956 ANSI standard that OSHA adopted in 1971, has
widely been understood to mean that fall protection is required
whenever the length of climb is 20 feet (6.1 m) or more. The proposed
revision is consistent with the national consensus standard for fixed
ladders, ANSI A14.3-2002. Additionally, as a matter of enforcement
policy, OSHA has been allowing the use of other fall protection systems
such as those proposed herein. Thus, the proposed requirement
represents current industry practice. The proposed requirements are
also identical to the construction industry standard at Sec. Sec.
1926.1053(a)(18) and (19).
In proposed paragraph (b)(10), OSHA addresses fall hazards in the
outdoor advertising industry. In this industry, employees often climb
both portable and fixed ladders to reach their destination on the
advertising billboard platform. OSHA is proposing seven provisions that
take into consideration the unique nature of the work wherein both
types of ladders are often used, with the portable ladder being used to
reach the fixed ladder. The requirements proposed in paragraph (b)(10)
are more flexible than those of proposed paragraph (b)(9) for fixed
ladders in that (1) the trigger height for fall protection differs for
employees engaged in outdoor advertising work and, (2) the method of
fall protection differs. The proposed requirements reflect a policy
that OSHA instituted for outdoor advertising work in 1991.
Specifically, on March 1, 1991 (56 FR 8801), OSHA granted a
variance to one outdoor advertising employer, and later expanded this
policy to apply to all outdoor advertising employers. The policy
allowed some climbing activities to be performed without any
conventional fall protection (wells, cages, ladder safety systems),
provided that employees had received specific training and that certain
work practices (for example, wearing a rest lanyard) were followed. If
the employee's climb was above 50 feet (15.2 m), however, additional
requirements applied. These requirements apply only where employees are
engaged in climbing ladders to reach a billboard platform. Once the
employees reach the platform (that is, they are no longer climbing a
ladder), conventional fall protection is required with no exceptions.
The seven proposed requirements are listed in the following paragraphs.
Proposed paragraph (b)(10)(i) would apply whenever the length of
the climb is 50 feet (15.2 m) or less or where the total fall distance
does not exceed 65 feet (19.8 m) above grade. In this situation, OSHA
proposes that each employee who climbs a combination of a portable and
a fixed ladder must wear a body belt or body harness equipped with an
18 inch (46 cm) rest lanyard that will enable the employee to tie off
to the fixed ladder.
In paragraph (b)(10)(ii), OSHA proposes to require that employees
who climb a combination of a portable and a fixed ladder where the
length of the fixed ladder climb exceeds 50 feet (15.2 m), or where the
ladder ascends to heights exceeding 65 feet (19.8 m) from grade, be
protected through the installation of a ladder safety system for the
entire length of the fixed ladder climb.
Proposed paragraph (b)(10)(iii) would require employers to ensure
that each employee who climbs fixed ladders equipped with ladder safety
systems use the systems properly and follow appropriate procedures for
inspection and maintenance of the systems. In paragraph (b)(10)(iv),
OSHA proposes that all ladder safety systems be properly maintained to
ensure employee safety. This includes all ladder safety systems,
regardless of height or date of installation.
In paragraph (b)(10)(v), OSHA proposes that each employee who
routinely climbs fixed ladders must undergo training and demonstrate
the physical capacity to perform the necessary climbs safely. These
employees must satisfy the criteria for qualified climber found in
Sec. 1910.29(h). In the 1990 proposed rulemaking (55 FR 13364-66),
OSHA had also proposed to allow the use of a "qualified climber"
outside of the outdoor advertising industry. In this proposal, OSHA is
limiting the use of qualified climbers to the outdoor advertising
(billboard) industry because, over the last 18 years, there has been
significant progress in protecting employees generally, and many new,
easier-to-use fall protection systems are now readily available. In
fact, anecdotal information as well as enforcement experience indicates
that there is no reasonable basis for proposing to allow the use of
qualified climbers in lieu of conventional fall protection outside of
the outdoor advertising industry.
In paragraph (b)(10)(vi), OSHA proposes to require that employees
must have both hands free of tools or material when ascending or
descending a ladder. This provision is consistent with requirements of
the national consensus standards in the ANSI/ALI A14 series on ladders,
and with OSHA ladder standards for the construction industry at Sec.
1926.1053. The same provision is also proposed in Sec. 1910.23(b)(13)
and will be applicable, in general, to all employees on ladders to
ensure that employees keep three points of contact on the ladder at all
times while ascending or descending.
In paragraph (b)(10)(vii), OSHA proposes to require that where
qualified climbers are used, they must be protected by an appropriate
fall protection system upon reaching their work positions.
In paragraph (b)(11), OSHA proposes requirements to protect
employees from falling off stairway landings and from stairs. This
paragraph addresses fall hazards from both the stairway landing and the
exposed sides of the stairway. The requirements are essentially the
same as the existing requirements in Sec. 1910.24(h) to protect
employees from falls from stairways.
In paragraph (b)(11)(i), OSHA is proposing that each employee
exposed to a fall of 4 feet or more to lower levels from an unprotected
side or edge of a stairway landing be protected by a stair rail or
guardrail system. The proposal is essentially the same as the existing
requirement in Sec. 1910.24(h) and the construction industry standard
for stairway landings in Sec. 1926.1052(c)(12). Unlike proposed Sec.
1910.28(b)(1) which addresses unprotected sides and edges in general,
and allows the use of several systems to protect employees from falls,
unprotected sides and edges of stairway landings must have stair rails
or guardrails installed. OSHA believes that limiting the fall
protection options to stair rails or guardrails is necessary because
the other options listed in proposed Sec. 1910.28(b)(1), such as
safety net systems or personal fall arrest systems, would not be
appropriate at stairway landings where employees are regularly and
routinely exposed to falls from the unprotected sides and edges. Stair
rail or guardrail systems provide for continuous protection.
In paragraph (b)(11)(ii), OSHA is proposing that employees exposed
to falls from stairs having three treads and four or more risers be
protected by stair railing systems and hand rails. Included with the
proposed provision is a table that sets out the type/number of stair
rails and handrails required based on the stair width and configuration
of the stairway. An exception to the table is that handrails must be
provided on both sides of ship stairs and alternating-tread type
stairs. The proposed requirements are essentially the same as existing
Sec. 1910.23(d)(1).
In proposed paragraph (b)(12), OSHA establishes requirements to
protect employees on scaffolds and rope descent systems from falls. As
discussed earlier, OSHA is proposing to remove all the scaffold
requirements from the general industry standards and require employers
to comply with the construction industry standards for scaffolds. In
view of that, OSHA is proposing in paragraph (b)(12)(i) to require that
employers protect employees from falls from scaffolds by meeting the
requirements for fall protection already set out in the construction
industry standards of subpart L, Scaffolds (29 CFR 1926). In general,
those requirements provide for fall protection whenever employees are
exposed to falls of 10 feet (3 m) or more above lower levels. The
existing requirements in subpart D already set the duty to have fall
protection from scaffolds at or above 10 feet (3 m) from grade, so
effectively there is no change.
In proposed paragraph (b)(12)(ii), OSHA requires that employees
using a rope descent system be protected from falling 4 feet (1.2 m) or
more to lower levels by a personal fall arrest system meeting the
requirements in proposed Sec. 1910.140 of subpart I of this part. OSHA
notes that paragraph (c)(3) of proposed Sec. 1910.140 requires that
ropes used for fall protection be separate from ropes used to suspend
the rope descent system. The principle of using independent fall
protection systems is also reflected in Sec. 1926.502(d)(15).
Proposed paragraph (b)(13) is a "catch all" provision applicable
to walking-working surfaces not otherwise addressed and is intended to
ensure that Sec. 1910.28 covers all fall hazards in general industry.
It sets forth clearly that all employees exposed to falls of 4 feet
(1.2 m) or more to lower levels must be protected by a guardrail
system, safety net system, personal fall arrest system, or travel
restraint system, except where otherwise provided by proposed Sec.
1910.28 or by fall protection provisions in other subparts of part
1910. This provision is intended to facilitate compliance for employers
who do not fit any of the specific categories set by proposed Sec.
1910.28. OSHA used this same approach in its fall protection
requirements for the construction industry at Sec. 1926.501(b)(15).
The proposed new language expresses the current enforcement practice of
the Agency, making it clear that employers must address all fall
hazards in the workplace.
Proposed paragraph (b)(14) addresses fall protection for floor
holes such as stairway floor holes and ladderways, and is consistent
with existing requirements found in Sec. 1910.23(a). Accordingly, as
with existing Sec. 1910.23(a) (and ANSI A1264.1-2007, Safety
Requirements for Workplace Walking/Working Surfaces and Their Access;
Workplace, Floor, Wall and Roof Openings; Stairs and Guardrails
Systems), some, but not all, of the provisions in this proposed
paragraph require toeboards when using fixed or removable guardrail
systems. OSHA requests comment on whether toeboards should be required
as a part of the guardrail systems used for all floor holes regulated
under this proposed paragraph. If possible, the comments should provide
information regarding the need for such a requirement, current industry
practice, the effectiveness of toeboards in these situations, and the
cost associated with adding this requirement to provisions of this
paragraph not proposing to use toeboards.
Proposed paragraph (b)(14)(i) requires stairway floor holes to be
guarded by a guardrail system. The railing must be provided on all
exposed sides except at the entrance to the stairway. For infrequently
used stairways where traffic across the hole prevents the use of a
fixed guardrail system (as when located in an aisle), the employer has
an option to use a guard that consists of a hinged floor-hole cover of
standard strength and construction and a removable guardrail system on
all exposed sides except at the entrance to the stairway.
Proposed paragraph (b)(14)(i) differs slightly from existing Sec.
1910.23(a) in that it clarifies that use of a hinged floor-hole cover
is an alternative to using fixed guardrail systems, which is only
implied in existing Sec. 1910.23(a). The proposed provision also
defines the term "infrequently" in a manner that is consistent
proposed Sec. 1910.265, which defines the term "routinely" as "on a
daily basis." OSHA believes the proposed definition will provide
employers with helpful information about when use of a hinged floor-
hole cover may be appropriate. With regard to the option to use a
hinged floor- opening cover, OSHA requests information and comment on
the use of automatically rising railings that come into position with
the opening of a load-bearing cover on some infrequently used stairways
as specified by the explanatory paragraph E3.1 of ANSI/ASSE A1264.1-
2007, Safety Requirements for Workplace Walking/Working Surfaces and
Their Access; Workplace, Floor, Wall and Roof Openings; Stairs and
Guardrails Systems. The comments should provide, if possible,
information regarding the availability of such guardrail systems, the
prevalence of their use, the cost of the systems (including
installation), and the protection such systems afford employees
compared to fixed systems.
Proposed paragraph (b)(14)(ii) requires that ladderway floor holes
or platforms be guarded by a guardrail system with toeboards on all
exposed sides, except at the entrance opening, with passage through the
railing provided by a swinging gate or offset so that an employee
cannot walk directly into the hole.
Proposed paragraph (b)(14)(iii) requires that hatchway and chute-
floor holes be guarded using one of three options. The first option,
specified in proposed (b)(14)(iii)(A), provides for hinged floor-hole
covers of standard strength and construction and equipped with
permanently attached guardrails that only leave one exposed side. When
the hole is not in use, the cover must be closed, or the exposed side
must be guarded by a removable guardrail system with top and mid rails.
The second option, found in proposed paragraph (b)(14)(iii)(B),
specifies a removable guardrail system with toeboards on not more than
two sides of the hole and a fixed guardrail with toeboards on all other
exposed sides. The removable guardrail system must remain in place when
the hole is not in use. The third option, found in proposed paragraph
(b)(14)(iii)(C), provides that, when operating conditions require
feeding material through a hatchway or chute hole, employees be
protected from falling through the hole by a guardrail system or a
travel-restraint system meeting the applicable requirements of 29 CFR
part 1910, subpart I.
OSHA requests comment on whether there are any other specific
surfaces, operations, or work activities (e.g., satellite dish
realignment, chimney cleaning, and sky light maintenance) not addressed
here in proposed paragraph (b) that should be treated separately. For
each surface, operation, or activity, please provide the types of fall
protection that OSHA should permit and provide the reasons why the
surface, operation, or activity should be treated separately.
In paragraph (c) of Sec. 1910.28, OSHA proposes to require
employers to protect employees from injury from falling objects both by
ensuring the use of head protection, and by complying with one of the
following provisions: (1) Using toeboards, screens, or guardrail
systems; (2) erecting a canopy structure over the potential fall area
and keeping potential falling objects far enough from the edge of the
higher level so those objects are unlikely to fall, even if they are
accidentally displaced; or (3) barricading the area into which objects
could fall, prohibiting employees from entering the barricaded area,
and keeping objects far enough away from the edge of a higher level so
those objects are unlikely to fall even if they are accidentally
displaced. The proposed requirements, patterned after OSHA's
construction industry standards in Sec. 1926.501(c), clarify the
intent of the existing general industry requirements in Sec.
1910.23(b)(5) and (c)(1) pertaining to falling object hazards.
Section 1910.29 Fall Protection Systems Criteria and Practices
This section of the proposal provides the requirements for fall
protection systems required by proposed Sec. 1910.28 and by other
subparts in part 1910 where criteria and practices are not specifically
required. However, proposed Sec. 1910.29 does not apply where another
standard in part 1910 already specifies the criteria for a required
fall protection system. For example, Sec. 1910.269(g) sets a duty to
use fall protection and also specifies the criteria for some of the
required systems.
As explained in proposed Sec. 1910.28, Duty to have fall
protection, employers who are required by that section to provide fall
protection must choose a fall protection measure from the options
provided for the particular activity or operation. Then the employer
must ensure that the chosen system or practice meets the criteria
established in proposed Sec. 1910.29. Additionally, as required by
proposed Sec. 1910.30 and Sec. 1910.132(f), employees must be trained
in how to use the system, including, where applicable, the installation
and maintenance of the fall protection system.
The requirements proposed here, like the requirements proposed in
Sec. 1910.28, are patterned after the requirements in OSHA's
construction industry standards. OSHA believes that this approach will
bring consistency to its fall protection standards and make it easier
for employers to comply, especially employers who perform work covered
by both the construction and general industry standards. The criteria
for personal fall protection systems are located at newly proposed
Sec. 1910.140 of subpart I, Personal Protective Equipment, which is
being published as part of this proposal.
Paragraph (a)--General Requirements.
Proposed paragraph (a) sets general requirements applicable to all
fall protection systems covered by part 1910. In paragraph (a)(1), OSHA
proposes that all fall protection systems required throughout part 1910
conform to the requirements of this section or, where personal fall
protection systems are used, to subpart I of this part. In proposed
paragraph (a)(2), OSHA requires that employers provide and install all
fall protection systems required by this subpart and comply with all
other pertinent requirements of this subpart (including training)
before any employee begins work that necessitates the use of fall
protection. OSHA notes that under existing Sec. 1910.132(h), with few
exceptions (such as non-specialty safety-toe protective footwear),
personal protective equipment, including fall protection equipment,
must be provided by the employer at no cost to the employee.
OSHA's intent is that fall protection systems be installed,
permanently where possible, so that the systems are in place and
available for use whenever there is a potential exposure to fall
hazards. Because most general industry employers are at fixed sites,
OSHA envisions that employers will take a proactive approach to
managing fall hazards and will want to have fall protection systems in
place at all times. That is, OSHA believes employers will anticipate
the need for employees to walk or work on surfaces where a potential
fall hazard exists and install a permanent fall protection system
(e.g., guardrail system) or attachment (tie-off) point so that fall
protection is readily available when needed. OSHA believes such
planning is part of the standard operating procedures for many
employers as they plan for overall safety at the workplace. Planning
eliminates the need to use a less protective measure, like a safe work
practice, when a more conventional method such as a guardrail system,
restraint system, or personal fall arrest system would be more
appropriate. OSHA, however, recognizes that there may be some, limited
situations where the use of less protective, but nonetheless effective,
measures may be warranted; for example, when the work to be performed
is of a short term or temporary nature. To illustrate, OSHA does not
envision that employers will put a permanent guardrail system around
the perimeter of an entire roof when work on the roof is non-routine.
When the work is non-routine, they may erect a permanent guardrail
system on one small area of the roof, or, most likely, establish a
designated area meeting the criteria in proposed paragraph (d).
Paragraph (b)--Guardrail Systems.
In paragraph (b), OSHA proposes that all guardrail systems (except
those used on scaffolds which must comply with applicable part 1926
requirements) comply with the criteria set forth in proposed paragraphs
(b)(1) to (b)(15) of this section. The 15 proposed requirements are
essentially the same as the existing requirements in subpart D, and
they are nearly identical to the construction industry requirements for
guardrail systems found in Sec. 1926.502(b). OSHA notes that the
preamble to the final rule establishing Sec. 1926.502 (59 FR 40733)
contains explanatory material for each of the provisions proposed for paragraph
(b) and may provide additional information to assist employers in
complying with the proposed rules.
Existing subpart D refers to both "standard railings" and
"guardrails." In this proposal, the term "standard railings" will
not be used. OSHA believes that the proposed revisions to the guardrail
requirements are easier to understand, reflect current work practices,
and ensure consistency among OSHA rules applicable to guardrails.
Proposed paragraph (b)(1) requires that the top edge of guardrail
systems be 42 inches (107 cm), plus or minus 3 inches (8 cm), above the
walking-working surface.\2\ It also states that, when conditions
warrant, the top edge of the guardrail system may exceed 45 inches (114
cm) provided all other conditions of proposed paragraph (b) have been
met to protect employees from falling through openings in the guardrail
system. The proposed provision is essentially the same as the existing
requirement in Sec. 1910.23(e)(1), except that the existing
requirement does not specifically allow for exceeding the 45-inch (114
cm) top height requirement. The new language is added because OSHA has
already adopted this approach in its construction industry standards at
Sec. 1926.502(b)(1). In the preamble to the final rule for the
construction industry standard OSHA noted that it was allowing
employers to exceed the 45-inch (114 cm) height requirement because it
was aware that there will be situations where work conditions
necessitate erecting the guardrail so the top edge height is greater
than 45 inches (114 cm). OSHA believes such conditions may also exist
in general industry; if so, exceeding the 42-inch (107 cm) height
requirement would not impact employee safety. For that reason, OSHA is
proposing the revised language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ OSHA notes that the two previous proposals on walking-
working surfaces included a "grandfather provision" permitting a
guardrail height of 36 inches, rather than the proposed 42 inches,
for guardrails installed within 60 days of the effective date of the
final rule. (See proposed Sec. 1910.28(b)(3), 55 FR 13360 (April
10, 1990) and 68 FR 23528 (May 2, 2003).) The 36-inch grandfather
provision is not included in this proposal, nor does OSHA consider
it to be equally safe to the "42 inches nominal" height currently
required under existing Sec. 1910.23(e). Therefore, to the extent
that any previous OSHA letters of interpretation characterized a 36-
inch guardrail height as a de minimis violation because of the
grandfather provision in the two previous proposals, those
interpretations are hereby superseded. (See, e.g., 08/27/2008 Letter
to Bryan Cobb and 03/08/1995 Memorandum from John Miles to Byron
Chadwick.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

OSHA is considering a new provision that would allow the use of
barriers as the functional equivalent of guardrails. This provision
would permit barriers, such as parapets, to be as low as 30 inches (76
cm) in height, provided the sum of the depth of the top of the barrier
and the height of the top edge of the barrier is at least 48 inches
(1.2 m). For example, at the minimum height of 30 inches, an 18-inch
width would be required. The Agency requests comment regarding the
technological feasibility of this proposed provision requiring other
means of fall protection (e.g., travel restraint systems) in these
applications. Please include supporting rationale, as well as
information on the costs and benefits of such a provision.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2) requires midrails, screens, mesh,
intermediate vertical members, or equivalent intermediate structural
members to be installed between the top edge of the guardrail system
and the walking-working surface when there is no wall or parapet wall
at least 21 inches (53 cm) high to keep employees from falling through
the opening. The proposed provision is essentially the same as the
existing requirements in Sec. 1910.23(e)(1) and (e)(3)(v)(c), and in
the construction industry standard at Sec. 1926.502(b)(2).
In proposed paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iv) OSHA establishes
requirements for midrails, screens, mesh, intermediate vertical
members, and other structural members. Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(i)
specifies that when midrails are used to comply with proposed paragraph
(b)(2), they must be installed midway between the top edge of the
guardrail system and the walking-working level. Proposed paragraphs
(b)(2)(ii), (iii), and (iv) address the proper placement of screens,
mesh, intermediate vertical members, and other structural members when
they are used in lieu of midrails in the guardrail system.
Proposed paragraph (b)(3) requires guardrail systems to be capable
of withstanding, without failure, a force of at least 200 pounds (890
N) applied within 2 inches (5 cm) of the top edge, in any outward or
downward direction at any point along the top edge. Proposed paragraph
(b)(4) requires that when the 200-pound load is applied in a downward
direction, the top edge of the guardrail must not deflect to a height
less than 39 inches (99 cm) above the walking-working level. Deflection
is specified for the top edge because that is the point an employee is
most likely to fall against and it must be high enough, at all times,
to prevent the employee from falling over the top rail. The proposed
provisions are essentially the same as the existing requirements in
Sec. 1910.23(e)(3)(v)(b). and in the construction industry standard at
Sec. 1926.502(b)(3) and (b)(4).
Proposed paragraph (b)(5) requires midrails, screens, mesh,
intermediate vertical members, solid panels, and equivalent structural
members to be capable of withstanding, without failure, a force of at
least 150 pounds (667 N) applied in any downward or outward direction
at any point along the midrail or other member. The existing standard
does not contain a strength requirement for midrails and this omission
has caused confusion among employers. The proposed provision is nearly
identical to OSHA's construction industry standard at Sec.
1926.502(b)(5). In that rule, OSHA explained that it chose the 150
pound strength test because it had determined that midrails need not be
as strong as top rails to provide appropriate protection. OSHA also
determined that a limit on deflection was not needed for midrails and
other members.
Proposed paragraph (b)(6) requires guardrail systems to be surfaced
to prevent injury to an employee from punctures or lacerations and to
prevent snagging of clothing. The provision is based on existing Sec.
1910.23(e)(1) and (e)(3)(v)(a) and OSHA's construction industry
standard at Sec. 1926.502(b)(6).
Proposed paragraph (b)(7) requires employers to ensure that the
ends of all top rails and midrails do not overhang the terminal posts,
except where such overhang does not constitute a projection hazard. The
proposed provision is essentially the same as existing Sec.
1910.23(e)(1) and OSHA's construction industry standard at Sec.
1926.502(b)(7).
Proposed paragraph (b)(8) prohibits steel banding and plastic
banding from being used as top rails or midrails. While this banding
can often withstand a 200-pound load, it can tear easily if twisted. In
addition, banding often has sharp edges which can cut a hand if seized.
This proposed requirement is similar to a requirement found in OSHA's
construction industry standard at Sec. 1926.502(b)(8).
Proposed paragraph (b)(9) requires top rails and midrails of
guardrail systems to have at least a 0.25-inch (0.6 cm) diameter or
thickness. OSHA believes that the minimum thickness requirement is
needed to prevent the use of rope that could cause cuts or lacerations.
This requirement is based on the construction industry standard at
Sec. 1926.502(b)(9). The proposed requirement supplements the strength
requirement proposed in (b)(3), (4), and (5) of this section. The
purpose of this requirement is to assure that top rails and midrails
made of high strength materials are not so thin that a worker grabbing
a rail is injured by cuts or lacerations because of the small size of
the rail.
Proposed paragraph (b)(10) requires that when guardrail systems are
used at hoisting areas, a chain gate or removable guardrail section
must be placed across the access opening between guardrail sections
when hoisting operations are not taking place. The proposed requirement
simply clarifies the requirements of existing Sec. 1910.23(a)(3)(ii)
and (b)(1)(i). It is identical to OSHA's construction industry standard
at Sec. 1926.502(b)(10).
Proposed paragraph (b)(11) requires that when guardrail systems are
used at holes, they must be erected on all unprotected sides or edges
of the hole. This requirement is identical to OSHA's construction
industry standard at Sec. 1926.502(b)(11).
Proposed paragraph (b)(12) requires that when guardrail systems are
used around floor holes used for the passage of materials, the hole
must have not more than two sides provided with removable guardrail
sections to allow for the passage of materials. When the hole is not in
use, it must either be closed over with a cover, or a guardrail system
must be provided along all unprotected sides or edges. This requirement
is based on existing Sec. 1910.23(a)(8)(ii) and is the same as the
construction industry standard at Sec. 1926.502(b)(12). It is intended
to prevent employees from falling into the hole.
Proposed paragraph (b)(13) requires that when guardrail systems are
used around holes used as points of access (such as ladderway
openings), they must either be provided with a gate, or be offset so
that a person cannot walk directly into the hole. This requirement is
essentially the same as the existing standard at Sec. 1910.23(a)(2),
the construction industry standard at Sec. 1926.502(b)(13), and the
national consensus standard, ANSI A1264.1-2007, American National
Standard--Safety Requirements for Workplace Walking/Working Surfaces
and Their Access; Workplace, Floor, Wall and Roof Openings; Stairs and
Guardrail Systems.
Proposed paragraph (b)(14) requires that guardrail systems used on
ramps and runways be erected along each unprotected side or edge. This
requirement is essentially the same as the construction industry
standard at Sec. 1926.502(b)(14) for ramps and runways.
Proposed paragraph (b)(15) requires manila, plastic, or synthetic
rope being used for top rails or midrails to be inspected as frequently
as necessary to ensure that it continues to meet the strength
requirements of proposed paragraph (b)(3) of this section. OSHA
believes frequent inspection is necessary for ropes made of these
materials to ensure that they do not deteriorate and lose strength.
This requirement is the same as OSHA's construction industry standard
at Sec. 1926.502(b)(15).
Proposed paragraph (b)(16) requires guardrail systems used on
scaffolds to meet the applicable requirements set forth in part 1926 of
this chapter. As discussed above in proposed Sec. 1910.27, Scaffolds
and rope descent systems, OSHA is proposing to remove the general
industry requirements for scaffolds, and instead require compliance
with the construction industry requirements for scaffolds. The
construction industry requirements specifying the criteria for
guardrails used on scaffolds differ from the requirements proposed for
guardrails used on other surfaces. Therefore, OSHA proposes to add new
paragraph (b)(16) for consistency, and to promote compliance and
eliminate confusion since many employers who use scaffolds perform both
general industry and construction work.
Paragraph (c)--Safety Net Systems
Proposed paragraph (c) requires safety net systems used in general
industry to meet the criteria and use requirements for safety net
systems already promulgated for the construction industry at Sec.
1926.502(c). There are no requirements in existing subpart D or
elsewhere in part 1910 (the general industry standards) that address
safety net systems. OSHA believes, however, that there are situations,
especially in maintenance work, where, due to the unsuitability of
guardrail systems or personal fall protection systems, the use of a
safety net system is an appropriate means of employee protection. OSHA
believes that safety net systems used in general industry should be
subject to the same requirements already promulgated for the
construction industry. Those requirements were based on the national
consensus standard for safety nets (i.e., ANSI A10.11-1989). Rather
than repeating all of those requirements here, OSHA proposes to simply
require that where safety net systems are used, they meet the
requirement of Sec. 1926.502(c). A complete discussion of each of the
requirements and an explanation of their meaning can be found in the
preamble to the construction fall protection rule of August 9, 1994, at
59 FR 40699 to 40702.
OSHA requests comment on whether requiring compliance with the
construction rule is appropriate or whether OSHA should repeat each of
those requirements in the general industry standard. OSHA believes
safety net systems will not be used in general industry as often as
other fall protection systems and, therefore, it would not be an
inconvenience to require employers to follow the construction industry
rules in part 1926 without repeating them here. This is the same
approach OSHA is proposing for scaffolds used in general industry; see
the discussion at Sec. 1910.27 above. OSHA notes that the requirements
for safety net systems codified in part 1926 are essentially the same
as those prescribed in the most current version of ANSI A10.11-1989
(R1998), American National Standard for Construction and Demolition
Operations--Personal and Debris Nets.
Paragraph (d)--Designated Areas
OSHA is proposing new requirements in paragraph (d) regarding the
use of "designated areas." OSHA is proposing to allow the use of
designated areas, in some instances, as an alternative to providing
conventional fall protection. A designated area, defined in proposed
Sec. 1910.21, is a section of a walking-working surface around which a
perimeter line has been erected so that employees within the area are
warned, when they see or contact the line, that they are approaching a
fall hazard. As required by proposed Sec. 1910.30(a)(2)(iii),
employees working in designated areas must be trained in how to work
safely inside those area.
Designated areas may only be used for temporary, relatively
infrequent work; for instance, when employees are sent to the center of
the roof of a structure to perform maintenance on machinery, such as
air conditioning equipment. The Agency anticipates that setting up and
maintaining a warning line system, as specified in this proposed
paragraph, around a designated area will ensure that affected employees
can perform their work free from fall hazards. The construction
industry standard, Sec. 1926.501(b)(10), provides for use of a warning
line system (in conjunction with other protection) when employees are
performing roofing work on low-sloped roofs, and Sec. Sec.
1926.501(b)(9) and 1926.502(k), permit the use of "controlled access
zones" in other situations. To ensure OSHA standards regulate
comparable work situations consistently, the Agency is basing
proposed paragraph (d) on the construction industry standards for
warning line systems. The Agency requests comments and supporting
rational on the appropriateness of using the construction industry
requirements for controlled access zones (found at Sec. 1926.502(g))
in lieu of its use of the construction industry requirements for
warning lines. Among other differences, warning line systems require
the line between stanchions to have a 500-pound tensile strength,
whereas the controlled access zone only requires a 200-pound tensile
strength.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1) sets conditions for the use of designated
areas, requiring that employers ensure that employees remain in the
designated area during work operations, that the work be of a temporary
nature, that the slope of the surface be 10 degrees or less from the
horizontal, and that the designated area be surrounded by a rope, wire,
or chain supported by stanchions meeting the criteria in proposed
paragraphs (d)(2) through (d)(4). The 10 degree slope limitation
reflects OSHA's belief that the designated area approach is only
appropriate for surfaces that have a slight slope (pitch) or
unevenness. In particular, OSHA is concerned that a warning line system
would not work on a surface that has a slope of more than 10 degrees
because visibility and the employee's ability to stop when the warning
line is contacted could not be ensured.
Proposed paragraph (d)(2), which is consistent with Sec. Sec.
1926.502(f)(2) and 1926.502(g)(3), provides criteria for the materials
used to establish designated areas. Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(i)
requires that stanchions with rope, wire, or chain attached be capable
of resisting, without tipping over, a force of at least 16 pounds (71
N) applied horizontally against the stanchion at a height of 30 inches
(76 cm) above the working surface, perpendicular to the designated area
line, and in the direction of the exposed edge. OSHA believes that the
ability to resist a force of 16 pounds (71 N) ensures that an employee
is adequately warned that the edge of the designated area has been
reached.
Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(ii) requires that the rope, wire, or
chain used to demarcate designated areas have a minimum breaking or
tensile strength of 500 pounds (2.2 kN). In addition, after being
attached to the stanchions, the line must support, without breaking,
the 16 pound (71 N) force applied to the stanchion. This performance
requirement assures that the line is durable and capable of functioning
as intended, regardless of how far apart the stanchions are placed. In
addition, the minimum tensile strength of 500 pounds (2.2 kN) assures
that the line is made of material more substantial than string, such as
wire, chain, rope, or heavy cord. OSHA believes that this minimum
tensile strength is not an unreasonable burden on employers; however,
comments are requested on the appropriateness of this requirement.
Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(iii) requires that the line be attached
at each stanchion in such a way that pulling on one section of the line
between stanchions will not result in slack being taken up in adjacent
sections before a stanchion tips over. To maximize the warning
capabilities of the line demarcating the designated area, the proposal
limits the amount of potential slack in the system. Slack in the line
decreases its warning properties.
Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(iv), which is also consistent with
Sec. Sec. 1926.502(f)(2) and 1926.502(g)(3), requires that the height
of the designated area line be no less than 34 inches (86 cm) nor more
than 39 inches (99 cm) from the work surface. This height is low enough
to warn a short employee while the worker is stooped over, and at the
same time, it is high enough not to be a tripping hazard for taller
workers.
Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(v) requires the perimeter of the
designated area to be readily visible from a distance up to 25 feet
(7.6 m) away, or at the maximum distance a worker may be positioned
away from the line, whichever is less. This criterion is provided so
that the lines will be readily apparent and can effectively warn
employees to stay away from fall hazards. OSHA does not believe that
flagging, as required in Sec. Sec. 1926.502(f)(2)(i) and
1926.502(g)(3)(i), is necessary for a designated area. In general
industry, work is usually performed at a fixed location, while in
construction there is a greater need for aids to visibility (such as
flagging) because the work location, including the fall hazard, shifts
from one part of the roof to another.
Proposed paragraph (d)(3) sets forth how the designated area is to
be established. Proposed paragraph (d)(3)(i) requires that stanchions
be erected as close around the work area as permitted by the work task.
This criterion is included to make the stanchions as obvious as
possible without interfering with the work.
Proposed paragraph (d)(3)(ii), which is consistent with Sec. Sec.
1926.502(f)(1)(i) and 1926.502(g)(1), requires that the perimeter of
the designated area be erected at least 6 feet (1.8 m) from the exposed
edge of the fall hazard. OSHA believes that the 6-foot (1.8 m) distance
is sufficient to allow an employee to stop moving toward the fall
hazard after realizing that the perimeter line has been contacted. This
distance would also provide an adequate safety zone should an employee
trip and fall at the edge of the designated area.
Proposed paragraph (d)(3)(iii), which is consistent with Sec.
1926.502(f)(1)(ii), requires that when mobile mechanical equipment is
being used, the line be erected not less than 6 feet (1.8 m) from the
unprotected side or edge which is parallel to the direction of
mechanical equipment operation, and not less than 10 feet (3 m) from
the unprotected side or edge perpendicular to the direction of
mechanical equipment operation. The proposed criterion provides
additional distance for the employee to stop moving towards the hazard,
taking into account the extra momentum of the equipment being used.
Proposed paragraph (d)(4) requires that access to the designated
area be made by a clear path formed by two warning lines attached to
stanchions that meet the strength, height, and visibility requirements
of proposed (d)(2) above. This proposed provision was adopted from the
requirements in the construction industry standard at Sec.
1926.502(f)(1)(iii). That standard requires access paths when warning
line systems are used during roofing work performed on low sloped
roofs. As discussed earlier, the concept of "designated areas" is
based on the construction industry requirements for warning line
systems and controlled access zones. OSHA requests comment on whether
an access path is reasonably necessary to protect employees in general
industry as they travel to and from designated areas. Specifically,
should OSHA remove, keep, or alter this provision in the final rule?
Paragraph (e)--Covers
Proposed paragraph (e) sets requirements for covers used to protect
employees from falling into holes in floors, roofs, roadways, and other
walking-working surfaces. Except for proposed (e)(4), the proposed
requirements are a consolidation and revision of existing requirements
related to covers found in Sec. Sec. 1910.23(a)(7), (8), and (9) and
1910.23(e)(7) and (8). They are consistent with the requirements for
covers found in the construction industry standards at Sec.
1926.502(i). The proposed requirements are written in performance
language and replace the specification language of the existing
standard.
Proposed paragraph (e)(1) requires that covers located in roadways
and vehicular aisles be capable of supporting, without failure,
at least twice the maximum axle load of the largest vehicle expected
to cross over the cover. The proposed requirement is a revision
of the existing requirements in Sec.1910.23(e)(7)(i) and (e)(7)(ii)
and has been rewritten in favor of the performance-oriented approach
used in the construction industry standard at Sec. 1926.502(i)(1).
Proposed paragraph (e)(2) requires that all other covers must be
capable of supporting at least twice the weight of employees,
equipment, and materials that may be imposed on the cover at any one
time. OSHA believes that compliance with the proposed paragraph would
adequately protect employees who traverse covers. The provision is
identical to the construction industry requirement at Sec.
1926.502(i)(2). The Agency requests comment on whether the distinction
made between (e)(1) and (e)(2) is useful, or if proposed paragraph
(e)(1) should be removed because of the apparent redundancy between it
and paragraph (e)(2).
Proposed paragraph (e)(3) requires that covers be secured when
installed so as to prevent accidental displacement, e.g., by wind,
equipment, or employees. This provision clarifies the requirement in
existing Sec. 1910.23(a)(9) that floor opening covers be held firmly
in place and ensure that employers anticipate and take precautions
against all possible causes of cover displacement. The proposed
requirement is nearly identical to the construction industry standard
at Sec. 1926.502(i)(3).
Proposed paragraph (e)(4) requires that covers be color-coded or
marked with the word "HOLE" or "COVER" to provide warning of the
hazard. An exception to proposed paragraph (e)(4) states that the
provision does not apply to cast iron manhole covers or steel grates
such as those used on streets or roadways. This is a new requirement
based on the construction industry standard at Sec. 1926.502(i)(4).
OSHA is proposing to add the requirement to the general industry
standard for the same reason it was added to the construction industry
standard. Many commenters to the construction industry standard noted
that covers should be color-coded or marked because alerting employees
that the cover is over a hole could prevent them from accidentally
walking into the hole. OSHA requests comment on the need to include
proposed (e)(4) in the final rule, and also for information on the
extent to which employers are already marking or color-coding covers.
Paragraph (f)--Handrail and Stair Rail Systems
Proposed paragraph (f) would set requirements for handrail and
stair rail systems to protect employees from falling. Proposed
paragraph (f)(1) establishes height requirements for handrails and
stair rail systems. Proposed paragraph (f)(1)(i) requires that the
height of handrails be between 30 inches (76 cm) and 37 inches (94 cm),
from the top of the handrail to the surface of the tread in line with
the face of the riser at the forward edge of the tread. Existing Sec.
1910.23(e)(5)(ii) requires that handrails be between 30 and 34 inches
(76 and 86 cm) in height. The proposed requirement is consistent with
the construction industry standard at Sec. 1926.1052(c)(6). OSHA
intends that the proposed change will not require any change to
handrails that meet the existing standard.
Proposed paragraph (f)(1)(ii) is a revision of existing Sec.
1910.23(e)(2) and requires the height of stair rails installed 90 days
after the effective date of the final rule to be not less than 36
inches (91 cm). The existing standard sets a limit between 30 (76 cm)
and 34 inches (86 cm), and the proposed rule would continue to allow
stair rails installed before the new requirement takes effect to be at
least 30 inches (76 cm) from the upper surface of the tread. The
proposed paragraph raises the minimum height of new stair rails 6
inches (15 cm) and removes the existing maximum height requirement. The
proposed requirement is consistent with the construction industry
requirement at Sec. 1926.1052(c)(3). Like the construction rule, it is
based on a recommendation in a study conducted by the University of
Michigan (OSHA-S041-2006-0666-0004). As discussed in the preamble to
the construction industry final rule (55 FR 47668), that study showed
that the minimum height for stair railings should be 42 inches (107 cm)
and suggests that even 42 inches may be too low. Additionally, the
applicable national consensus standard, ANSI A1264.1-2007, prescribes
that the minimum height of stair rails be 34 inches (86 cm) and the
upper height at 42 inches (107 cm). OSHA believes that setting the
minimum height at 36 inches (91 cm) will afford a reasonable level of
safety to employees. However, OSHA requests comment on whether it
should raise the minimum height to 42 inches (107 cm) to be within the
recommended range of the University of Michigan study.
OSHA also requests comment on whether it should set a maximum
height for stair rail systems. OSHA is proposing to delete the current
upper height limit of 34 inches (86 cm) because an upper height limit
serves no purpose. The purpose of the stair rail system is to prevent
employees from falling over the edge of open-sided stairways.
Eliminating the upper limit would allow employers flexibility to
install safer systems.
Proposed paragraph (f)(1)(iii) is a new provision which permits a
stair rail to serve as a handrail when the height of the top edge is
not more than 37 inches (94 cm) nor less than 36 inches (91 cm) when
measured at the forward edge of the tread surface. OSHA believes a
single system may perform the function of both a stair rail and
handrail provided the rail is at the appropriate height. The proposed
requirement is consistent with a similar requirement in the
construction industry standard at Sec. 1926.1052(c)(7) and provides
greater flexibility without reducing safety.
Proposed paragraph (f)(2) continues the existing requirement in
Sec. 1910.23(e)(6) that there be a minimum clearance of 3 inches (8
cm) between a handrail and any obstructions. The existing rule is
consistent with the construction industry requirement at Sec.
1926.1052(c)(11). In the earlier (1990) rulemaking, OSHA proposed that
the requirement be revised to require 1.5 inches (4 cm) of clearance.
OSHA's basis for the 1990 proposal was to be consistent with many local
building codes; the applicable national consensus standard at the time,
ANSI A12.1-1973; the draft revision to it, ANSI A1264.1; and ANSI
A117.1-1986, Providing Accessibility and Usability for Physically
Handicapped People (Ref. 52 in Docket S-041). However, the 2007
revision to the ANSI A1264.1 standard sets 2.25 inches (6 cm) rather
than 1.5 inches (4 cm) as the appropriate clearance; no reason is
provided. OSHA does not believe that \3/4\ inch (2 cm) represents a
significant difference and is of the opinion that consistency between
the construction and general industry provisions will eliminate
potential confusion and ease compliance. Nonetheless, OSHA requests
comment on whether it should revise this provision to set the minimum
clearance at 2.25-inch (6 cm) as does the national consensus standard.
In paragraph (f)(3), OSHA proposes a minor revision to existing
Sec. 1910.23(e)(1) for stair rails and Sec. 1910.23(e)(5)(i) for
handrails. The proposed provision, like the existing provisions, would
require the rails to be smooth-surfaced to prevent injury from
puncture, laceration, or snagging hazards. The revised provision is
written in clearer language. A similar provision has been proposed
in Sec. 1910.29(b)(6) for the top rail of guardrail systems.
The proposed requirement is consistent with the construction
industry standard at Sec. 1926.1052(c)(8).
Proposed paragraph (f)(4), based on existing Sec. 1910.23(e),
requires that the openings in stair rail systems be a maximum of 19
inches (48 cm) in their least dimension. The proposed requirement is
consistent with the requirement for openings in guardrail systems in
proposed paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section, which in turn is based
on a study by the former National Bureau of Standards (now known as the
National Institute of Standards and Technology) (Ref. 11 to Docket S-
041). It is also consistent with the construction industry standards at
Sec. 1926.1052(c)(4) for openings in stair rails and with Sec.
1926.502(b)(2)(iii) and (iv) pertaining to the size of openings in
construction guardrail systems.
Proposed paragraph (f)(5), which is based on existing Sec.
1910.23(e)(5)(i), requires handrails to provide a firm handhold for
employees. The proposed provision is consistent with the construction
industry standard at Sec. 1926.1052(c)(9).
Proposed paragraph (f)(6), which is also based on existing Sec.
1910.23(e)(5)(i), requires stair rail systems to be designed and
constructed so that their ends do not present a projection hazard into
which employees may inadvertently walk. The proposed provision is
consistent with the construction industry standard at Sec.
1926.1052(c)(10).
Proposed paragraph (f)(7) requires handrails and the top rails of
stair rail systems to be capable of withstanding, without permanent
deformation or a loss of support, a force of at least 200 pounds (890
N) applied within two inches (5 cm) of the top edge, in any downward or
outward direction, at any point along the top edge. This is a minor
revision of existing Sec. 1910.23(e)(3)(iv) and (e)(5)(iv), and
clarifies the design criteria for handrails and stair rails. It is
consistent with the construction industry standards for stair rail
systems in Sec. 1926.1052(c)(5).
Paragraph (g)--Cages, Wells, and Platforms Used With Fixed Ladders
Proposed paragraph (g) establishes criteria for cages, wells, and
platforms used with fixed ladders. The proposed requirements are a
revision of the existing criteria located at Sec. 1910.27(d).
Proposed paragraph (g)(1) requires that where cages and wells are
installed on fixed ladders, they must be designed to permit easy access
to or egress from the ladders that they enclose. The cages and wells
must be continuous throughout the length of the fixed ladder except for
access, egress, and other transfer points. Cages and wells must be
designed and constructed to contain employees in the event of a fall
and to direct them to a lower landing. The current standards, in Sec.
1910.27(d), provide detailed specifications for the construction of
cages and wells used on fixed ladders. OSHA has eliminated these
specifications in this proposal in favor of performance requirements
that address the necessary characteristics for providing proper cages
and wells. OSHA believes that the existing specifications are too
design restrictive, and that the use of performance language will allow
employers the flexibility to install cages and wells that fit a
particular situation, without compromising employee protection.
Proposed paragraph (g)(2) requires that the landing platforms on
fixed ladders have a horizontal surface of at least 24 inches by 30
inches (61 cm by 76 cm). The criteria for the platform size in the
proposed requirement is the same as existing Sec. 1910.27(d)(2)(ii)
and is also found in ANSI A14.3-2002. Platforms used on fixed ladders,
like other platforms, must conform to the requirements set forth in
proposed Sec. 1910.22(b). That is, platforms must be strong enough to
support the loads imposed on them.
Paragraph (h)--Qualified Climbers
Proposed paragraph (h) sets forth the criteria that employees must
meet to be considered qualified climbers. The option to use a qualified
climber in lieu of providing positive fall protection is only permitted
in certain outdoor advertising operations, as established in proposed
Sec. 1910.28(b)(10). As provided in proposed Sec. 1910.28(b)(10),
upon reaching the platform, an employee must use fall protection. The
criteria and performance requirements proposed here are based on the
criteria requirements OSHA has enforced in the outdoor advertising
industry as part of a variance originally granted to Gannett Outdoor
Advertising on March 1, 1991 (56 FR 8801). The policy expressed in that
variance was later extended to all employers engaged in outdoor
advertising under a compliance directive (i.e., STD 01-01-014) (Ex. 4).
Proposed paragraph (h)(1) requires that a qualified climber be
physically capable of performing the duties that may be assigned, as
demonstrated through observations of actual climbing activities or by a
physical examination.
Proposed paragraph (h)(2) requires that a qualified climber have
successfully completed a training or apprenticeship program that
included hands-on training for the safe climbing of ladders, and that
the climber be retrained as necessary to ensure the critical skills are
maintained. This requirement is in addition to the training
requirements in proposed Sec. 1910.30.
Proposed paragraph (h)(3) requires the employer to ensure, through
performance observations and formal classroom or on-the-job training,
that the qualified climber has the skill to safely perform the climb.
Proposed paragraph (h)(4) requires that qualified climbers have
climbing duties as one of their routine work activities. This is
necessary to assure that they maintain climbing proficiency.
Paragraph (i)--Ladder Safety Systems
Proposed paragraph (i) establishes system performance and use
criteria applicable to ladder safety systems. Existing subpart D, at
Sec. 1910.27(d)(5), permits the use of ladder safety systems (formerly
called ladder safety devices), but does not specify criteria for them.
The criteria proposed are based on the requirements for ladder safety
systems in the construction industry standard for fixed ladders at
Sec. Sec. 1926.1053(a)(22) and (23) and the applicable national
consensus standard for fixed ladders, ANSI A14.3-2002, Safety Standards
for Ladders--Fixed.
Proposed paragraph (i)(1) specifies that ladder safety systems must
permit the employee using the system to ascend or descend without
continually having to hold, push, or pull any part of the system,
leaving both hands free for climbing. The proposed requirement is
consistent with ANSI A14.3 and the construction industry standard at
Sec. 1926.1053(a)(22)(ii).
Proposed paragraph (i)(2) specifies that the connection between the
carrier or lifeline and the point of attachment to the body belt or
harness must not exceed 9 inches (23 cm) in length. The proposed
requirement is consistent with ANSI A14.3 and the construction industry
standard at Sec. 1926.1053(a)(22)(iv).
Proposed paragraph (i)(3) specifies that mountings for rigid
carriers must be attached at each end of the carrier, with intermediate
mountings, as necessary, spaced along the entire length of the carrier
to provide the strength necessary to stop employee falls. The proposed
requirement is consistent with ANSI A14.3 and the construction industry
standard at Sec. 1926.1053(a)(23)(i). OSHA notes that the
manufacturer's recommendations should indicate the need for, and number
of, intermediate mountings; for that reason, OSHA uses
the phrase "as necessary" rather than the use of more specific
terminology.
Proposed paragraph (i)(4) requires mountings for flexible carriers
to be attached at each end of the carrier. It further requires that
cable guides utilized with a flexible carrier be installed at a minimum
spacing of 25 feet (7.6 m) and a maximum spacing of 40 feet (12.2 m)
along the entire length of the carrier. The proposed requirement is
consistent with ANSI A14.3 and the construction industry standard at
Sec. 1926.1053(a)(23)(ii).
Proposed paragraph (i)(5) specifies that the design and
installation of mountings and cable guides must not reduce the design
strength of the ladder. The proposed requirement is consistent with
ANSI A14.3 and the construction industry standard at
1926.1053(a)(23)(iii).
Proposed paragraph (i)(6) sets the performance criteria for ladder
safety systems, requiring that ladder safety systems and their support
systems be capable of withstanding, without failure, a drop test
consisting of an 18-inch (46 cm) drop of a 500-pound (227 kg) weight.
The proposed requirement is consistent with ANSI A14.3 and the
construction industry standard at Sec. 1926.1053(a)(22)(i).
OSHA notes that where personal fall protection systems are used to
protect employees from falls from ladders, those systems must meet the
requirements of subpart I of this part.
Paragraph (j)--Personal Fall Protection Systems
Proposed paragraph (j) requires that body belts, body harnesses,
and other components used in personal fall arrest systems, work
positioning systems, travel restraint systems, or other fall protection
systems meet the applicable requirements of subpart I of this part.
Paragraph (k)--Protection From Falling Objects
Proposed paragraph (k) sets forth the performance criteria for
toeboards, guardrails, and canopies used to provide employee protection
from falling objects. Paragraph (c) of Sec. 1910.28 requires employers
to protect employees from falling objects. The proposed requirements
reflect existing criteria in Sec. 1910.23(e)(4) for toeboards and
other measures used to provide this protection and include new criteria
that must be met when canopies are used to provide protection. The
proposed requirements are identical to those in the construction
standards at 29 CFR 1926.502(j).
Proposed paragraph (k)(1) requires that where toeboards are used,
they must be erected along the edge of overhead walking-working
surfaces for a distance sufficient to protect any employee working
below.
Proposed paragraph (k)(2) specifies that toeboards must be a
minimum of 3.5 inches (9 cm) in vertical height from their top edge to
the level of the walking-working surface. Additionally, toeboards must
have a clearance of not more than 0.25 inch (0.5 cm) above the walking-
working surface, and the toeboards must be solid or have no opening
over 1 inch (3 cm) in the greatest dimension. An exception to this
requirement applies when toeboards are used around repair, service, and
assembly pits. In those cases, the toeboards must be at least 2.5
inches (6 cm) high. When employers can demonstrate that toeboards would
prevent access to vehicles over pits, the toeboards may be omitted.
Proposed paragraph (k)(3) specifies that where tools, equipment, or
materials are piled higher than the top edge of a toeboard, then
paneling or screening must be erected from the walking-working surface
or toeboard to the top of a guardrail system's top rail or midrail for
a distance sufficient to protect employees below.
Proposed paragraph (k)(4) specifies that toeboards must be capable
of withstanding, without failure, a force of at least 50 pounds (222 N)
applied in any downward or outward direction at any point along the
toeboard.
Proposed paragraph (k)(5) requires that, when guardrails are used
as falling object protection, openings must be small enough to prevent
passage of potential falling objects that could injure workers below.
Proposed paragraph (k)(6) requires that when canopies are used,
they must be strong enough to prevent collapse or penetration when
struck by falling objects.
Paragraph (l)--Grab handles
In paragraph (l), OSHA proposes that where grab handles are used,
they be at least 12 inches (30 cm) in length and be mounted to provide
at least 3 inches (8 cm) of clearance from the side framing or the
opening area. Grab handles must be capable of withstanding a maximum
horizontal pull-out force equal to two times the intended load, or 200
pounds (890 N), whichever is greater. OSHA notes that it has proposed
to require the use of grab handles in Sec. 1910.28(b)(2), Hoist areas.
The proposed requirement is essentially the same as the existing
requirement in Sec. 1910.23(e)(10). OSHA requests comment on whether
it should further simplify this requirement by eliminating that portion
of the requirement that pertains to the length and the clearance space
of grab handles, leaving only that portion of the proposed requirement
concerned with pull-out force.
Section 1910.30 Training Requirements
In Sec. 1910.30, OSHA proposes to add new requirements for
employers to train, and where necessary, to retrain employees in the
subject areas covered by revised subpart D. Specifically, employers
will have to ensure that employees are trained to recognize fall
hazards, know what do about the hazards, and how to use the equipment
provided to them for protection. In addition, the new requirements call
for employees to receive training about the hazards associated with
certain equipment.
OSHA believes these new training requirements are necessary to
ensure that employees are familiar with hazards, especially fall
hazards, pertinent to the various walking-working surfaces in their
workplace. Unlike OSHA's construction industry standards, there is no
"generic" training section in the general industry standards. OSHA
believes that effective training is vital in preventing and reducing
work-related injuries, especially those caused by falls. OSHA also
believes that educating employees provides a proactive approach to
injury prevention.
OSHA notes that existing Sec. 1910.132(f) sets training
requirements for employees using certain types of PPE. In proposed
Sec. 1910.140, OSHA specifies that existing Sec. 1910.132(f) apply to
PPE used for fall protection. As a result, some of the requirements in
Sec. 1910.132(f) may overlap with the training requirements in this
paragraph. It is not OSHA's intent, however, that employers provide
duplicate training to meet their obligations under proposed subparts D
and I.
Paragraph (a) Fall hazards.
Proposed paragraph (a) addresses fall hazards. Proposed paragraph
(a)(1) requires the employer to provide training for each employee who
uses personal fall protection equipment and those required to be
trained as indicated elsewhere in this subpart. The training must
enable each employee to recognize the hazards of falling and the
procedures to be followed to minimize these hazards. The purpose of the
training is to enable the employee to recognize fall hazards and to
learn how to minimize these hazards. OSHA believes that it is important
for employees to demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and ability to
protect themselves before they are exposed to a fall hazard.
The training required in proposed Sec. 1910.30 is directed to
employers whose employees use personal fall protection equipment and
those who otherwise are required to be trained as specifically
indicated in this subpart (e.g., employees working near unprotected
sides and edges at loading docks).
Are there any other instances in this subpart where training under
Sec. 1910.30 should specifically be required? Should employees exposed
to fall hazards over four feet (including those using ladders) be
trained? Do employees who use portable guardrails (e.g., around floor
holes or at hoist areas) need to be trained? Do employees who use
portable ladders need to be trained on hazard recognition and proper
use of the ladder? Do employees who use fixed ladders need to be
trained in hazard recognition and proper climbing techniques? Since BLS
data (http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshcdnew.htm) indicate falls to the same
level (such as slips and trips resulting in a fall to the surface on
which the employee was walking) are a significant source of injury,
would additional training requirements for these hazards better protect
employees? Are there circumstances where walking-working surfaces pose
hazards, because of the nature of the work, which are infeasible to
eliminate (e.g., a wet floor in a carwash bay) and training would help
minimize the risk of slips, trips, or falls?
Proposed paragraph (a)(2) requires that each employee be trained by
a qualified person, and identifies four specific areas that the
training must cover, including:
(i) The nature of fall hazards in the work area;
(ii) The correct procedures for erecting, maintaining,
disassembling, and inspecting the fall protection systems to be used;
(iii) The use and operation of guardrail systems, safety net
systems, warning lines used in designated areas, and other protection;
and
(iv) The use, operation, and limitations of personal fall
protection systems including proper hook-up, anchoring and tie-off
techniques, methods of use, and proper methods of equipment inspection
and storage as recommended by the manufacturer.
The performance-oriented approach to training proposed in paragraph
(a)(2) provides flexibility for the employer in designing the training.
While the proposed paragraph specifies topics that must be covered, it
does not specify how the training is to be provided nor does it specify
any particular number of hours. The proposed paragraph is written to
require training to be provided by a "qualified person." OSHA
believes that the involvement of a qualified person who is
knowledgeable in the subject area and industry hazards, in conjunction
with the specific requirements of proposed paragraphs (a) and (c),
provides appropriate assurance that employees will be adequately
trained.
Paragraph (b) Equipment hazards.
Proposed paragraph (b) addresses training with regard to equipment
regulated by proposed subpart D. Proposed paragraph (b)(1) requires
employers to ensure that employees are trained in the proper care, use,
and inspection of all equipment covered by this subpart before using
it.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2) requires that employees be instructed in
the proper placing and securing of dockboards to prevent unintentional
movement. Compliance with this provision will help employers meet their
obligations under proposed Sec. 1910.26. The hazards associated with
dockboards becoming dislodged are significant, and OSHA believes that
proper employee training will help to reduce these hazards.
Proposed paragraph (b)(3) requires the employer to ensure that all
employees who use rope descent systems are trained and retrained as
necessary in the proper rigging and safe use of that equipment.
Compliance with this provision will help employers meet their
obligations under proposed Sec. 1910.27 for rope descent systems.
Improper use of rope descent system equipment can lead to serious
injuries and fatalities. OSHA believes that training employees to use
the equipment properly minimizes the risks of equipment failure and
employee falls.
Paragraph (c) Retraining.
Proposed paragraph (c) requires employees to be retrained whenever
the employer has reason to believe that the employee does not have the
understanding and skill required by proposed paragraphs (a) and (b).
Specifically, OSHA requires retraining whenever changes in the
workplace or changes in the fall protection systems or equipment render
previous training obsolete; or when an employee has not retained the
understanding or skill required by proposed paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section. The training requirements in this section have been
written to indicate clearly that employers have an ongoing
responsibility to maintain employee proficiency in the use and care of
fall protection equipment, and to ensure employees are trained in safe
work practices and can recognize hazards associated with certain
equipment.
Paragraph (d) Training Must Be Understandable
Proposed paragraph (d) requires employers to provide information
and training in a manner that is understandable to each employee.
Differences in language, reading capabilities, and physical challenges
may create communication issues in a workplace. It is essential that
employers adapt their training methods so that all of their employees
comprehend the information and training provided.
Other revisions to part 1910
The proposed changes to subparts D and I result in the need to make
conforming changes to subparts F, N, and R in 1910. These changes,
which are presented at the end of this proposal, are self-explanatory
and do not substantially affect the requirements of these subparts.
References
Consumer Product Safety Commission Offers Safety Tips to
Prevent Ladder Injuries, Ladder Safety Alert; U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission, Washington, DC 20207, undated (Web address: http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PUBS/ladder.html).
Injury Facts; National Safety Council, 1121 Spring Lake
Drive, Itasca, IL 60143-3201; 2005-2006 edition.
Murphy, Patricia J. Get a Leg Up on Ladder Safety; Family
Safety & Health, Spring 2001. Available through the National Safety
Council at the following web address: http://www.nsc.org/issues/firstaid/ladder.htm.
Overview of BLS Statistics on Worker Safety and Health,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, DC (Web address: http://www.bls.gov/bls/safety.htm).
Preventing Slips, Trips, and Falls, Professional
Development Series, Participant's Guide (Kit Number 12466-0000).
National Safety Council, 444 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois
60611, 2006.
Portable Ladders; Quick Card, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, Washington, DC, 2005.
Stairways and Ladders, A Guide to OSHA Rules; Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, Washington, DC, 2003.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for
Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health, Worker Deaths by Falls,
A Summary of Surveillance Findings and Investigative Case Reports,
Cincinnati, Ohio 45226-1998, November 2000.
Useful Web sites providing information on safety include:
OSHA's public page (contains many useful safety and health
topics): http://www.osha.gov/.
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health:
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/.
National Safety Council: http://www.nsc.org/.
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission: http://www.cpsc.gov/.
The following industry codes and standards were used in the
development of this proposed rule:
Industry codes and standards for ladders:
ANSI \3\ A14.1-2000, American National Standard for
Ladders--Wood Safety Requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ ANSI: American National Standards Institute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ANSI A14.2-2000, American National Standard for Ladders--
Portable Metal--Safety Requirements.
ANSI A14.3-2002, American National Standard for Ladders--
Fixed--Safety Requirements.
ANSI A14.4-2002, American National Standard Safety
Requirements for Job-Made Wooden Ladders.
ANSI A14.5-2000, American National Standard for Ladders--
Portable Reinforced Plastic--Safety Requirements.
ANSI A14.7-2006, American National Standard for Mobile
Ladder Stands and Mobile Ladder Stand Platforms.
Industry standards and codes for step bolts and manhole steps:
ASTM \4\ C 478-07, American Society for Testing and
Materials Standard Specification for Precast Reinforced Concrete
Manhole Sections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ ASTM: American Society for Testing and Materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ASTM A394-07, American Society for Testing and Materials
Standard Specification for Steel Transmission Tower Bolts, Zinc-Coated
and Bare.
ASTM C 497-05, American Society for Testing and Materials
Test Methods for Concrete Pipe, Manhole Sections, or Tile.
IEEE \5\ 1307-2004, IEEE Standard for Fall Protection for
Utility Work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ IEEE: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ANSI/TIA \6\ -222-G-2005, Structural Standard for Antenna
Supporting Structures and Antennas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ TIA: Telecommunications Industry Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Industry codes and standards for stairs and stairways:
ANSI A1264.1-1995 (R2002), American National Standard for
Safety Requirements for Workplace Floor and Wall Openings, Stairs and
Railing Systems.
ANSI A1264.1-2007, American National Standard Safety
Requirements for Workplace Walking/Working Surfaces and Their Access;
Workplace, Floor, Wall and Floor Openings; Stairs and Guardrail
Systems.
NFPA 101-2006, National Fire Protection Association Life
Safety Code.
ICC-2003, International Code Council International
Building Code.
Industry codes and standards for dockboards (bridgeplates):
ASME B56.1-2000, American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
Safety Standard for Low Lift and High Lift Trucks.
ASME B56.1-2004, American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
Safety Standard for Low Lift and High Lift Trucks.
ANSI/MH30.1-2000, American National Standard For the
Safety Performance, and Testing of Dock Leveling Devices Specification.
ANSI/MH30.2-2005, Portable Dock Loading Devices: Safety,
Performance, and Testing.
Industry codes and standards for scaffolds and rope descent
systems:
ANSI/IWCA I-14.1-2001, Window Cleaning Safety.
ANSI/ASCE 7-2005, American National Standard for Minimum
Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures.
ANSI A1264.1-1995 (R2002), American National Standard for
Safety Requirements for Workplace Floor and Wall Openings, Stairs and
Railing Systems.
ANSI A1264.1-2007, American National Standard Safety
Requirements for Workplace Walking/Working Surfaces and Their Access;
Workplace, Floor, Wall and Floor Openings; Stairs and Guardrail
Systems.
Industry codes and standards for fall protection (duty, systems
criteria, and practices) and training requirements:
ANSI A10.11-1989 (R1998), American National Standard for
Construction and Demolition Operations--Personnel and Debris Nets.
ANSI A14.3-2002, American National Standard for Ladders--
Fixed--Safety Requirements.
ANSI A14.7-2006, American National Standard for Mobile
Ladder Stands and Mobile Ladder Stand Platforms.
ANSI A1264.1-1995 (R2002), American National Standard for
Safety Requirements for Workplace Floor and Wall Openings, Stairs and
Railing Systems.
ANSI A1264.1-2007, American National Standard, Safety
Requirements for Workplace Walking/Working Surfaces and Their Access;
Workplace, Floor, Wall and Floor Openings; Stairs and Guardrail
Systems.
ANSI/IWCA I-14.1-2001, Window Cleaning Safety.
ANSI Z359.0-2007, American National Standard, Definitions
and Nomenclature Used for Fall Protection and Fall Arrest.
ANSI Z359.1-2007, American National Standard, Safety
Requirements for Personal Fall Arrest Systems, Subsystems and
Components.
ANSI Z359.2-2007, American National Standard, Minimum
Requirements for a Comprehensive Managed Fall Protection Program.
ANSI Z359.3-2007, American National Standard, Safety
Requirements for Positioning and Travel Restraint Systems.
ANSI Z359.4-2007, American National Standard, Safety
Requirements for Assisted-Rescue and Self-Rescue Systems, Subsystems
and Components.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The following studies, cited in OSHA's April 10, 1990, proposed
rulemaking (55 FR 13421), provide useful and relevant information, and
are a valuable archival resource. These studies provide information
that may be helpful in understanding and implementing the proposed
standards for walking-working surfaces being proposed today.
I. General References
Accident Prevention Manual for Industrial Operations;
National Safety Council, 444 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois
60611, 1980.
A History of Walkway Slip-Resistance Research at the
National Bureau of Standards, Special Publication 565; National Bureau
of Standards, National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
Virginia 22151, December 1979.
A New Portable Tester for the Evaluation of the Slip-
Resistance of Walkway Surfaces, Technical Note 953; National Bureau of
Standards, National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
Virginia 22151, July 1977.
Miller, James et al. Work Surface Friction: Definitions,
Laboratory and Field Measurements, and a Comprehensive Bibliography;
The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, February 1983.
(NTIS *PB 83-243634, PE 83-243626, PB 84-175926).
Chaffin, Don B. et al. An Ergonomic Basis for
Recommendations Pertaining to Specific Sections of OSHA Standard
, 29 CFR Part 1910, Subpart D--Walking and Working Surfaces;
The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,Michigan 48109, March 1978.
Ayoub, M. and Gary M. Bakken. An Ergonomic Analysis of
Selected Sections in Subpart D, Walking/Working Surfaces; Texas
University, Lubbock, Texas 79409, August 1978.
An Overview of Floor-Slip-Resistance Research with
Annotated Bibliography, Technical Note 895; National Bureau of
Standards, National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
Virginia 22151, January 1976.
A Bibliography of Coefficient of Friction Literature
Relating to Slip Type Accidents; Department of Industrial and
Operations Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104, February 1983.
Falls from Elevations Resulting in Injuries; U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22151, June 1984.
English, William. Slips, Trips and Falls--Safety
Engineering Guidelines for the Prevention of Slips, Trip and Fall
Occurrences; Hanrow Press, Inc., P.O. Box 847, Del Mar, California
92014, 1989. (Also, telephone 800-235-5588 or e-mail at
heg101@msn.com.)
II. Ladder References
Chaffin, Don B. and Terrence J. Stobbe. Ergonomic
Considerations Related to Selected Fall Prevention Aspects of Scaffolds
and Ladders as Presented in OSHA Standard 29 CFR Part 1910 Subpart D;
The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104, September 1979.
Ergonomics Considerations Related to Selected Fall
Prevention Aspects of Scaffolds and Ladders as Presented in OSHA
Standard 29 CFR Part 1910 Subpart D; The University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, Michigan 48104.
III. Stair References
Archea, John et al. Guidelines for Stair Safety; NBS
Building of Science Series 120, National Bureau of Standards, National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22151.
Carson, D. H. et al. Safety on Stairs; National Bureau of
Standards, National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
Virginia 22151.
Nelson, Gary S. Engineering--Human Factors Interface in
Stairway Treadriser Design; Texas A&M University of Texas, Agricultural
Extension Service, College Station, Texas 77843, May 1973.
IV. Fall Protection References
Personnel Guardrails for the Prevention of Occupational
Accidents, NBSIR 76-1132; National Bureau of Standards, National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22151, July 1976.
Investigation of Guardrails for the Protection of
Employees from Occupational Hazards, NBSIR 76-1139; National Bureau of
Standards, National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
Virginia 22151, July 1976.
A Model Performance Standard for Guardrails, NBSIR 76-
1131; National Bureau of Standards, National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia 22151, July 1976.
National Technical Information Services (NTIS), 5285 Port
Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. (Telephone: (703) 605-6000; Web
address: http://www.ntis.gov/.)
C. Proposed Changes to Subpart I
OSHA is proposing to add a new section to existing subpart I,
Personal Protective Equipment. The new section will be numbered Sec.
1910.140 and titled: Personal fall protection equipment. It will
contain five paragraphs, covering the following topics:
Paragraph (a) will contain the scope and application for the new
section.
Paragraph (b) will contain terms and definitions applicable to
personal fall protection systems.
Paragraph (c) will contain general requirements applicable to all
types of personal fall protection systems covered and will contain
inspection requirements and design criteria common to components used
in all systems.
Paragraph (d) will contain additional, specific requirements for
personal fall arrest systems and will address equipment such as body
harnesses, lifelines, deceleration devices (i.e., rope grabs and rip-
stitch lanyards), and lanyards.
Paragraph (e) will contain additional, specific requirements for
positioning device systems. This is equipment, such as a window
cleaner's belt, that is used to support an employee in a work position.
In addition, OSHA proposes to add two non-mandatory appendices (C
and D) to proposed Sec. 1910.140 to help employers select appropriate
equipment and use it properly. (Note: Existing Appendices A and B to
subpart I are not affected by this rule and remain unchanged.) Proposed
Appendix C provides useful information and guidance concerning the use
of personal fall arrest systems. Proposed Appendix D provides examples
of test methods for personal fall arrest and positioning device
systems. The following discussion provides a more detailed explanation
of the new provisions.
Section 1910.140 Personal Fall Protection Systems
Paragraph (a) Scope and Application
Proposed paragraph (a) explains that all personal fall protection
systems used to comply with part 1910 must comply with the care and use
criteria established by proposed Sec. 1910.140.
Currently, there are a number of standards throughout part 1910
that require or permit the use of personal fall protection systems. In
addition, the proposed revision of subpart D contains a number of new
requirements allowing employers to choose to use personal fall
protection systems in lieu of guardrail systems that are mandated under
the existing rules. With few exceptions, the existing standards do not
specify the criteria for the design, operation, performance, or use of
fall protection systems. Without such criteria, OSHA believes there is
risk that personal fall protection systems, especially personal fall
arrest systems, will fail. Such failure may occur for a number of
reasons, including: use of the wrong system (especially one that is not
strong enough for its purpose); use of a system that was not inspected
or tested before use; use of a system that is not rigged properly; use
of a system with non-compatible components; or use of a system for
which the employee is not properly trained. While the vast majority of
fall protection systems currently in use meet national consensus
standards, OSHA believes that, because of the absence of specific
general industry standards, there is likely insufficient awareness of
appropriate criteria for their use. When this rule is promulgated,
employers who choose to use personal fall protection systems would have
to ensure that those systems meet the criteria in this proposed
provision.
Paragraph (b) Definitions
Paragraph (b) defines key terms used in the proposed standard. Most
of the terms are already used in existing OSHA fall protection
standards, including Appendix C of Sec. 1910.66, Powered platforms for
building maintenance, of the general industry standards; Sec.
1926.502, Fall protection systems criteria and practices, of the
construction standards; and Sec. Sec. 1915.159, Personal fall arrest
systems (PFAS), and 1915.160, Positioning
device systems, of the shipyard employment standards.\7\ OSHA believes
that employee safety will be enhanced by having the terms and
definitions applicable to personal fall protection systems
substantially identical whenever possible. This is particularly
important because the same employees may be engaged in both general
industry and construction activities. Having different meanings for the
same terms could lead to confusion by employers, employees, and OSHA
compliance staff. When a proposed definition differs from a definition
used in the construction and shipyard employment standards, the
difference is identified and explained in the discussion below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ Referred to hereafter as the "general industry,
construction, and shipyard employment standards on fall
protection."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

OSHA has also reviewed the terms and definitions used in national
consensus standards that are applicable to personal fall protection
systems covered by the proposed rule, including ANSI/ASSE Z359.0-2007,
Definitions and Nomenclature Used for Fall Protection and Fall Arrest;
and other standards in the Z359 series. All of the terms and
definitions used in this proposed rulemaking are based on existing OSHA
standards or have their source in national consensus standards.
The following terms are defined in the proposed rule: anchorage,
belt terminal, body belt, body harness, buckle, carrier, competent
person, connector, D-ring, deceleration device, deceleration distance,
equivalent, free fall, free fall distance, lanyard, lifeline, personal
fall arrest system, personal fall protection system, positioning
system, qualified person, rope grab, self-retracting lifeline/lanyard,
snaphook, travel restraint (tether) line, travel restraint system,
window cleaner's belt, window cleaner's belt anchor, window cleaner's
positioning system, and work positioning system. Each term is discussed
below.
Anchorage. OSHA proposes to define "anchorage" to mean a secure
point of attachment for lifelines, lanyards, or deceleration devices.
The definition is nearly identical to the definition in OSHA's general
industry, construction, and the shipyard employment standards on fall
protection. One variation is that the definition used in the general
industry standard on fall protection goes beyond just defining the
term, and also includes a requirement that the anchorage must be
"independent of the means of supporting or suspending the employee."
OSHA did not include this latter language in the proposed definition,
but did include similar language in the appropriate requirement (see
proposed Sec. 1910.140(c)(12)).
The proposed definition is also consistent with the definitions in
the national consensus standards, i.e., ANSI/ASSE Z359.0-2007,
Definitions and Nomenclature Used for Fall Protection and Fall Arrest;
and ANSI/IWCA I-14.1-2001, Standard for Window Cleaning Safety; and it
is identical to the definition used in ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004, Fall
Protection Systems.
Belt terminal. OSHA proposes to define "belt terminal" to mean an
end attachment of a window cleaner's positioning system used for
securing the belt or harness to a window cleaner's belt anchor. The
term is used in the proposed requirements specific to fall protection
for window cleaning operations. It is not currently defined in OSHA
standards, nor is the term specifically defined in ANSI/IWCA I-14.1-
2001, although its meaning is clear--that the belt terminal is the end
part of a window cleaner's belt. OSHA is including the definition to
clarify the intent of the requirements in proposed paragraph (e)
relating to the attachment of belt terminals to window cleaner's belt
anchors (window anchor). OSHA requests comment on whether this term and
definition are needed to clarify the provision. That is, is the term's
meaning in proposed paragraph (e) clear enough that a definition is not
needed?
Body belt. OSHA proposes to define "body belt" to mean a strap
with means both for securing about the waist and for attaching to other
components such as a lanyard or lifeline, and that is used in
positioning systems, travel restraint systems, and ladder safety
systems. The definition is consistent with those in the OSHA general
industry, construction, and shipyard employment standards on fall
protection, as well as with the ANSI/ASSE Z359.0-2007 and ANSI/ASSE
A10.32-2004 national consensus standards.
Body harness. OSHA proposes to define the term "body harness" to
mean straps which may be secured about the employee in a manner to
distribute the fall arrest forces over at least the thighs, pelvis,
waist, chest, and shoulders with means for attaching it to other
components of a personal fall arrest system. The definition is
identical to the one in OSHA's general industry standards on fall
protection, and nearly identical to that in the construction industry
standard on fall protection. OSHA's shipyard employment standard on
fall protection contains a similar definition, but that definition does
not include the word "waist" in it.
The national consensus standard, ANSI/ASSE Z359.0-2007, has several
definitions for various types of harnesses, including: harness, chest;
harness, chest-waist; harness, evacuation; harness, full body; harness,
positioning. The definition for full body harness (in section 2.74 of
ANSI/ASSE Z359.0-2007) is essentially the same as the proposed subpart
I definition. The proposed definition is also consistent with ANSI/IWCA
I-14.1-2000, with one exception: the ANSI/IWCA consensus standard
allows the use of body harnesses that permit the arresting forces to be
distributed over any combination of the thighs, pelvis, waist, chest,
and shoulders, rather than all combined. Including this phrase in the
OSHA definition would allow the fall arrest forces to be distributed
over the waist and chest only; therefore, OSHA has not adopted this
aspect of the ANSI/IWCA consensus definition. OSHA believes the dangers
of concentrating arresting forces in one anatomical area (for example,
waist and chest only) are real and well documented. For example, Dr.
Maurice Amphoux, et. al. (Ex. OSHA-S057-2006-0680-0070) conducted
research into the use of thoracic harnesses for fall arrest. They
concluded that these types of harnesses should not be used for fall
arrest because the forces transmitted to the body during post-fall
suspension constrict the rib cage and could cause asphyxiation. There
is also an increased danger of falling out of the assembly.
OSHA solicits comments on this matter, as well as on whether there
is a need to define other types of harnesses. For example, some types
of body harnesses do not use a waist component but still distribute the
forces over the torso. These harnesses have assemblies that prevent the
shoulder straps from separating enough to allow the employee to fall
out of the harness. OSHA does not intend to prohibit the use of this
type of harness.
Buckle. OSHA proposes to define the term "buckle" to mean any
device for holding the body belt or body harness closed around the
employee's body. The definition is identical to the definition used in
the general industry and construction standards on fall protection, and
it is consistent with the ANSI/ASSE Z359.0-2007 and ANSI/ASSE A10.32-
2004 national consensus standards on fall protection.
Carrier. OSHA proposes to define a "carrier" to mean the track of
a ladder safety system consisting of a flexible cable or rigid rail
which is secured to the ladder or structure by mountings. The
definition is identical to ANSI/ALI
A14.3-2002, American National Standards for Ladders--Fixed.
Competent person. OSHA proposes to define a "competent person" to
mean a person who is capable of identifying hazardous or dangerous
conditions in any personal fall protection system or any component
thereof, as well as in their application and uses with related
equipment. The definition is essentially the same as the one in OSHA's
general industry powered platform standard (Sec. 1910.66), but it
differs from the definition of competent person in OSHA's construction
industry standard at Sec. 1926.32. It also differs from both the ANSI/
ASSE Z359.0-2007 and ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004 national consensus standards
in that the national consensus standards, like OSHA's construction
industry definition, define a competent person as one who has the
"authority to take prompt corrective action" to eliminate the hazards
in the surroundings or working conditions.
OSHA's proposed definition does not require the competent person to
have the authority to take prompt corrective action because the Agency
believes that the competent person assigned to inspect personal fall
protection systems serves a role different from that of the person that
typically is designated as the competent person on construction jobs.
In general industry the competent person will most likely be an outside
contractor that specializes in fall protection, and which both designs
the system, and provides training, usually at a remote location. It is
unlikely that an outside contractor would be granted authority over
work operations and, thus, OSHA believes the definition proposed allows
the employer more flexibility in designating an appropriate competent
person.
Connector. OSHA proposes to define "connector" to mean a device
that is used to couple (connect) parts of the fall protection system
together. The definition is essentially the same as OSHA's general
industry, construction, and shipyard employment standards on fall
protection. The proposed definition is also consistent with national
consensus standards, including ANSI/ASSE Z359.0-2007 and ANSI/ASSE
A10.32-2004. These other definitions also include some explanatory
language stating that connectors may be independent components of the
system, such as a carabiner; or may be integral components or parts of
the system, such as a buckle or D-ring sewn into a body support (a body
belt or body harness), or a snaphook spliced or sewn into a lanyard.
The proposed definition does not include such explanatory language
because OSHA believes it is not necessary.
D-ring. OSHA proposes to define a "D-ring" as a connector used
integrally in a harness as an attachment element or fall arrest
attachment, and in a lanyard, energy absorber, lifeline, and anchorage
connector as an integral connector. Also, a D-ring means a connector
used integrally in a positioning or travel restraint system as an
attachment element. The term is not defined in existing OSHA standards
but is defined, consistent with the proposed definition, in the
national consensus standards ANSI/ASSE Z359.0-2007 and ANSI/ASSE
A10.32-2004. ANSI/ASSE A10.32 also defines "integral" to mean not
removable from the component, system, or subsystem without mutilating
any element or without use of a special tool. This definition expresses
OSHA's intent in using the term "integral" in the proposed definition
of D-ring.
Deceleration device. OSHA proposes to define "deceleration
device" to mean any mechanism that serves to dissipate energy during a
fall. The definition is identical to the national consensus standard
ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004, but differs from the definition in OSHA's
general industry, construction, and shipyard employment standard on
fall protection. These OSHA standards expand on the definition by
citing examples of devices that may be used to either dissipate a
substantial amount of energy during a fall arrest, or otherwise limit
the energy imposed on an employee during a fall. These devices include
rope grabs, rip-stitch lanyards, specially woven lanyards, tearing and
deforming lanyards, or automatic self-retracting lifelines/lanyards.
ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004 includes the same examples in its explanatory
material, but not within the definition itself. ANSI/ASSE Z359.0-2007
does not define the term "deceleration device," but does define the
terms "energy (shock) absorber," "fall arrester," and "self-
retracting lanyard." OSHA notes that, in the preamble to the final
rule for the construction industry fall protection standard (59 FR
40677), there is an extensive discussion about the definition of
"deceleration device," including a discussion of commenter
suggestions requesting that instead of defining the term "deceleration
device," OSHA define the terms "shock absorber," "fall arrester,"
and "self-retracting lanyard." One of those comments was from an ANSI
Z359 Committee representative:

Comments were received on the definition of "deceleration
device" [citations omitted]. It was suggested that this term be
eliminated and replaced with three terms, "fall arrester,"
"energy absorber," and "self-retracting lifeline/lanyard"
because the examples listed by OSHA in its proposed definition of
deceleration device serve varying combinations of the function of
these three suggested components. In particular, it was pointed out
that a rope grab may or may not serve to dissipate a substantial
amount of energy in and of itself. The distinction that the
commenter was making was that some components of the system were
"fall arresters" (purpose to stop a fall), others were "energy
absorbers" (purpose to brake a fall more comfortably), and others
were "self-retracting lifeline/lanyards" (purpose to take slack
out of the lifeline or lanyard to minimize free fall). OSHA notes,
however, that it is difficult to clearly separate all components
into these three suggested categories since fall arrest (stopping)
and energy absorption (braking) are closely related. In addition,
many self-retracting lifeline/lanyards serve all three functions
very well (a condition which the commenter labels as a "subsystem"
or "hybrid component"). OSHA believes that the only practical way
to accomplish what is suggested would be to have test methods and
criteria for each of the three component functions. However, at this
time, there are no national consensus standards or other accepted
criteria for any of the three which OSHA could propose to adopt.
In addition, OSHA's approach in the final standard is to address
personal fall arrest equipment on a system basis. Therefore, OSHA
does not have separate requirements for "fall arresters," "energy
absorbers," and "self-retracting lifeline/lanyards" because it is
the performance of the complete system, as assembled, which is
regulated by the OSHA standard. OSHA's final standard does not
preclude the voluntary standards writing bodies from developing
design standards for all of the various components and is supportive
of this undertaking.

OSHA invites comment on whether the Agency should remove the term
"deceleration device" from subpart I and instead define the terms
"fall arrester" and "energy absorber." The term "self-retracting
lifeline/lanyard" is already defined in this proposed subpart I rule.
Deceleration distance. OSHA proposes to define the term
"deceleration distance" to mean the vertical distance a falling
employee travels before stopping, from the point at which the
deceleration device begins to operate to the stopping point, excluding
lifeline elongation and free fall distance. It is measured as the
distance between the location of an employee's body harness attachment
point at the moment of activation of the deceleration device during a
fall (i.e., at the onset of fall arrest forces), and the location of
that attachment point after the employee comes to a full stop.
The proposed definition is identical to the definition in OSHA's
general industry, construction, and shipyard employment standards on
fall protection, except that the reference to body belts has been removed.
It is consistent with the ANSI/ASSE Z359.0-2007 and ANSI/ASSE A10.32-
2004 consensus standards.
Equivalent. OSHA proposes to define "equivalent" to mean
alternative designs, materials, or methods to protect against a hazard,
which the employer can demonstrate will provide an equal or greater
degree of safety for employees compared to the methods, materials, or
designs specified in the standard. The proposed definition is identical
to the definitions in OSHA's general industry and construction
standards on fall protection. It is essentially the same as the
definition in the shipyard employment standard on fall protection. A
crucial element of the definition is that it places the burden on the
employer to demonstrate equivalence. The term is not defined in the
national consensus standards pertinent to fall protection.
Free fall. OSHA proposes to define the term "free fall" to mean
the act of falling before the personal fall protection system begins to
apply force to arrest the fall. The proposed definition is essentially
the same as the definition in OSHA's general industry, construction,
and shipyard employment standards on fall protection. It is also
consistent with national consensus standards, including ANSI/ASSE
Z359.0-2007 and ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004. OSHA notes that it proposes to
use the phrase personal fall protection system in this proposed rule,
rather than personal fall arrest system which is used in some of the
above-mentioned standards, to indicate clearly that the requirements,
when the term is used, apply to both personal fall arrest systems and
positioning systems.
Free fall distance. OSHA proposes to define the term "free fall
distance" to mean the vertical displacement of the fall arrest
attachment point on the employee's body belt or body harness between
onset of the fall and just before the system begins to apply force to
arrest the fall. This distance excludes deceleration distance as well
as lifeline and lanyard elongation, but includes any deceleration
device slide distance or self-retracting lifeline/lanyard extension
before the devices operate and fall arrest forces occur. The proposed
definition is essentially the same as the definition in OSHA's general
industry, construction, and shipyard employment standards on fall
protection. It is also consistent with the national consensus
standards, ANSI/ASSE Z359.0-2007 and ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004.
Lanyard. OSHA proposes to define the term "lanyard" to mean a
flexible line of rope, wire rope, or strap which generally has a
connector at each end for connecting the body belt or body harness to a
deceleration device, lifeline, or anchorage. The proposed definition is
identical to the definition in OSHA's construction and shipyard
employment standards on fall protection, and is consistent with the
general industry standard on fall protection. It is also essentially
the same as the national consensus standards, ANSI/ASSE Z359.0-2007 and
ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004.
Lifeline. OSHA proposes to define a "lifeline" to mean a
component consisting of a flexible line for connection to an anchorage
at one end to hang vertically (vertical lifeline), or for connection to
anchorages at both ends to stretch horizontally (horizontal lifeline),
and which serves as a means for connecting other components of a
personal fall protection system to the anchorage(s). The proposed
definition is essentially the same as OSHA's general industry,
construction, and shipyard employment standards on fall protection.
Those standards use the words "fall arrest" rather than "fall
protection" as used in this proposed rule because they were only
applicable to fall arrest systems whereas this proposed rule has
application to other personal fall protection systems. It is also
essentially the same as the national consensus standards ANSI/ASSE
Z359.0-2007 and ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004.
Personal fall arrest system. OSHA proposes to define the term
"personal fall arrest system" to mean a system used to arrest an
employee in a fall from a work level. It consists of an anchorage,
connector, and a body harness, and may include a lanyard, deceleration
device, lifeline, or suitable combination of these. The definition
proposed is identical to OSHA's general industry, construction, and
shipyard employment standards on fall protection, except that those
standards included a body belt as a part of the definition of a
personal fall arrest system. Body belts, which have been phased out due
to safety reasons, were included in those definitions to allow their
use until they were banned. The ban on body belts as part of a personal
fall arrest system, took place on January 1, 1998, for the construction
industry and shipyard employment. The proposed definition is also
consistent with the national consensus standards, ANSI/ASSE Z359.0-2007
and ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004. These consensus standards, like the existing
OSHA standards and the proposed standard, require the use of body
harnesses in personal fall arrest systems. OSHA notes that a ladder
safety system is not considered a personal fall arrest system within
the meaning of this proposed definition even though it is designed to
arrest a fall. Therefore, the use of a body belt in a ladder safety
system is permitted.
Personal fall protection system. OSHA proposes to define the term
"personal fall protection system" to mean a system used to protect an
employee from falling, or that safely arrests an employee's fall,
should a fall occur. Examples include: a personal fall arrest system, a
positioning system, or a travel restraint system. The term is not
defined in either the existing OSHA standards or in the national
consensus standards.
Positioning system (sometimes called a work positioning system).
OSHA proposes to define the term "positioning system" to mean a
system of equipment and connectors that, when used with its body belt
or body harness, allows an employee to be supported on an elevated
vertical surface, such as a wall or windowsill, and to work with both
hands free. The proposed definition is essentially the same as the
definition in OSHA's construction and shipyard employment standards on
fall protection. It is also essentially the same as the national
consensus standards, ANSI/ASSE Z359.0-2007 and ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004.
Qualified. The proposed definition of "qualified" describes a
person who, by possession of a recognized degree, certificate, or
professional standing, or who by extensive knowledge, training,\8\ and
experience has successfully demonstrated the ability to solve or
resolve problems relating to the subject matter, the work, or the
project. The proposed definition is consistent with the definition in
the OSHA's construction industry standards at Sec. 1926.32(m), and the
shipyard employment standard for PPE at Sec. 1915.151(b). It is also
consistent with the definition being proposed today for the general
industry standards in subpart D, Walking-Working Surfaces. The
definition differs from that used in the general industry standard at
Sec. 1910.66. Specifically, the definition in Appendix C of Sec.
1910.66 requires that the qualified person have a degree, certification
or professional standing and (as opposed to "or") also have extensive
knowledge, training, and experience. To meet the definition, a person
would most likely need to be an engineer; this is not the case with the
definition proposed in this standard. Like the definition in the
construction and the shipyard employment rules, OSHA is emphasizing the need to be
qualified in the subject matter--personal fall protection
systems[horbar]which, in some cases, may involve their design and use.
As long as the individual meets the elements of the definition, he or
she may be considered a qualified person for the purpose of subpart I.
The proposed definition is also identical to that used in the national
consensus standard, ANSI/ASSE A10.32, but differs from ANSI/ASSE
Z359.0-2007 standard which also appears to require that the qualified
person be an engineer. The language proposed here will ensure
consistency with the definitions in OSHA's fall protection rules for
construction and shipyard employment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ "Training" may include informal, or on-the-job, training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rope grab. OSHA proposes to define the term "rope grab" to mean a
deceleration device that travels on a lifeline and automatically, by
friction, engages the lifeline and locks to arrest the fall of an
employee. A rope grab usually employs the principle of inertial
locking, cam/lever locking, or both. The definition proposed is the
same as the definition in OSHA's general industry, construction, and
shipyard employment standards on fall protection. It is also the same
as the national consensus standard, ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004. The term
"rope grab" is not individually defined in ANSI/ASSE Z359.0-2007;
however, that consensus standard defines the term "fall arrester"
using essentially the same definition OSHA uses here. Additionally, the
consensus standard identifies a "rope grab" as one example of a fall
arrester.
Self-retracting lifeline/lanyard. OSHA proposes to define the term
"self-retracting lifeline/lanyard" to mean a deceleration device
containing a drum-wound line which can be slowly extracted from, or
retracted onto, the drum under slight tension during normal movement by
the employee, and after onset of a fall, automatically locks the drum
and arrests the fall. The proposed definition is consistent with the
definition in OSHA's general industry and construction standards on
fall protection, and is also consistent with the national consensus
standards, ANSI/ASSE Z359.0-2007 and ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004. OSHA notes
that the ANSI/ASSE Z359.0 standard defines the term "self-retracting
lanyard" rather than "self-retracting lifeline/lanyard."
Snaphook. OSHA proposes to define a "snaphook" to mean a
connector comprised of a hook-shaped body with a normally closed gate
or similar arrangement that may be manually opened to permit the hook
to receive an object and that, when released, automatically closes and
locks to retain the object. Opening the snaphook requires two separate
actions. The proposed definition includes a note explaining that there
are two types of snaphooks--the locking type (also called self-locking,
double-locking, or automatic-locking) and the non-locking type (or
manual locking). The locking type snaphook is one with a self-closing
and self-locking gate that remains closed and locked until
intentionally unlocked and opened for connection or disconnection. The
non-locking type has a self-closing gate that remains closed, but not
locked (unless purposely locked by the user), until intentionally
opened for connection or disconnection. This rule would not allow use
of non-locking type snaphooks.
The proposed definition is consistent with OSHA's general industry
and construction standards on fall protection, and is also consistent
with the national consensus standards ANSI/ASSE Z359.1-2007 and ANSI/
ASSE A10.32-2004. These other OSHA standards also only allow use of
locking-type snaphooks.
Travel restraint (tether) line. The proposed definition of the term
"travel restraint line" is a rope, wire rope, or lanyard used to
transfer forces from a body support to an anchorage or anchorage
connector in a travel restraint system. The proposed definition is new
to general industry and is based on the ANSI/ASSE Z359.0-2007 standard,
and is consistent with the similar term "restraint (tether) line"
used in OSHA's shipyard employment standard on fall protection and in
the national consensus standard, ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004. The purpose of
a travel restraint line is to prevent an employee from reaching a fall
hazard. These lines need not be designed to withstand forces resulting
from a fall. (See "travel restraint system.")
Travel restraint system. OSHA proposes to define the term "travel
restraint system" to mean a combination of an anchorage, anchorage
connector, lanyard (or other means of connection), and body support
intended to be used by an employee to limit travel in such a manner as
to prevent exposure to a fall hazard. Travel restraint systems must be
used such that they do not support any portion of the employee's
weight. The proposed definition is new to the general industry
standards, and is based on the ANSI/ASSE Z359.0-2007 standard, and is
consistent with similar terms (i.e., "restraint (tether) line") used
in OSHA's shipyard employment standard on fall protection and in the
national consensus standard, ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004. The term is not
defined in the OSHA's construction industry standard on fall
protection.
Window cleaner's positioning system. OSHA proposes to define the
term "window cleaner's positioning system" to mean a system
consisting of a window cleaner's belt and window cleaner's belt
anchors.
Window cleaner's belt. OSHA proposes to define the term "window
cleaner's belt" to mean a belt that consists of a waist-belt, an
integral terminal runner or strap, and belt terminals. The end
terminals of the belt are attached to the window cleaner's belt anchors
(window anchors).
Window cleaner's belt anchors (window anchors). OSHA proposes to
define "window cleaner's belt anchors" to mean specifically designed
fall-preventing attachment points, permanently affixed to a window
frame or to a building part immediately adjacent to the window frame,
for direct attachment of the terminal portion of a window cleaner's
belt. The proposed definitions of terms related to window cleaner's
fall protection systems are based on the national consensus standard
for Window Cleaning Safety, IWCA I-14.1-2001. The term "belt
terminal" which is also a part of the window cleaner's belt was
discussed above. These terms are not used in existing OSHA standards
because there are no standards specifically applicable to window
cleaning operations.
Paragraph (c) General Requirements
Proposed paragraph (c) contains general provisions applicable to
all personal fall protection systems. This proposed paragraph
establishes criteria for the most generic, common components, such as
belts, lanyards, and harnesses used in fall protection systems. More
specific criteria are established in proposed paragraphs (d) and (e) of
Sec. 1910.140 for personal fall arrest and positioning systems. All of
the provisions proposed in paragraph (c) are based on requirements in
either existing OSHA standards pertinent to fall protection or national
consensus standards. The OSHA standards used include Appendix C of
Sec. 1910.66, Powered platforms for building maintenance, of the
general industry standards; Sec. 1926.502, Fall protection systems
criteria and practices, of the construction standards; and Sec. Sec.
1915.159, Personal fall arrest systems (PFAS), and 1915.160,
Positioning device systems, of the shipyard employment standards.\9\
The national consensus standards used in developing proposed paragraph (c) include
ANSI/ASME Z359.1-2007, Safety Requirements for Personal Fall Arrest
Systems, Subsystems and Components; ANSI/ASME Z359.3, Safety
Requirements for Positioning and Travel Restraint Systems; ANSI/ASME
A10.32-2004, Fall Protection Systems (for Construction); and ANSI/IWCA
I-14.1-2001, Window Cleaning Safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ Referred to hereafter as the "general industry,
construction, and shipyard employment standards on fall
protection."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2), OSHA is proposing that connectors
used in personal fall protection systems be made of drop-forged,
pressed, or formed steel or equivalent materials, and that the
materials be protected from corrosion. In addition, the surfaces and
edges of connectors are to be smooth. These requirements are intended
to ensure that connectors retain the necessary strength characteristics
for the life of the fall protection system under expected use
conditions and that the surfaces and edges do not cause damage to the
attached belt or lanyard. OSHA has already adopted this approach in
paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2), section I, Appendix C of Sec. 1910.66;
paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2), (e)(3), and (e)(4) of Sec. 1926.502; and
paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of Sec. 1915.159. Similar requirements
are also found in the national consensus standards, ANSI/ASSE Z359.1-
1992 (R2002) and ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004.
In paragraph (c)(3) OSHA is proposing that where vertical lifelines
are used, each employee must be attached to a separate lifeline. OSHA
believes that allowing more than one employee on the same vertical
lifeline would create additional hazards. For example, if one employee
fell, the other attached employee might be pulled off balance, causing
him or her to fall. OSHA has already adopted this approach in
paragraphs (c)(3) and (e)(5), section I, Appendix C of Sec. 1910.66;
paragraph (d)(10) of Sec. 1926.502; and paragraph (b)(1) of Sec.
1915.159. A similar requirement is also found in the national consensus
standard, ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004.
Proposed paragraphs (c)(4) through (c)(6) relate to the strength of
lanyards and lifelines. In paragraph (c)(4) OSHA is proposing that
lanyards and vertical lifelines have a minimum breaking strength of
5,000 pounds (22.2 kN). Paragraphs (c)(5) and (c)(6) address self-
retracting lifelines and lanyards. In paragraph (c)(5) OSHA proposes
that self-retracting lifelines and lanyards that limit free fall to 2
feet (0.61 m) or less be capable of sustaining a minimum tensile load
of 3,000 pounds. In paragraph (c)(6) OSHA proposes that self-retracting
lifelines and lanyards that do not limit free fall to 2 feet (0.61 m)
or less, as well as rip-stitch lanyards, and tearing and deforming
lanyards must be capable of sustaining a minimum tensile load of 5,000
pounds. The different strengths are appropriate because the dynamic
forces associated with falls increase with the distance of the free
fall, and OSHA believes the proposed levels provide a reasonable factor
of safety. OSHA has already adopted this approach in the general
industry, construction, and shipyard employment standards on fall
protection. The proposed requirements are also consistent with the
requirements in ANSI/ASSE Z359.1-2007 and ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004.
However, neither of the consensus standards contain a separate
provision (as OSHA does in proposed paragraph (c)(6)) directed to self-
retracting lanyards and lifelines that do not limit free fall to 2 feet
or less. OSHA requests specific comment on whether the requirement in
paragraph proposed (c)(6) is necessary, since it is essentially the
same as the requirement in proposed paragraph (c)(4). That is, if OSHA
did not finalize the requirement proposed at paragraph (c)(6), would it
be clear from (c)(4) that all lanyards and lifelines, except those that
limit free fall to 2 feet or less, must have a breaking strength of
5,000 pounds?
One commenter to the 1990 proposal suggested that the high strength
requirements for lanyards and lifelines would be hard to maintain. OSHA
realizes some wear will occur during normal use of lanyards and
lifelines in the workplace. Ultraviolet radiation, water, and dirt
reduce the strength of lanyards and lifelines. However, wear must never
be allowed to reach the point where equipment performance might be
compromised. This is one reason why it is important to inspect
equipment before each use (and, if necessary, remove it from use) as
required in proposed paragraph (c)(18), and to protect certain
components, including lanyards, from being cut, abraded, or melted, as
required in proposed paragraph (c)(20).
Another concern related to strength reduction is the use of knots
in lanyards and lifelines. OSHA is aware that the use of knots in
lanyards and vertical lifelines can sometimes reduce breaking strength.
For this reason, OSHA considered proposing a ban on knots, with the
exception of knots at the ends of the components. Such a ban would be
consistent with requirements in the national consensus standards. For
example, ANSI/ASSE Z359.1-2007 (section 7.2.1) prohibits knots,
stating, "No knots shall be tied in lanyards, lifelines, or anchorage
connectors. Sliding-hitch knots shall not be used in lieu of fall
arresters." Likewise, ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004 (section 3.7.3) prohibits
the use of knots, except as a "stop" at the end of a lifeline. Rather
than proposing an outright ban on the use of knots, OSHA is requesting
comments on whether it should prohibit knots or require that a
competent person inspect all knots. Commenters should provide suggested
language and rationale to support their positions.
Comments and testimony from the 1990 rulemaking on the use of knots
both supported and objected to the use of knots. For example, some
commenters (Exs. OSHA-S057-2006-0680-0048, -0083, and -0061) objected
to the use of knots and suggested that OSHA require that ends of
lanyards and lifelines be terminated in swedges or splices. These
commenters felt that knots significantly reduced the strength of the
line and that it is difficult for employees to learn to tie reliably.
Other commenters (Ex. OSHA-S057-2006-0680-0118) supported the use
of knots, reasoning that some knots will retain up to 90 percent of the
original rope strength. Commenters also noted that some ropes could
lose more than 10 percent of their original breaking strength and still
meet OSHA's proposed 5,000 pound (22.2 kN) requirement. Testimony at
the public hearing also supported the idea that knots could be used to
terminate lifelines and lanyards safely (Ex. OSHA-S041-2006-0666-1252,
p. 389-391, 416-419). The proposal reflects the information currently
available to the Agency--that knots can be used safely in some
circumstances, so employers should be allowed the flexibility to use
knots as long as they verify that proposed strength requirements for
the entire rope have been met.
Proposed paragraphs (c)(7) through (c)(10) establish criteria for
D-rings and snaphooks. In paragraph (c)(7) OSHA is proposing that D-
rings and snaphooks be capable of sustaining a minimum tensile load of
5,000 pounds (22.2 kN). In paragraph (c)(8), OSHA proposes that all D-
rings and snaphooks be proof-tested to 3,600 pounds (16 kN) without
cracking, breaking, or incurring permanent deformation. The 3,600
pounds (16 kN) criterion is based on the need to meet a 2:1 safety
factor for the use of these components with body harnesses (which limit
maximum arresting forces to 1,800 pounds (8 kN)). OSHA has already
adopted this approach in the general industry, construction, and
shipyard employment standards on fall protection. Similar requirements
are also found in the national consensus standards, ANSI/ASSE Z359.1-2007
and ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004.
In paragraph (c)(9) OSHA proposes to require the use of locking
snaphooks, thus prohibiting non-locking snaphooks for any personal fall
protection systems. Locking snaphooks require two separate, consecutive
actions to open, which reduces the likelihood of inadvertent opening.
OSHA has already adopted this approach in the construction and shipyard
employment standards on fall protection. The prohibition on the use of
non-locking snaphooks in existing OSHA standards for the construction
and shipyard employment sectors went into effect on January 1, 1998. In
addition, national consensus standards, including ANSI/ASSE Z359.1-2007
and ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004, only permit the use of locking snaphooks.
Evidence in the 1990 rulemaking also showed widespread support for a
prohibition on non-locking snaphooks, which is particularly significant
in light of the fact that these comments were made more than 17 years
ago. Therefore, OSHA believes that there is no reason to propose any
type of extended or delayed effective date for this provision. If there
are reasons for an extended or delayed effective date, they should be
submitted to the record.
Paragraph (c)(10), like other existing OSHA standards, proposes to
require that, unless the snaphook is designed for the following
connections, it shall not be engaged directly to: webbing, rope, or
wire rope; another snaphook; a D-ring to which another snaphook or
connector is attached; a horizontal lifeline; or any object that is
incompatibly shaped or dimensioned in relation to the snaphook such
that unintentional disengagement could occur if the connected object
depresses the snaphook gate and causes it to open. OSHA has already
adopted this approach in the construction and shipyard employment
standards on fall protection. Both ANSI/ASSE Z359.1-2007 and ANSI/ASSE
A10.32-2004 consensus standards also contain a number of separate
requirements prohibiting these connections. In addition, section 7.2
(Equipment Rigging and Use) of ANSI/ASSE Z359.1 addresses snaphook and
carabiner connections and other concerns. Explanatory notes in that
section contain additional, helpful material about connections.
In paragraph (c)(11) OSHA proposes to require that horizontal
lifelines be designed, installed, and used under the supervision of a
qualified person, and that they be part of a complete personal fall
arrest system that maintains a safety factor of two. OSHA believes the
safety factor of two provides adequate protection and has already
adopted this approach in the general industry, construction, and
shipyard employment standards on fall protection. An essentially
similar requirement is also found in the national consensus standard,
ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004. The other consensus standard pertinent to fall
protection, ANSI/ASSE Z359.1-2007, does not include specific
requirements for horizontal lifelines because the standard does not
cover them. However, the Z359.1 standard (section 3.1.4) states, "A
PFAS [personal fall protection system] which incorporates a horizontal
lifeline (outside the scope of this standard) shall be evaluated in
accordance with acceptable engineering practice to determine that such
system will perform as intended." OSHA notes that horizontal lifelines
present special problems in application. For example, they allow a
potentially longer fall distance than some other fall protection
devices. In addition, forces applied in a perpendicular direction to a
horizontal lifeline create much larger forces at the anchorages. These
and other concerns relative to the use of horizontal lifelines support
the need for proposed paragraph (c)(11). As a point of clarification,
OSHA notes that there could be more than one qualified person involved
in the process; i.e., the qualified person who designs and installs the
system may be different than the qualified person who supervises the
use of the system.
In paragraph (c)(12) OSHA proposes to require that anchorages used
for attachment to personal fall protection equipment be independent of
any anchorage being used to support or suspend platforms. This
requirement is intended to ensure that if the anchorage holding other
equipment (such as a powered platform) fails, the employee will be
still be protected by the separate, independent anchorage to which the
fall protection system is secured.
In paragraph (c)(13), OSHA proposes that anchorages be capable of
supporting at least 5,000 pounds (22.2 kN) for each employee attached
or that they be designed, installed, and used under the supervision of
a qualified person as part of a complete fall protection system
maintaining a safety factor of two. The proposed provision does not
apply to window cleaner's belt anchors, addressed separately in
proposed paragraph (e) of this section, because those positioning
systems are unique. OSHA has already adopted the approach proposed here
in the general industry, construction, and shipyard employment
standards for fall protection. Similar requirements are also found in
the national consensus standards pertinent to fall protection,
including ANSI/ASSE Z359.1-2007 and ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004, as well as
the ANSI/IWCA I-14.1-2001 standard for window-cleaning safety. In
particular, section 7.2.3 of the Z359.1 standard states:

Anchorages selected for PFAS shall have a strength capable of
sustaining static loads, applied in the directions permitted by the
PFAS, of at least: (a) two times the maximum arrest force permitted
on the system, or (b) 5,000 pounds (22.2kN) in the absence of
certification. When more than one PFAS is attached to an anchorage,
the anchorage strengths set forth in (a) and (b) above shall be
multiplied by the number of personal fall arrest systems attached to
the anchorage.

In the explanatory material for this provision, ANSI notes: "The 5,000
pound (22.2kN) anchorage referred to here is the same as that required
by OSHA in Sec. 1910.66--Powered platforms for building maintenance.
An assumption is made that the 5,000 pound (22.2kN) strength level has
been established and, therefore, certification is not required."
The strength of fall protection anchorages has generated
considerable comment in previous OSHA rulemakings. OSHA's position at
this time is the same as it was in the earlier rulemakings: the level
of strength required by this proposal is necessary to provide a
reasonable margin of safety for employees. For clarification, OSHA
notes that it is not requiring a 5,000 pound (22.2 kN) anchorage point
in every situation. If an employer cannot find or develop an anchor
point capable of supporting a 5,000 pound (22.2 kN) load, then an
anchor point of lesser strength may be used only if it is both part of
a complete fall protection system maintaining a safety factor of at
least two, and it is designed, installed, and used under the
supervision of a qualified person. The Agency anticipates that
employers who cannot achieve a 5,000 pound (22.2 kN) anchorage strength
will be able to meet the two to one safety factor. As OSHA noted above
with respect to proposed paragraph (c)(11), an employer may use more
than one qualified person to comply with this requirement. For example,
some employers may choose to have an outside firm design an appropriate
system, and an in-house qualified person supervise its use.
In paragraph (c)(14) OSHA proposes that restraint lines used in
travel restraint systems be capable of supporting at least a 5,000
pound (13.3 kN) tensile load. The Agency is proposing the 5,000 pound requirement
to be consistent with other requirements in this section. (For example,
see proposed paragraphs (c)(4), (c)(6), and (c)(7).) This requirement
provides an important safety factor if a restraint line is ever used as
a lifeline; for example, if it is not rigged properly and a fall
occurs, the restraint line would effectively become a lifeline and
would have to meet the 5,000 pound requirement. Existing OSHA standards
pertinent to fall protection do not include specific requirements for
travel restraint lines, but section 3.11 of the ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004
standard specifies that component parts of travel restraint systems,
including anchorages, be designed to meet the requirements of personal
fall arrest equipment. The ANSI/ASSE Z359.3-2007 standard for
positioning and travel restraint systems similarly requires that
positioning and travel restraint lanyards have a minimum breaking
strength of 5,000 pounds (22.2kN).
In paragraph (c)(15) OSHA proposes to require that lifelines and
carriers be made of materials other than natural fiber rope.
Additionally, proposed (c)(15) requires that where polypropylene rope
is used, it must contain an ultraviolet (UV) light inhibitor. The
proposed provision is consistent with OSHA's general industry standard
on powered platforms and the shipyard employment standard. Both of
these standards require that ropes and straps (webbing) used in
lanyards, lifelines, and strength components of body belts and body
harnesses be made from synthetic fibers or wire rope. OSHA's
construction industry standard is the same except that it does not make
reference to wire rope.
None of the existing OSHA standards, however, address carriers, nor
do they require that the polypropylene rope contain a UV light
inhibitor. The proposed provision is consistent with requirements in
section 3.2.3 of ANSI/ASSE Z359.1-2007 and with section 3.8 of ANSI/
ASSE A10.32-2004. Section 6.8 of the national consensus standard for
window-cleaning safety, ANSI/IWCA I-14.1-2001, prohibits ropes made
entirely of polypropylene. Also, section 14.2.3 of ANSI/IWCA I-14.1-
2001 standard requires all rope and webbing used in suspending the seat
board (of rope descent systems) be synthetic fiber, preferably nylon or
polyester, with a rated strength of 5,000 pounds. For fall protection,
the ANSI/IWCA I-14.1-2001 standard requires compliance with ANSI/ASSE
Z359.1 standard.
The UV light inhibitor provision was added to this proposal in
response to comments received in the 1990 proposed rulemaking (Ex.
OSHA-S057-2006-0680-0083), pointing out that sunlight can cause severe
deterioration in polypropylene rope. OSHA recognizes that ultraviolet
degradation can be a serious problem, but also believes that
polypropylene rope has some advantages over other synthetic materials.
Polypropylene is strong, flexible, and may be less costly than ropes
made of some other materials. Many of the newer polypropylene ropes are
made with an UV light inhibitor which reduces the strength degradation
problem. For these reasons, the Agency believes the proposed provision
offers an appropriate level of safety without unnecessarily sacrificing
flexibility.
In paragraph (c)(16), OSHA proposes that all personal fall
protection systems and their components be used for employee fall
protection only, and not for any other purpose, such as hoisting
equipment or materials. This means that those systems or components may
not be used as material or equipment hoist slings, bundle ties, or for
other such purposes. OSHA has already adopted this approach in its
general industry, construction, and shipyard employment standards on
fall protection. In the powered platform standard, OSHA did not include
the phrase "and not used to hoist materials," which appears in the
shipyard employment and construction standards. OSHA believes the added
phrase clarifies the intent of the provision.
In paragraph (c)(17), OSHA proposes that all fall protection
systems or any of their components that have been subjected to impact
loading (as distinguished from static load testing) be removed from
service immediately. A removed system or component may not be used
again until a competent person inspects the equipment and determines
that it is undamaged and suitable for reuse. By this proposed language,
OSHA is recognizing that impact loading may adversely affect the
integrity of a fall protection system, but that there are many factors
that can affect a system's potential capacity for reuse as fall
protection. These include the employee's weight and the type of
deceleration device used, among others. This proposed provision is
intended to ensure that employers will implement procedures for
inspection and evaluation of equipment that will prevent the reuse of
damaged equipment. OSHA has not, however, adopted the suggestion of one
commenter in the 1990 proposed rulemaking (Ex. OSHA-S057-2006-0680-
0048) that the standard allow only the manufacturer to inspect systems
to determine if they are suitable for reuse. OSHA believes that any
competent person could inspect the system effectively because all
competent persons must be capable of determining dangerous or hazardous
conditions in any fall protection system or component. OSHA has already
adopted the proposed approach in the general industry, construction,
and shipyard employment standards on fall protection. The proposed
requirement is also consistent with the ANSI/ASSE Z359.1-2007 (section
5.3.4) and ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004 (section 3.4) consensus standards.
OSHA solicits comments on whether the proposed approach provides
adequate protection, or whether the final standard should require the
destruction of ropes, lanyards, belts, and harnesses once they have
been subjected to impact loading. Impact loading can cause damage to
fibers that cannot be easily discovered, and these components are
relatively inexpensive. OSHA is therefore still considering revising
the proposed requirement to require the destruction and removal of
ropes, lanyards, belts, and harnesses once they have been subject to
impact loading.
In paragraph (c)(18) OSHA proposes that fall protection equipment
be inspected for mildew, wear, damage, and other deterioration before
each use. Components showing such damage must be removed from service
if their function or strength has been adversely affected. The intent
of this requirement, like that of proposed paragraph (c)(17), is to
ensure that defective or weakened equipment is removed from service if
the equipment's performance could be adversely affected. OSHA has
already adopted this approach in its general industry, construction,
and shipyard employment standards on fall protection. The proposal is
also consistent with the consensus standards, ANSI/ASSE Z359.1-2007
(section 6.1) and ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004 (section 6.3).
In paragraph (c)(19), OSHA proposes that ropes, belts, lanyards,
lifelines, and harnesses be compatible with all connectors used. OSHA
is proposing this requirement because it believes the use of
incompatible equipment leads to rollout. Rollout is a process by which
a snaphook or carabiner unintentionally disengages from another
connector or object to which it is coupled, possibly resulting in
injury or death. OSHA has already adopted this approach in its shipyard
employment standards on fall protection. Additionally, both the ANSI/
ASSE Z359.1-2007 and ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004 consensus standards address
the need for compatibility of equipment. For example, the explanatory
material for section 3.2.6.2 of the Z359.1 standard states, "An effort
should be made to encourage compatible connector couplings."
Requirements in sections 7.1 and 7.2 of that standard also address the
issue of compatibility, as do requirements in the ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004
standard (sections 4.1.1 and 4.4.2).
In paragraph (c)(20), OSHA proposes that ropes, belts, lanyards,
and harnesses used for personal fall protection be protected from being
cut, abraded, melted, or otherwise damaged. These types of damage could
cause the components to lose strength and fail. OSHA has already
partially adopted this approach in its construction and shipyard
employment standards on fall protection. The general industry standard
on fall protection for powered platforms provides guidelines (see
Appendix C, section III, paragraph (f) of Sec. 1910.66) for the
inspection of personal fall arrest equipment, and emphasizes the need
to remove equipment that has been subject to cuts, abrasion, and other
damage. Similar provisions are found in ANSI/ASSE Z359.1-2007 (section
7) and ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004 (section 3.7) standards pertinent to
lifelines and lanyards. The existing OSHA requirements apply to
lifelines and lanyards only, whereas the proposed requirement would
apply to all ropes, belts, and harnesses because OSHA believes all of
these components should be protected from being cut, abraded, melted or
exposed to similar hazards.
Because an employee suspended after a fall may be exposed to
serious injury, including suspension trauma, OSHA is proposing in
paragraph(c)(21) to require the employer to provide for prompt rescue.
To meet this requirement, the employer must evaluate the availability
of rescue personnel, ladders, or other rescue equipment. In some
situations, it may be appropriate to use equipment; for example, a
mechanical device that has descent capability which allows employees to
rescue themselves after a fall has been arrested. In other situations,
a suspended employee may not be able to reach a work level
independently, so the employer must ensure the ability to rescue the
employee promptly.
In recognition of hazards confronting employees, OSHA developed a
Safety and Health Information Bulletin (SHIB) addressing the hazards
associated with suspension trauma/orthostatic intolerance (SHIB 03-24-
2004).
The SHIB states in part:

Orthostatic intolerance may be experienced by workers using fall
arrest systems. Following a fall, a worker may remain suspended in a
harness. The sustained immobility may lead to a state of
unconsciousness. Depending on the length of time the suspended
worker is unconscious/immobile and the level of venous pooling, the
resulting orthostatic intolerance may lead to death. While not
common, such fatalities often are referred to as "harness-induced
pathology" or "suspension trauma."

OSHA has already adopted this approach in the general industry,
construction, and shipyard employment standards on fall protection. The
proposal is also consistent with the national consensus standard, ANSI/
ASSE A10.32-2004 (section 6.2.1). Additionally, section 7.3 of the
ANSI/ASSE Z359.1-2007 standard addresses the need to be trained in
rescue. Finally, the need for rescue is evident by the development of a
new American National Standard entitled "Safety Requirements for
Assisted-Rescue and Self-Rescue Systems, ANSI/ASSE Z359.4-2007."
In paragraph (c)(22), OSHA proposes to require all personal fall
protection systems to be worn with the attachment point in the center
of the wearer's back near the shoulder level or above the wearer's
head. An exception is provided that allows the attachment point to be
located in the pre-sternal position if the free fall distance is
limited to 2 feet (0.6 m) or less and the fall arrest forces are
limited to 900 pounds (4 kN). OSHA has already adopted this approach in
the general industry, construction, and shipyard employment standards
on fall protection, except that none of these OSHA standards permit the
attachment point to be located in the pre-sternal position. The
exception for the pre-sternal position proposed in this standard
reflects the new language in ANSI/ASSE Z359.1-2007 (section 3.2.2.5a).
The proposal is also consistent with ANSI/IWCA I-14.1-2001.
OSHA believes the exception is necessary to allow flexibility to
attach in front during certain activities (such as climbing or using
rope descent systems for window washing) are underway to make self-
rescue possible, as some commenters argued in the 1990 proposed
rulemaking. One witness, Mr. Terry Schmidt, testified that European
standards already allowed an attachment point in the pre-sternal
position (Ex. OSHA-S041-2006-0666-1252, p. 216). Another witness, Mr.
Weinel, commented:

I'm very much a believer in the front, I think the term used was
"mid-sternal" connection. This will keep me, as the person in
trouble, oriented upright, facing the rope, where I can perform
self-rescue. (Tr. 363.)

OSHA believes that an attachment point in the pre-sternal position
(when the free fall distance is limited to 2 feet (0.6 m) or less)
would have only a minimal effect on the distribution of arresting
forces, yet would provide an overall advantage of easier self-rescue in
some specialized applications such as confined spaces, window cleaning,
and climbing activities. Again, the location of the attachment point in
the pre-sternal position is limited to those situations in which the
free fall distance is kept to 2 feet (0.6 m) or less and the maximum
arresting forces are limited to 900 pounds (4 kN), thereby reducing
risk of serious neck and back injury.

Paragraph (d) Personal Fall Arrest Systems
Proposed paragraph (d) establishes specific requirements applicable
when personal fall arrest systems are used. These new, specific
requirements are in addition to the general requirements in proposed
paragraph (c) that apply to all types of personal fall protection
equipment. The proposed requirements are consistent with the national
consensus standards, ANSI/ASSE Z359.1-2007 (section 3) and ANSI/ASSE
A10.32-2004.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1) establishes criteria for the performance
of personal fall arrest systems. Proposed paragraph (d)(2) establishes
criteria for the use of personal fall arrest systems. The requirements
proposed in paragraph (d) are based on requirements in existing OSHA
general industry, construction, and shipyard employment standards on
fall protection, as well as national consensus standards, including
ANSI/ASME Z359.1-2007, Safety Requirements for Personal Fall Arrest
Systems, Subsystems and Components; and ANSI/ASME A10.32-2004, Fall
Protection Systems (for construction) standards.
The performance criteria proposed in paragraph (d)(1) are nearly
identical to those that are already required by other OSHA fall
protection standards. For the most part, they were first promulgated by
OSHA in Appendix C to Sec. 1910.66 (see 54 FR 31445, July 28, 1989).
The preamble to that standard anticipated that those criteria would
eventually be used in a more broadly applicable general industry
standard:

The comments and data on fall arrest systems which were
submitted to the record of the powered platforms rulemaking are also
being used in the development of the generic rule. OSHA anticipates
that the provisions on personal fall arrest systems in Appendix C,
section I, of the powered platforms standard will be consistent with
the proposed requirements for those systems in the proposed generic
rule. (54 FR 31450)

The preamble also provides detailed explanations of the performance
criteria proposed here, and of their bases.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(i) limits the maximum arresting force on
an employee to 1,800 pounds (8 kN) when a body harness is used. The
maximum arrest force of 1,800 pounds (8 kN) criterion is discussed
extensively in the preamble to the final rulemaking for Sec. 1910.66.
In this preamble, OSHA noted that the proposal (at 50 FR 2890) included
"a force limit of 10 times the worker's weight or 1,800 pounds (8 kN)
whichever is less," and that "[t]his was consistent with ANSI A10.14-
1975 (Ex. 11-1), and a NBS [National Bureau of Standards, now the
National Institute for Science and Technology] report (Ex. 11-2)."
OSHA also described in the final rule (at 54 FR 31450) a comment from
the United States Technical Advisory Group (USTAG), an advisory group
representing both government and private interests:

USTAG recommended that maximum arrest force for body belts not
exceed 900 pounds. USTAG states that "empirical data from impact
loading of humans and animals suggests that injury threshold may be
in the neighborhood of 10 g's or even lower depending on many
variables" (Ex 8-33). USTAG cited British standards which restrict
the use of body belts to 5 g's for a 180 pound (82 kg) person (the
equivalent of 900 pounds (4 kN) of force). Based on the record, OSHA
agrees with USTAG that a maximum arresting force of 1,800 pounds (8
kN) is acceptable when using a body harness but not acceptable when
using a body belt.
OSHA notes that USTAG's recommendation applied to the maximum
permitted force for positioning systems, not to fall arrest
equipment * * * however, that there is no reason to distinguish
these applications in terms of the permitted force limit.

(See 54 FR 31450.)
At the time Sec. 1910.66 was promulgated, the ANSI Z359.1-1992
standard covering personal fall arrest systems did not yet exist. When
the ANSI standard was published in 1992 and reaffirmed in 2002, it
contained (section 3.1.2) the same requirement limiting maximum
arresting forces to 1,800 pounds (8 kN) when a body harness was used in
the personal fall arrest system. Both the 1992 and 2002 ANSI standards
provide the following explanation of the 1,800-pound (8-kN) maximum
arresting force (MAF) limit:

E3.1.2 * * * The 1,800 pound (8 kN) MAF criteria included in
this standard is based on the following considerations. In the mid-
1970's medical information developed in France confirmed earlier
United States research which observed that approximately 2,700
pounds (12 kN) is the threshold of significant injury incidence for
physically fit individuals subjected to drop impacts when wearing
harnesses. The French arbitrarily halved the above force and
established 1,350 pounds (6 kN) as their national standard for MAF
in PFAS. Canada's Ontario Ministry of Labor reviewed this
information and elected to establish 1,800 pounds (8 kN) for MAF.
This MAF has been in effect since 1979 in the Ontario Provincial
standard. Since that time there have been no reported deaths or
serious injuries associated with the arresting of accidental falls
of individuals. In addition, ISO/TC94/SC4, in working drafts, has
established the 1,800 pounds (8 kN) limit on MAF. On the basis of
this information, 1,800 pounds (8 kN) is considered the appropriate
MAF for inclusion in this standard where harnesses are to be used in
arresting falls.

Thus, the most current ANSI Z359.1 standard (section 3.1.2) continues
to prescribe the 1,800 pound (8 kN) limit for the same reasons
explained above.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(ii) limits the maximum deceleration
distance to 3.5 feet (1.07 m). The deceleration distance of 3.5 feet
(1.07 m) would be in addition to the free fall distance which OSHA
proposes to limit to 6 feet (1.8 m), meaning that a total fall of 9.5
feet (2.9 m) could result. OSHA has already adopted this approach in
the general industry, construction, and shipyard employment standards
on fall protection. The proposed requirements are also consistent with
the national consensus standards, ANSI/ASSE Z359.1-2007 (section 3.1.4)
and ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(iii) requires the personal fall arrest
system to have sufficient strength to withstand twice the potential
impact energy of an employee free falling a distance of 6 feet (1.8 m),
or the free fall distance permitted by the system, whichever is less.
Compliance with this requirement means that the system will not fail if
subjected to twice the design shock load. For example, if a body
harness is being used as part of the personal fall arrest system,
proposed paragraph (d)(1)(i) of the standard specifies that the
arresting force be limited to 1,800 pounds (8 kN). Therefore, the
system would have to be capable of withstanding an impact force of
3,600 pounds (16 kN), which is twice the potential arresting force of
the employee using the system. The Agency believes that a safety factor
of two is necessary because of normal wear on the system. In practice,
arresting forces should never approach the design shock load because
the free fall distance will be less than 6 feet (1.8 m), and because
lifelines, which absorb energy, will often be used. Again, this
requirement is consistent with OSHA's existing general industry,
construction, and shipyard employment standards on fall protection.
A note to proposed paragraph (d) makes it clear that personal fall
arrest systems that meet the criteria and protocols set out in Appendix
D to proposed Sec. 1910.140 will be deemed to be in compliance with
the requirements of proposed paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (iii) when
used by an employee with a combined tool and body weight of 310 pounds
(140 kg) or less. The non-mandatory appendix provides one method which
will allow employers to evaluate the ability of a personal fall arrest
system to meet the necessary criteria. The appendix is restricted to
situations in which total tool and body weight is 310 pounds (140 kg)
or less because the test methods in proposed Appendix D were designed
for this weight. If a system is needed for a greater or lesser weight,
the test methods may still be used, provided they are modified,
possibly by using a heavier or lighter test weight to reflect the
heavier or lighter weight of the employee.
In paragraph (d)(2) OSHA is proposing criteria for the use of
personal fall arrest systems. In paragraph (d)(2)(i) OSHA proposes that
where employees working on suspended scaffolds or on similar work
platforms are connected to horizontal lifelines that could become
vertical lifelines, the device used to connect to the horizontal
lifeline must be capable of locking in both directions on the lifeline.
OSHA believes this requirement is necessary because a horizontal
lifeline could become a vertical lifeline if one end of the scaffold
support lines fails. For example, a rope grab that does not lock in
both directions on the lifeline could fail to hold, allowing the
employee to fall to a lower level. OSHA has already adopted this
approach in the general industry, construction, and shipyard employment
standards on fall protection. The hazard addressed in the proposed
requirement is also addressed in the national consensus standard, ANSI/
ASSE A10.32-2004 (section 4).
Paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of the proposal requires the personal fall
arrest system to be rigged so that an employee can neither free fall
more than 6 feet (1.8 m) nor contact any lower level. The system
strength and deceleration criteria are based on a maximum free fall
distance of 6 feet (1.8 m). A longer free fall distance could mean that
the strength and deceleration requirements would no longer protect
employees. OSHA has already adopted this approach in the
general industry, construction, and shipyard employment standards on
fall protection. Similar requirements are also found in the national
consensus standards, ANSI/ASSE Z359.1-2007 (section 7.2) and ANSI/ASSE
A10.32-2004 (section 4.2.1).
Paragraph (d)(3) of the proposal prohibits the use of body belts
for personal fall arrest systems. Because OSHA is proposing to ban the
use of body belts as part of personal fall arrest systems, it has not
proposed maximum arresting forces when body belts are used. OSHA notes
that both the construction industry and shipyard employment standards
already prohibit the use of body belts as part of personal fall arrest
systems.

Paragraph (e) Positioning Systems
Proposed paragraph (e) establishes specific requirements applicable
when positioning systems, including window cleaner's positioning
systems, are used. These new, specific requirements are in addition to
the general requirements in proposed paragraph (c) which apply to all
types of fall protection equipment.
Proposed paragraph (e)(1) establishes performance criteria for
positioning systems. Proposed paragraph (e)(1)(i) requires that all
positioning systems, except window cleaner's positioning systems, be
capable of withstanding, without failure, a drop-test consisting of a
4-foot (1.2-m) drop of a 250-pound (113-kg) weight.
Proposed paragraph (e)(1)(ii)(A) requires window cleaner's
positioning systems to be capable of withstanding, without failure, a
drop-test consisting of a 6-foot (1.8-m) drop of a 250-pound (113-kg)
weight. In addition, these systems must limit the initial arresting
forces to not more than 2,000 pounds (8.9 kN), with a duration not to
exceed 2 milliseconds, with any subsequent arresting forces imposed on
the falling employee limited to not more than 1,000 pounds (4.5kN).
These systems must withstand a more rigorous drop test than other
positioning device systems because of their potential for greater free
fall distances. OSHA has already adopted this approach in paragraph
(b)(2) of the shipyard employment standards at Sec. 1915.160,
Positioning device systems. A note applicable to proposed paragraphs
(e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii) indicates that window cleaners' positioning
systems meeting the tests outlined in Appendix D to proposed Sec.
1910.140 are considered to be in compliance with these provisions.
Proposed paragraph (e)(1)(iii) addresses criteria for lineman's
body belt and pole strap systems. Although positioning equipment used
in electric power transmission and distribution work is not intended to
be used as insulation from live parts, positioning straps could come
into contact with live parts while an employee is working. Thus, it is
still important for this equipment to provide some level of insulation.
Proposed paragraphs (e)(1)(iii)(A) and (e)(1)(iii)(B) would require
positioning straps to be capable of passing dielectric and leakage
current tests. This provision is equivalent to existing Sec.
1926.959(b)(1). The voltages listed in these paragraphs are alternating
current. The note following proposed paragraph (e)(1)(iii) indicates
that equivalent direct current tests would also be acceptable.
The remaining requirements in proposed paragraph (e)(2) contain
criteria applicable only to window cleaner's belts, anchorages, and
other components of window cleaner's positioning systems. There are no
specific requirements for this type of personal fall protection system
in existing OSHA standards. Rather, OSHA enforces the general
requirement to have fall protection, and relies on national consensus
standards for the criteria for such systems. The proposed requirements
will enhance compliance and reduce hazards by clarifying exactly what
requirements apply to positioning systems used for window cleaning. All
of these requirements are based on the national consensus standard,
ANSI/IWCA I-14.1-2001, Window Cleaning Safety, and address the design,
strength, and installation of window cleaners' positioning systems.
OSHA believes that these proposed criteria, in conjunction with the
proposed general criteria for all personal fall protection systems
(Sec. 1910.140(c)), provide a reasonable and necessary level of safety
for employees using these systems.
OSHA notes that all of these requirements were proposed in the 1990
rulemaking. There was no substantive comment on the proposed revisions
even though OSHA asked for specific comment as to whether existing
buildings have window cleaning anchors that meet these standards and,
if not, what would be the cost of coming into compliance. OSHA
particularly raised concern about one proposed provision--paragraph
(e)(2)(iii) of the current proposal--which requires that window
cleaning anchors and the structures to which they were attached support
a 6,000 pound (26.5 kN) load, noting that there was some concern that
the 6,000 pounds (26.5 N) might be too restrictive. OSHA believes that
window cleaner's belts and their associated anchors are not used as
commonly as they once were. However, since there are buildings where
these systems are still used, OSHA proposes these minimal requirements
to protect employees.
Also, OSHA proposes to add two appendices to Sec. 1910.140. These
appendices, which are non-mandatory, would provide specific information
and examples pertaining to the types of equipment regulated in this
proposed standard. Appendix C provides useful information and guidance
concerning the use of personal fall arrest systems. The information
concerns the selection and use of personal fall arrest systems
including considerations for testing, employee training, instruction,
and inspection. Appendix D provides test methods for personal fall
arrest systems and positioning device systems. OSHA specifically
requests comments on whether or not this proposed appendix should
include any test methods with the final rule; update the test methods
proposed; or include other testing sources. OSHA also seeks comment on
whether these proposed appendices will prove helpful in complying with
the proposed provisions. Additionally, the Agency requests comment
whether any of the non-mandatory language in Appendix C or D should be
included in the requirements of Sec. 1910.140.
Finally, OSHA is proposing to require employers to conduct a hazard
assessment as required by Sec. 1910.132(d), and to follow the training
requirements set out in Sec. 1910.132(f).

V. Preliminary Economic and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Screening
Analysis

A. Introduction

OSHA has determined that this proposed standard governing
occupational exposure to slip, trip, and fall hazards on walking and
working surfaces is significant under Executive Order 12866 (Sept. 30,
1993). Accordingly, the Office of Regulatory Analysis within OSHA has
prepared this Preliminary Economic and Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Screening Analysis (PEA) for the proposed standard. In conducting the
PEA, OSHA has, to the extent possible given the available resources,
endeavored to meet the requirements of OMB's Circular A-4 (OMB, 2003),
a guidance document for regulatory agencies preparing economic analyses
under Executive Order 12866.
This PEA addresses issues related to the costs, benefits,
technological and economic feasibility and economic impacts (including
small business impacts) of the Agency's proposed revisions to subpart
D, Walking-Working Surfaces, and subpart I, Personal Protective Equipment.
The analysis also evaluates regulatory alternatives to the final rule. This
rule has been reviewed by the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget, as required by
executive order.
The purpose of the PEA is to:
Identify the establishments and industries potentially
affected by the proposed rule;
Estimate current exposures to slip, trip, and fall hazards
in general industry and assess the technologically feasible methods of
controlling these exposures;
Estimate the benefits of the rule in terms of the
reductions in the number of deaths and injuries that employers will
achieve by coming into compliance with the standard;
Evaluate the costs and economic impacts that
establishments in the regulated community will incur to achieve
compliance with the proposed standard;
Assess the economic feasibility of the rule for affected
industries; and
Evaluate the principal regulatory alternatives to the
proposed rule that OSHA has considered.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended in 1996) (SBA, 1996; 5
U.S.C 601) requires that an initial regulatory flexibility analysis
(IRFA) be prepared if an agency determines that a proposed rule will
impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. To determine the need for an IRFA, OSHA voluntarily prepared
an initial regulatory flexibility screening analysis that identifies
and estimates the impacts of the proposed standard on small businesses.
In addition to background information on the affected workforce and the
hazards to which they are exposed, this subsection of the economic
analysis describes the need for a standard for walking-working surfaces
and the criteria that guide OSHA in conducting a feasibility analysis
for a safety standard. On the basis of the screening analysis,
presented in the last subsection of this PEA, OSHA certifies that the
proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
This PEA contains the following subsections in addition to this
Introduction:
Assessing the Need for Regulation.
Industry Profile.
Benefits, Net Benefits, and Cost Effectiveness.
Technological Feasibility.
Costs of Compliance.
Economic Impacts.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis.
To develop the PEA, OSHA relied considerably on (1) the record
created throughout the history of this rulemaking, and (2) an analysis
by OSHA's contractor, Eastern Research Group (ERG) (ERG, 2007 Ex. 6).
Reasons Why Action by the Agency Is Being Considered
Earlier in this preamble OSHA discussed the major changes that are
being proposed to the existing standards for walking-working surfaces
and personal protective equipment (subparts D and I of part 1910). The
proposed standards are designed to prevent a significant number of
slips, trips, and falls that result in injuries and fatalities in
general industry, including falls from ladders, roofs, scaffolds, and
stairs. Some examples from OSHA's inspection database (OSHA, 2007) best
illustrate the kinds of accidents the standards are designed to prevent
and how the revised standards will prevent them.
On October 22, 2000, a head repairman for a specialty metals
producer in Pennsylvania was replacing a water cooling panel
(approximately 8-ft high by 12-ft long) on a basic oxygen furnace
vessel. To access the panel, he placed a ladder on an 8-in. diameter
pipe. When the employee attempted either to gain access to the panel or
to secure the ladder, he fell 22 feet to the ground. He sustained a
blunt force trauma injury to his head, and was killed. OSHA cited and
fined the employer for a violation of Sec. 1910.23(c)(1), Protection
of open-sided floors, platforms, and runways, and Sec.
1910.25(d)(2)(i), Use of ladders, along with other standards. OSHA
believes that the proposed clarifications of the requirements for the
safe use of ladders and the duty to have fall protection will help to
prevent accidents such as the one described above.
In a window cleaning operation on July 20, 2000, two employees were
working from boatswain's chairs suspended from a roof by two
transportable roof rollers, and lowering their chairs down the side of
the building using controlled descent devices. A third employee was on
the roof pushing the rollers back and forth to move his coworkers from
window to window. The third employee was moving the roller on one end
of the building when one of its wheels slipped off the edge of the
parapet wall, causing the rollers, which were tied together, to fall
between six and seven stories to the ground. The first two employees,
whose lifelines were only attached to the suspension point on the
rollers, also fell to the ground and sustained serious injuries. When
one of the rollers went over the edge, the third employee was
catapulted off the roof and fell approximately 84 feet to the ground.
He died from the fall. In the investigation, OSHA determined that
neither of the rollers was anchored to the roof, and cited the employer
for violating the general duty clause (section 5(a)(1)) of the OSH Act.
OSHA believes that compliance with the requirements for rope descent
systems in the proposed standard for scaffolds (Sec. 1910.27(c)) will
help to prevent this type of accident.
A 49-year-old service technician fractured five vertebrae and
eventually died from the injuries received when he fell 11 feet from a
fixed ladder to a concrete landing while performing air conditioning
service work on the roof of a shopping mall. OSHA's investigation of
the August 24, 2004, accident identified the likely cause of the
incident as the absence of uniform spacing between the ladder rungs
throughout the climb (the space between the top two rungs/steps was 28
inches whereas the space between lower rungs was much narrower).
Proposed Sec. 1910.23(b)(2) requires that, with a few exceptions,
rungs, cleats, and steps of ladders be spaced not less than 10 inches
(25 cm) apart nor more than 14 inches (36 cm) apart, as measured
between the center lines of the rungs, cleats, and steps. OSHA believes
that compliance with this proposed provision will prevent accidents
such as the one described here.
As a final example, on October 22, 1999, an employee in a South
Dakota feed mill was atop a soybean storage bin gauging the level of
the contents when he fell approximately 24 feet onto a concrete
surface. The employee suffered head and upper body injuries that
resulted in his death. The subsequent OSHA investigation resulted in
citations for violations of the general duty clause and provisions in
existing subpart D on floors, platforms, and railings. OSHA believes
that the proposed revisions to subpart D will remove any ambiguity in
the scope or intent of the rule, which would help to prevent falls from
storage bins and related surfaces.
When establishing the need for an occupational safety and health
standard, OSHA must evaluate available data to determine whether
workers will suffer a material impairment of their health or functional
capacity as a result of being exposed to the safety or health hazard at
issue. Prior to promulgating a standard, the Agency must also determine
that "a significant risk of harm exists and can be eliminated or
lessened by a change in practices." See Industrial Union Dep't v.
American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607 (1980).
See also 58 FR 16612 (March 20, 1993) (OSHA must conclude that the
standard it is promulgating will substantially reduce a significant
risk of material harm).
OSHA has determined that the best available data for quantitatively
estimating the risks associated with slips, trips, and falls in general
industry come from the BLS injury and illness survey and census data.
OSHA has relied on federal survey and census data from recent years to
determine the risk to similarly exposed employees across industry in
other safety standards regulating employee exposure to risks (e.g.,
Confined Spaces in Construction 72 FR 67351 (November 28, 2007)). It is
also an accepted scientific approach used by other regulatory and non-
regulatory entities in making decisions regarding public safety.
As previously discussed in section II of this preamble, OSHA has
preliminarily determined that hazards associated with walking and
working on elevated, slippery, or other surfaces pose significant risks
to employees and that the proposed revisions to subparts D and I are
reasonable and necessary to protect affected employees from those
risks. The Agency estimates that full compliance with the revised
walking-working surfaces standards will prevent 20 fatalities and 3,706
lost workday injuries annually. This constitutes a substantial
reduction of significant risk of material harm for the exposed
population of approximately 5.3 million employees in general industry.
Feasibility
The Agency must show that the standards it promulgates are
technologically and economically feasible. See 58 FR 16612. A standard
is technologically feasible if the protective measures required already
exist, can be brought into existence with available technology, or can
be created with technology that can reasonably be designed and
developed.\10\ Protective measures required by safety standards
generally involve the use of engineering and work practice controls.
Engineering controls include, for example, guardrails, toeboards, or
other barriers that protect employees from exposures to slip, trip, and
fall hazards. Work practice controls are techniques that employees use
to perform their jobs (for example, safe climbing techniques on
ladders). Administrative controls (such as job rotation) and personal
protective equipment (PPE) (such as harnesses and lanyards) may also be
used to comply with safety standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ See Society of the Plastics Industry v. OSHA, 509 F.2d,
1301, 1309 (1975); USWA v. Marshall, 647 F.2d, 1189 (1980); American
Textile Manufacturers v. Donovan, 452 U.S. 490 (1981); and Building
and Construction Trades Dept., AFL-CIO v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258
(1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A standard is economically feasible if the cost of meeting the
standard does not threaten the existence or competitive structure of an
industry. An OSHA standard may be economically feasible even if it
imposes costs that will put some marginal firms out of business.\11\ As
discussed in more detail below, OSHA has preliminarily concluded that
the proposed revisions to subparts D and I are both economically and
technologically feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ See Industrial Union Dept. v. Hodgson, 499 F.2d 467 (1974);
USWA v. Marshall, 647 F.2d, 1189 (1980); and American Textile
Manufacturers v. Donovan, 452 U.S. 490 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Methodology
OSHA has developed an economic analysis to estimate the benefits
and costs of the proposed revisions to subparts D and I. Since 2002,
under the direction of the Office and Management and Budget, the Agency
has "monetized" the value of the injuries, illnesses, and fatalities
expected to be prevented through the promulgation of new standards,
i.e., it has monetized the value of expected benefits. This provides a
common metric for comparing expected benefits and costs.
For all of its occupational safety and health standards, OSHA
estimates benefits and costs as annual figures. The Agency believes
that this is the simplest and best way to assess the impact of its
standards. Computing annual estimates focuses the Agency's analysis on
information from current conditions and recent years, which the Agency
deems the best, i.e., most accurate and reliable, information. OSHA
typically uses a time period of ten years for its analysis, unless
there are significant long-term effects not captured within a ten-year
timeframe. In the case of this proposed rule for subparts D and I,
adding additional years to the timeframe of the analysis would not
change any major policy conclusions.
To isolate and describe only the effects of a new standard, the
Agency carefully distinguishes, for both benefits and costs, the change
induced by the new standard without regard to the ongoing level of
compliance with existing standards. Injuries or fatalities preventable
through compliance with existing regulations are not included in OSHA's
assessment of the benefits expected from compliance with the new
standard. Similarly, the Agency does not include the cost of complying
with existing standards in its assessment of what it will cost
employers to comply with the new standard. To make a standard's costs
and benefits consistent for comparison, the Agency assumes that all
employers will fully comply with the proposed standard. OSHA's analysis
also assumes that all costs are incurred in the first year following
promulgation of the final standard (ongoing costs are incurred annually
beginning in Year 1) and that benefits result immediately.
The Agency employs a "willingness-to-pay" (WTP) approach in
estimating benefits. This is a two-step process in which, for the
proposed revisions to subparts D and I, 16 years of accident data
collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics were studied to estimate
the number of fatalities and injuries associated with slips, trips, and
falls, and also the number of such accidents that would be avoided by
full compliance with the proposed standard. Secondly, the Agency uses
values from the WTP approach to produce a monetary value of benefits.
The WTP approach applied by many economic studies estimates the "value
of a statistical life" (VSL) based on data collected about job risks
and the "risk premium" in wages that is paid to employees in riskier
jobs. The VSL is used as a metric by many government regulatory
authorities, such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
and the Environmental Protection Agency, but is particularly
appropriate for occupational regulations since it is derived from
occupational risks and wages.
The Agency's calculation of benefits and costs, summarized in the
table on net benefits (Table V-14 in this PEA), is implicitly one that
looks at society as a whole. Estimated costs are borne by all affected
employers, while benefits from the WTP approach are market-derived
estimates of employees' valuations of job risk and reward (economic
feasibility, discussed in Subsection G below, focuses on employer and
industry economic impacts without regard to benefits). The VSL
represents to some extent the value to an employee of taking on
additional job risks and describes the value to employees of avoiding
injury and death.
The primary alternative to a WTP approach is a "cost-of-injury"
(COI) approach. A COI approach accounts for the various costs to all
parties associated with an injury or fatality, including medical costs,
the costs of work disruption from accidents and accident
investigations, indirect costs to employers (e.g., absenteeism, hiring
costs), lost wages or job opportunities,and rehabilitation expenses.
The COI approach results in ascribing costs and benefits to many
involved entities: The employer, the employee, workers'
compensation programs, medical insurance, Federal disability
programs, governmental bodies, and taxpayers, for example. A
COI approach does not capture a value for loss of life, pain and
suffering, impacts on families, or similar parameters, and for that
reason the Agency believes that the VSL is more consistent with the
purposes of the OSH Act.

B. Assessing the Need for Regulation

Introduction
Employees throughout general industry are exposed to slip, trip,
and fall hazards that can and do cause serious injury and death. As
detailed below, OSHA estimates that, on average, approximately 216,000
serious (lost-workday) injuries and 279 fatalities occur annually among
these workers; of these totals, 63,000 lost-workday injuries and 230
fatalities would be directly affected by the proposed standard.
Although some of these incidents may have been prevented with better
compliance with existing safety standards, research and analyses
conducted by OSHA have found that many preventable injuries and
fatalities would continue to occur even if employers were fully
complying with the existing standards. Relative to full compliance with
the existing standards, OSHA estimates that an additional 3,706 lost-
workday injuries and 20 fatalities would be prevented each year through
full compliance with the proposed standards.
An additional benefit of this rulemaking is that it will provide
updated, clear, and consistent safety standards for walking and working
surfaces and personal fall protection equipment. Most of the existing
OSHA standards for walking-working surfaces are over 30 years old and
inconsistent with both national consensus standards and more recently
promulgated OSHA standards addressing fall protection.
Presently, OSHA's standards for fall protection on walking-working
surfaces in general industry differ from the comparable standards for
construction work. In most instances, employees use similar work
practices to perform similar tasks, irrespective of whether they are
technically doing construction or general industry work. Whether OSHA's
construction or general industry standards apply to a particular job
depends upon whether the employer is altering the system (construction
work) or maintaining the system (general industry work). For example,
replacing an elevated ventilation system at an industrial site would be
construction work if it involves upgrading the system, but general
industry work if it involves replacing the system with the same model.
Since the work practices used by the employees would most likely be
identical in both situations, it is desirable for OSHA's general
industry and construction standards to be as consistent as possible.
Under OSHA's existing requirements, however, different requirements
might apply to similar work practices, e.g., an employer overhauling
two or more ventilation systems may have to comply with two different
sets of OSHA requirements if one project is considered construction and
another general industry. The existing inconsistencies between the
construction and general industry standards create difficulties for
employers attempting to develop appropriate work practices for their
employees. For this reason, employers and employees have told OSHA that
they would like the two standards to match more closely. This proposal
attempts to achieve that result.
Other benefits of the proposal that OSHA has neither quantified nor
monetized include the following. First, OSHA has not attempted to
estimate the number of fall injuries prevented that do not result in
lost workdays. Second, OSHA has not attempted to estimate the
improvements in efficiency of compliance associated with clarifying the
existing rule and bringing it into closer correspondence with current
voluntary standards.
OSHA's benefits estimates are most sensitive when it comes to
estimating the percentage of current injuries and fatalities that can
be avoided by full compliance with the proposed standard. The true
benefits of the proposal depend on how well the cases reviewed
represent actual fall-related fatalities in general industry.
The Agency believes that its estimate of annual fatalities
involving slips, trips, and falls (about 230) in general industry is
much less sensitive than the estimate of the percentage of fatalities
avoided, because the estimate of the annual number of baseline
fatalities is derived from 2 years of recent accident data with
averages corroborated by 11 prior years of data. Furthermore, because
OSHA believes that its benefits estimates are conservatively low,
training and work practices specified in this proposal would likely
improve the use and application of safety equipment, thereby further
reducing fatalities and injuries.
In addition to estimating annualized costs using a discount rate of
seven percent, OSHA, for sensitivity purposes, applied an alternative
discount rate of three percent to up-front costs. Under the alternative
scenario of a three-percent discount rate, OSHA estimates that
annualized costs would decline from $173.2 million to $168.8 million.
For both this scenario and for the primary (seven-percent rate)
scenario, OSHA assumed that all costs (first-year and recurring) will
be incurred upon implementation of the final standard (i.e., there are
no phase-in provisions). OSHA is also assuming that the benefits
outlined in this section will accrue once the rule takes effect. Other
cost-related uncertainties are described in greater detail below in
section D of this PEA, and concern OSHA's estimates of the number of
buildings affected by, and the number of employees who would require
training under, this proposed standard.
Before reaching the preliminary conclusion that this proposal is
necessary to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries occurring
among workers involved in activities that expose them to slips, trips,
and falls, and to make the applicable standards more clear and
consistent, OSHA considered many regulatory and non-regulatory
alternatives. These alternatives are discussed in the remainder of this
subsection.
Alternative Regulatory Approaches
To determine the appropriate approach for addressing the
occupational risks associated with slips, trips, and falls in general
industry, OSHA considered many different factors and potential
alternatives. The Agency examined the incidence of injuries and
fatalities and their direct and underlying causes to ascertain where
existing standards needed to be strengthened. OSHA reviewed these
standards, assessed current practices in the industry, collected
information and comments from experts, and scrutinized the available
data and research.
OSHA faces several constraints in determining appropriate
regulatory requirements. Under section 3(8) of the OSH Act, OSHA
standards must be "reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe
or healthful employment and places of employment." Also, under section
6(b)(8) of the OSH Act, to the extent an OSHA standard differs
substantially from existing national consensus standards, the Agency
must explain why the OSHA standard will better effectuate the purposes
of the OSH Act. As noted elsewhere, OSHA standards must also be
technologically and economically feasible and cost effective.
The table below presents a summary of projected costs and benefits
for each section of the proposed standard.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------- Costs
Proposed requirement Type of accident Fatalities ($millions)
prevented prevented Injuries prevented
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1910.22 General Fall from floor, 1.0................ 388................ $15.7
Requirements. dock, or ground
level.
Fall from building 0.2................ 13................. ..............
girders or other
structural steel.
Sec. 1910.23 Ladders........... Fall from ladder... large fraction of large fraction of 9.7
5.5. 1,871.
Fall from ship, fraction of 1.4 fraction of 2...... ..............
boat, n.e.c..
Sec. 1910.24 Step Bolts and Fall from ladder... small fraction of small fraction of 3.7
Manhole Steps. 5.5. 1,871.
Fall down stairs or 0.4................ 846................ ..............
steps.
Sec. 1910.27 Scaffolds......... Fall from scaffold, large fraction of large fraction of 73.0
staging. 6.7. 174.
Sec. 1910.28 Duty to Have Fall Fall from ladder... small fraction of small fraction of 0.09
Protection. 5.5. 1,871.
Sec. 1910.29 Fall Protection Fall from building 0.2................ 13................. 8.4
Systems Criteria and Practices. girders or other
structural steel.
Fall from ship, fraction of 1.4.... fraction of 2. ..............
boat, n.e.c..
Fall from scaffold, small fraction of small fraction of ..............
staging. 6.7. 174.
Sec. 1910.30 Training Multiple fall fraction of fraction of 44.1
Requirements. categories. benefits for many benefits for many
fall categories. fall categories.
Sec. 1910.140 Fall Protection.. Multiple fall fraction of fraction of 18.5
categories. benefits for many benefits for many
fall categories. fall categories.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Directorate of Evaluation and Analysis, Office of Regulatory Analysis, 2010.

A full discussion of the basis for the particular regulatory
requirements chosen is provided in section IV, Summary and Explanation
of the Proposed Rule, earlier in this preamble. The regulatory
alternatives considered by OSHA are discussed in the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Screening Analysis later in this section of the preamble.
In that section, Table V-34 presents impacts associated with regulatory
alternatives for selected provisions in the proposed standard. OMB's
Circular A-4, Regulatory Analysis, recommends that agencies "should
analyze at least three options: the preferred option; a more stringent
option that achieves additional benefits (and presumably costs more)
beyond those realized by the preferred option; and a less stringent
option that costs less (and presumably generates fewer benefits) than
the preferred option" (p. 16). The preferred option is presented in
this NPRM. A less stringent alternative, rejected by OSHA, would
require training for a more limited number of fall-hazard categories;
the cost of this alternative would remain significant (but below the
cost of $44.1 million for the preferred alternative training proposal),
with a reduction in benefits relative to the preferred alternative.
A more stringent alternative would require that cages, wells, and
landing platforms be provided for all fixed ladders, while disallowing
ladder safety devices; the cost of this alternative would be highly
significant, while the incremental benefits would be modest relative to
the preferred alternative. OSHA notes that in the 1990 NPRM, this
alternative was one of several provisions associated with the existing
standard for which OSHA provided an estimated cost; the annualized cost
for cages, wells, and other safety devices for fixed ladders was $1.6
billion in 1990 dollars. Though OSHA believes use of ladder-safety
devices has increased considerably since 1990, this more stringent
alternative would still probably be extremely expensive compared to the
proposed rule.
Alternative Nonregulatory Approaches
Introduction.
The stated purpose of the OSH Act is to "assure so far as possible
every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working
conditions and to preserve our human resources." (5 U.S.C. 651.) This
congressional mandate provides the basis for OSHA's proposed rulemaking
on walking-working surfaces, which is designed to mitigate the
occupational hazards associated with slips, trips, and falls.
Before issuing a standard, OSHA must assess whether there are
other, nonregulatory approaches available that may provide equal or
greater benefits. Executive Order 12866 directs regulatory agencies to
assess whether an unregulated private market can achieve the same level
of social benefits as that expected to result from federal regulation:

Section 1. Statement of Regulatory Philosophy and Principles.
(a) The Regulatory Philosophy. Federal Agencies should promulgate
only such regulations as are required by law, are necessary to
interpret the law, or made necessary by compelling public need, such
as material failures of private markets to protect or improve the
health and safety of the public, the environment, or the well-being
of the American people. In deciding whether and how to regulate,
agencies should assess all costs and benefits of available
regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not
regulating.

The discussion below considers several nonregulatory alternatives
to OSHA's proposed rulemaking: Private market incentives, information
dissemination programs, tort liability options, and workers'
compensation programs.
Private Market Incentives.
Economic theory suggests that the need for government regulations
would be greatly reduced if private markets worked efficiently and
effectively to provide health and safety protections for employees. At
issue is whether the private market will be able to produce a level of
safety and health for employees that will be equal to or greater than
that potentially afforded by the proposed OSHA standards. In
particular, OSHA examined whether the level of risk of experiencing an
injury in an unregulated market would be at least as low as the level
of risk expected after completion of this proposed rulemaking for
walking-working surfaces.
Theoretically, unregulated markets are capable of achieving an
efficient allocation of resources if certain assumptions are satisfied.
Necessary assumptions include perfect and free information, perfect and
costless mobility of labor and other factors of production, and an
absence of any externalities.
A major conclusion of the "perfect competition model" of economic
theory is that, in the presence of full information about market
choices and outcomes, and with complete mobility of the factors of
production, the private market would produce an efficient allocation of
resources. In the presence of perfect and complete information
regarding occupational risks, labor markets would reflect the presence
of different degrees of risk across different industries, firms, and
occupations. In such a market, wage premiums would be paid to
compensate employees engaged in hazardous occupations for the added
risk they confront on the job.
In this theoretical framework, wages would vary directly with the
riskiness of a job (other things being equal), and employers would have
an incentive to make investments to reduce occupational health and
safety risks to the extent employees would demand compensation for
being exposed to such risks. In other words, because employers would
have to pay their workers a premium to induce them to work in a risky
environment, employers would be willing to pay to make that environment
less risky by introducing technologies and practices that lower risks
to employees.
In addition, a perfectly competitive market will theoretically lead
to the efficient allocation of resources only if all of the costs and
benefits (pecuniary and nonpecuniary) associated with the behavior of
market participants and with market transactions are fully borne by
those directly involved. In economic terms, this implies that there
will not be any negative externalities associated with economic
activities.
If all of the costs associated with occupational safety and health
risks would in fact be internalized, then market decisions about
occupational safety and health conditions made by employers and
employees would be based on a consideration of the full social costs of
their economic actions. However, if some of the effects of these
actions are externalized (that is, some costs are not borne by
employers and employees but by other parties who are external to the
transaction), then those costs will not be adequately incorporated into
the decisions of managers and workers. The resultant market allocation
of resources can then be expected to be less efficient.
Costs and other impacts that are imposed on society and are not
borne directly by the economic participants involved in an activity or
transaction are referred to as externalities. The existence of such
externalities is one reason why an unregulated private market often
fails to produce an efficient allocation of resources. The presence of
these externalities also implies that economic efficiency can
potentially be improved with regulatory interventions.
In a theoretically perfect market without externalities, firms
would decide how much to spend on reducing safety and health risks
based on the full costs associated with the presence of such risks. The
costs include pain and suffering, impacts on the quality of the lives
of families, and effects on society as a whole. Employees would decide
whether they were willing to work in a particular job based on the
relative riskiness of the job and the extent to which they believe the
wages offered to them provide adequate compensation for these risks.
Research conducted by OSHA and information from several other
sources show that many firms have responded to the risks posed to
employees by exposures to slip, trip, and fall hazards. Employers have
increasingly recognized the costs associated with these risks and have
implemented measures to reduce the occupational risks faced by their
employees. In fact, many risk control programs already implemented by
employers go beyond the requirements of the existing and proposed OSHA
standards. The fact that employers are implementing these programs
demonstrates that economic incentives exist, at least to some degree,
to motivate employers in the direction of reducing the risks associated
with occupational exposures to slip, trip, and fall hazards in general
industry.
However, OSHA notes that many employers continue to fall short of
providing even minimum safety protections for their employees. Such
circumstances persist despite ongoing attempts by OSHA and other groups
to provide information and assistance to employers to increase
awareness and reduce the risks of working on surfaces where there are
exposures to slip, trip, and fall hazards. The benefits subsection of
this preliminary analysis shows that preventable injuries and
fatalities continue to occur every year. The evidence indicates that
market forces cannot alone curb occupational slip, trip, and fall risks
adequately.
Among employees exposed to the hazards addressed by this proposed
rule, there does not appear to be any risk premium reflected in wage
rates that would differentiate between employers based on the extent of
risks faced by employees. In fact, there is some evidence that in the
affected industries, wages for employees in similar jobs performing
similar types of work are negatively correlated with the degree of risk
involved. For example, employees of host sites tend to earn more than
their counterparts working for contractors, and yet the fatality and
injury rate can often be higher among employees of contractors.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ As evidence of this phenomenon, 254,550 general maintenance
and repair workers employed by manufacturers in 2007 earned a mean
hourly wage of $19.04 and suffered 4,610 lost-workday injuries and
illnesses, or 181 injuries or illnesses per 10,000 workers, while
45,040 general maintenance and repair workers employed in Other
Services in 2007 earned a mean hourly wage of $14.90 and experienced
1,150 lost-workday injuries and illnesses, or 255 injuries or
illnesses per 10,000 workers. See Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS),
Occupational Employment Statistics, and BLS, Occupational Injuries
and Illnesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are a variety of reasons why employees may not be paid the
risk premiums that would theoretically be necessary to ensure that
markets provide efficient levels of expenditures on safety and health.
Employees have imperfect knowledge about the nature and magnitude of
occupational risk factors. Many employees are not likely to be fully
aware of the extent and nature of occupational risks associated with
different jobs and different employers at different points in time.
Even if employees have adequate information regarding the risks of
occupational injuries, they may be unable to adequately incorporate
this information into their decisions about choosing a job or staying
on the job. Other factors and circumstances may affect employment
choices, including significant costs associated with job searches and
changing jobs.
Assessing occupational risks for the purpose of determining the
acceptability of wages offered is made even more difficult when
differences in risk between two firms are significant but cannot be
readily observed or predicted over the pertinent time periods. If
differences in occupational risk between various establishments are not
fully incorporated into the employment decisions of employees, the wage
premiums paid for risky jobs will not accurately reflect the relative
occupational risks associated with specific jobs in different firms.
Thus, firms will have little incentive to individually reduce risk
beyond levels present in other firms.
In addition, many employers may simply be unaware of the direct and
indirect costs associated with occupational risks. Some employers may
regard these costs as beyond their control or as part of general
overhead costs. Employers may also not be fully aware of the
availability of cost-effective ways of ameliorating or eliminating
these risks and reducing the corresponding costs.
A significant problem that prevents risk premiums in an unregulated
market from achieving the theoretical results that may potentially
reduce occupational risks involves imperfections in the operation of
labor markets. Changing jobs can be costly, and in some circumstances
the costs may preclude a decision to change jobs solely on the basis of
the occupational health risks involved. Factors that may make job
changes particularly costly include nontransferability of occupational
skills or seniority within a company, the difficulty of acquiring
sufficient skills and abilities (i.e., human capital) to seek
alternative employment opportunities, the costs and uncertainty
associated with relocating to take advantage of better employment
opportunities, the existence of institutional factors such as the
nontransferability of pension plans and seniority rights, and the risk
of prolonged periods of unemployment.
Often, differences in occupational risk between two firms must be
marked before an employee will change jobs on that basis. Therefore,
wage rates determined by a market in which the protection of
occupational safety and health is unregulated are unlikely to fully
compensate employees for occupational health and safety risks,
including those related to the risks of concern here.
Information Dissemination Programs
OSHA and other organizations currently produce and disseminate a
considerable amount of information regarding the risks associated with
work on walking and working surfaces and the methods that can be used
to minimize slip, trip, and fall hazards. The dissemination of such
information would continue in conjunction with the promulgation of the
proposed standards. Alternatively, in lieu of issuing mandatory
standards, OSHA could rely on current or expanded information
dissemination programs to generate the incentives necessary to produce
further reductions in injuries and fatalities. Better informed
employees can more accurately assess the occupational risks associated
with different jobs, thereby facilitating those market interactions
that result in wage premiums for relatively risky occupations.
There are several reasons, however, why reliance on information
dissemination programs will not yield the level of social benefits
achievable through compliance with the proposed rules for walking-
working surfaces. Foremost, there are no reliable incentives or
mechanisms that would ensure that appropriate and sufficiently detailed
information could be produced, or that such information would actually
be distributed among, and relied upon by, employees. Furthermore, the
hazards addressed by this proposal are highly specific to individual
tasks and work environments. The development of accurate knowledge
about these occupational risks would require each employer to make
available specific information about the risks present in projects
expected to be undertaken in the future. The lack of adequate
incentives or mechanisms and the potentially large costs associated
with the collection and reporting of the necessary information makes
effective information dissemination difficult to implement in practice.
In addition, even if employees are better informed about workplace
risks and hazards, other factors, such as barriers to labor mobility,
that contribute to market failure would still remain. Finally, as
argued above, employees may not be able to evaluate information about
long-term risks accurately when making employment decisions. Better
information, therefore, will not ensure that the market will produce
wage risk premiums in a manner that is consistent with an efficient
allocation of resources.
Currently, in addition to the applicable OSHA standards, there are
consensus standards, voluntary guidelines, and other information
sources for preventing injuries and fatalities from slips, trips, and
falls on walking and working surfaces. Although many employers have
adopted the practices and procedures recommended by these sources, many
other employers have been less successful in the widespread
implementation of the recommendations in these voluntary guidelines.
The Costs of Compliance subsection of this PEA provides further
information regarding current compliance with specific elements in
sectors covered by the proposal.
Thus, OSHA's experience and observations regarding slip, trip, and
fall hazards on walking-working surfaces show that, while improved
access to information about occupational risks can provide for more
rational decision-making in the private market, voluntary information
programs will not produce an adequately low level of occupational risk.
Tort Liability Options
Employees are generally restricted from using tort law to force
employers to pay for costs and damages associated with fatalities and
injuries that occur on the job. Greater employee use of tort law in
seeking redress from injuries associated with the occupational hazards
addressed by this proposal is another possible nonregulatory
alternative to the proposed rule. If employees were able to effectively
sue their employers for damages caused by work-related hazards, and if
other conditions regarding the cost and availability of information,
knowledge and mobility of employees, and externalities are satisfied,
then the need for an OSHA standard would potentially be reduced or
eliminated.
A tort may be described, in part, as a civil wrong (other than
breach of contract) for which the courts provide a remedy in the form
of an action for damages. The application of the tort system to
occupationally related injuries and illnesses would mean that an
employee whose disability resulted from exposure to a workplace risk
would sue the employer to recover damages. The tort system could thus
shift the liability for the direct costs of occupational injury from
the employee to the employer, at least under certain specific
circumstances.
With limited exceptions, however, the tort system has not been a
viable alternative to regulation in dealings between employees and
employers, for a number of reasons. All States have legislation making
workers' compensation either the exclusive or principal legal remedy
available to employees. Generally, tort law can be applied only to
third-party producers or suppliers of hazardous products or equipment,
for example, asbestos products. It is often difficult, however, to
demonstrate that workplace injuries have been caused by defective or
negligently designed products or equipment.
Moreover, legal proceedings generally fail to fully internalize
costs because of the substantial legal fees and uncertainties
associated with bringing court actions. In deciding whether to sue, the
victim must be sure that the potential award will exceed both the
expense and hardship of bringing the lawsuit. Legal expenses commonly
include a contingency fee for the plaintiff's lawyer, plus court fees
and the costs of accumulating evidence andwitnesses.
The accused firm must also pay for its defense.
In sum, the use of legal action as an alternative to regulation is
limited because of the expense, delays, and uncertainties involved, and
because under current state laws, workers' compensation will normally
be an exclusive remedy that will prevent an employee from filing a
suit. The tort system, therefore, does not serve adequately to protect
employees from exposure to risks in the workplace.
Workers' Compensation Programs
The existing workers' compensation programs serve to partially
address the market failures that result in insufficient reductions in
occupational risks. An alternative to a mandatory standard would be a
continued reliance on these and other existing programs (including
possible modifications or enhancements to these programs) to address
occupational risk. The workers' compensation system was implemented in
part as a result of the perceived failure of the unregulated market to
compel employers to sufficiently reduce occupational health and safety
risks and to compensate employees for bearing those risks. The system
seeks to shift some of the burden of the costs associated with
occupational injuries and illnesses from workers to employers. By so
doing, workers' compensation requirements can ensure that more of the
costs of occupational injuries and illnesses are incorporated into
decisions of employers even if employees do not have full information
regarding their risks or are unable to receive full wage compensation
for such risks. Originally designed to force more of the social costs
of occupational injuries and illnesses to be internalized, the workers'
compensation program has in practice fallen short of fully achieving
this goal and does not fully compensate employees for occupationally
related injuries and illnesses.
Compensation tends to be especially inadequate in permanent
disability cases, in part because of time limits on benefit
entitlements and in part because of the failure of the system to adjust
benefits for changes in an employee's expected earnings over time.
Several states restrict permanent, partial, and total disability
benefits either by specifying a maximum number of weeks for which
benefits can be paid or by imposing a ceiling on dollar benefits. Both
temporary and permanent disability payments are commonly limited by
imposing a ceiling on the income per week that can be paid. In
addition, under workers' compensation, no award is made for pain and
suffering.
Although rules vary by state, temporary disability income is
designed in most states to replace two-thirds of the worker's before-
tax income. However, most states place a maximum and a minimum on the
amount of money paid out to the employee, regardless of his or her
actual former income.
The Workers Compensation Research Institute (WCRI) has studied the
extent to which workers' compensation replaces after-tax income in 19
states. These studies show that temporary total disability payments
replace between 80 and 100 percent of the after-tax income of the
majority of employees in all of the states examined (WCRI, 1993). From
3 to 44 percent of employees receive less than 80 percent of their
after-tax income, and from 0 to 16 percent receive more than 100
percent of their previous after-tax income (as a result of the
"floor" on payments). In 15 of the 19 states examined, more employees
receive less than 80 percent of their former after-tax income than
receive more than 100 percent of their former income. WCRI does not
provide estimates of the average replacement rates for all employees in
a State. However, based on these data, it seems reasonable to assume
that, on average, workers receive no more than 90 percent of their
after-tax income while on temporary disability.
In addition to not fully replacing after tax income, workers'
compensation payments, which are not taxable, provide no replacement
for tax losses to the Federal, State or local government as a result of
an illness. This loss is properly considered part of the social losses
associated with an illness or injury. Typically taxes, including State
and Federal income taxes and employee and employer contribution to
social security taxes, will be approximately 30 percent of income. The
taxes not paid when an individual is unable to work thus add an
additional 30 percent of worker income as losses associated with
injuries and illnesses not covered by workers' compensation.
In summary, workers' compensation often covers less than 65 percent
of the financial losses associated with the costs of injuries, and does
not cover any portion of losses due to pain and suffering. Thus, even
if the financial costs were fully internalized by employers, workers'
compensation would be insufficient to assure adequate economic
incentives to address work-related injuries and illnesses. For workers'
compensation to be able to internalize costs of work-related injuries
and illnesses, it would be necessary for the costs an employer pays for
workers' compensation to be directly related to the employer's risk of
causing work-related injuries or illnesses.
Most workers' compensation programs nominally include the
employer's injury experience as a factor in determining the level of
the employer's insurance premiums. However, the majority of firms are
not rated individually for their safety and health record; that is,
they are not "experience rated." For example, small firms often are
ineligible for experience rating because of the high year-to-year
variance in their claim rates. Such firms are class rated, and rate
reductions are granted only if the experience of the entire class
improves. Segregation of loss experience into classes is somewhat
arbitrary, and an individual firm may be classified with other firms
that have substantially different accident rates. Even when firms have
an experience rating, the premiums paid may not accurately reflect
their true degree of risk. In addition, a firm's experience rating is
generally based on the benefits paid to ill or injured workers, not on
the firm's safety and health record or on the actual risks faced by
employees. Thus, in some cases employers may have more of an incentive
to reduce premiums by contesting claims than by initiating safety and
health measures.
For employers who rely on workers' compensation insurance, the
payment of premiums represents the employer's major cost for the
occurrence of occupational injuries and illnesses. However, the
mechanism for determining an employer's workers' compensation premium
frequently fails to reflect the real costs associated with a particular
employer's record. As a result, efforts made by an employer to reduce
the incidence of occupational injuries and illnesses are not
necessarily reflected in reduced workers' compensation premiums.
Similarly, firms that devote fewer resources to promoting employee
safety and health often may not incur commensurately higher workers'
compensation costs. Consequently, the program does not provide direct
incentives for most employers to reduce the occupational health and
safety risks in their workplaces.
Finally, workers' compensation is an insurance mechanism through
which participants spread and share the risk of injury and illness
claims, and the costs associated with occupational injuries and
illnesses are often spread throughout the economy through risk sharing
stemming from participation in health insurance programs. For
example, some direct costs may not be incurred or attributed to
employers because many employees go to their private physician rather
than the company's physician for work-related injuries and illnesses,
even though there are systemic mechanisms in place to ensure that work-
related injuries are treated through the workers' compensation system.
The social burden of adverse health effects is also shared by taxpayer-
supported programs such as welfare, Social Security disability and
death benefits, and Medicare. Employers have, therefore, less incentive
to avoid such losses than they would if they were directly liable for
all such claims. This transfer of risk is another reason why the market
does not fully internalize the social costs of occupationally related
injuries and illnesses.
The workers' compensation system provides economic incentives for
larger firms, especially those that self-insure for workers'
compensation, because these firms internalize a greater portion of the
true costs of the work-related injuries and illnesses incurred by their
employees. Thus, larger firms can generally be expected to do more to
reduce the costs associated with occupational risks than smaller firms.
In summary, the workers' compensation system suffers from several
defects that seriously reduce its effectiveness in providing incentives
for firms to create safe and healthful workplaces. First, because the
scheduled benefits are often significantly less than the actual losses
experienced by injured or ill workers and the social losses experienced
by tax payers, the existence of workers' compensation programs limits
an employer's liability to levels significantly below the actual costs
of the injury or illness. Second, premiums for individual firms are
often unrelated or only loosely related to that firm's risk
environment. The firm, therefore, does not receive the proper economic
incentives and consequently fails to invest sufficient resources in
reducing workplace injuries and illnesses. The economic costs not borne
by the employer are imposed on the employee directly or on society
through social welfare programs.
Summary
OSHA has determined that certain employees are exposed to
occupational risks associated with slip, trip, and fall hazards on
walking and working surfaces. The private market has not been effective
in sufficiently reducing this level of risk due to a lack of complete
information about safety risks in specific work environments, limits on
worker mobility, and other factors that contribute to the failure of
markets to provide an efficient allocation of resources. Options for
improving the operations of markets include information dissemination
programs, tort liability options, and workers' compensation programs.
After considering each of these options, OSHA has concluded that none
of them will provide the level of benefits achievable by this proposal
to amend subparts D and I.

C. Profile of Affected Industries, Firms, and Workers

Introduction
This subsection presents OSHA's preliminary profile of the firms,
establishments, and employees within the industries affected by OSHA's
proposed revision to subparts D and I and is based upon data that were
assembled and organized by OSHA's contractor, Eastern Research Group
(ERG, 2007, Ex. 6).
Affected Industries and Employees
Revised subparts D and I apply to employers and industries covered
by OSHA's standards for general industry in 29 CFR part 1910.
Similarly, all other subparts in part 1910 affected by these proposed
revisions to OSHA's walking-working surfaces standards would impose
requirements on employers in general industry under OSHA's
jurisdiction. Excluded are establishments in the agriculture,
construction, maritime (longshoring, marine terminal, and shipyards),
and mining industries. Also excluded are employee tasks on surfaces
that, due to location or operational status, fall outside of OSHA's
jurisdiction. An example of the latter category is employee exposure to
fall hazards when railroad rolling stock is traveling on rails, or
trucks are traveling on highways; those operations are regulated by the
Department of Transportation.
The walking and working surfaces covered by the standards are
present in nearly every establishment. Therefore, OSHA assumes that the
number of establishments and employees potentially affected by subpart
D includes all establishments and employees in general industry. Table
V-1 shows the total number of these establishments and employees
potentially affected by revisions to subpart D. The data are listed in
order by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) industry
code.
Table V-1 provides economic profile statistics for the industries
covered by the proposed standards. Industries are classified and listed
by 4-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
industry code (OMB, 2002). Basing its economic profile on the U.S.
Census' Statistics of U.S. Businesses for 2006 ("Census data"), OSHA
estimates that 6.7 million establishments employing 112 million
employees would be affected by the proposed standards.
These revisions to the fall protection standards are estimated to
primarily affect approximately 5.3 million employees engaged in
installation, maintenance and repair operations in general industry.
While it is possible that some other employees may be affected by the
revisions to the standards, this represents the main group affected by
the standards, and not all of these will automatically be affected. To
identify such employees, OSHA identified general industry employees in
occupational codes involving construction, installation, maintenance,
and repair-related occupational codes. This approach assumes that
employees in construction occupations who are employed by general
industry employers rather than construction employers are routinely
engaged in what OSHA labels maintenance, rather than construction,
activities. The methodology for deriving these estimates is discussed
in the ERG report (ERG, 2007, Ex. 6).
OSHA also used Census \13\ data on payroll and receipts to estimate
average revenue per establishment in 2006 for each 4-digit NAICS
industry. The methodology for deriving these estimates is discussed
later in this PEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ In this PEA, "Census" refers to the U.S. Census Bureau.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 4510-29-P-

Table V-1
Profile of General Industry Establishements Covered by Subparts D and I

BILLING CODE 4510-29-C

Parts of the proposed standard that cover ladders, scaffolds,
manhole steps, and other working surfaces are most likely to directly
affect employees engaged in maintenance and related activities. To
estimate the numbers of such employees, OSHA relied on data from Bureau
of Labor Statistics' (BLS) Occupational Employment Statistics (OES)
survey that documents employment by detailed occupation on a 4-digit
NAICS industry basis. The BLS data represent the only source of
industry-specific statistics on detailed occupational employment
totals. OSHA used these data to estimate the numbers of employees in
construction, and in maintenance, installation, and repair occupations
in each industry and the overall number of production employees (ERG
2007, Ex. 6).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ Production workers include those in building and grounds;
construction; installation, maintenance, and repair; production; and
material moving occupations. It is conceivable that employees in
construction and related occupations, even though not employed by
establishments in construction industries, might on occasion perform
work that would be regulated by OSHA under its construction
standards in Sec. 1926. To the extent this is true, their employers
might also be required to meet the requirements for fall protection
and walking and working surfaces as specified in the construction
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because industry employment totals reported by the OES are not
identical to those estimated by the U.S. Census Bureau, OSHA used the
ratios of production to total employment as reported by OES and
multiplied total employment as reported by Census by this ratio to
estimate the numbers of production employees and employees in
maintenance-related occupations for each NAICS industry covered by the
proposed subpart D and I standards. As shown in Table V-1, an estimated
28.0 million employees are employed in production occupations, while an
estimated 5.3 million are employed in construction, installation, and
maintenance and repair occupations.
Profile of Potentially Affected Small Entities
To assemble the data that are necessary for a screening analysis to
judge potential impacts as prescribed by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), OSHA developed profiles of small
entities in the industries covered by the proposed OSHA standards for
subparts D and I. First, ERG used the Small Business Administration's
(SBA) small business criterion for each industry and Census data (taken
from the Statistics of U.S. Businesses) on employment, payroll, and
receipts by entity size to estimate the numbers of entities and
associated employment meeting the SBA definitions (ERG, 2007, Ex. 6).
Where the SBA small business criterion was specified as a revenue
threshold, OSHA used the Census data to associate that revenue with a
given employment size. OSHA's estimates of SBA-based employment-size
criteria are shown in the first column in Table V-2. The table shows,
by NAICS category, the number of entities and employees and average
receipts per entity for business units that meet the employment-size
criterion. The numbers of at-risk employees are estimated assuming the
same percentage of total employment as that derived in Table V-1.
Based on analysis by ERG (ERG, 2007, Ex. 6), OSHA also used the
Census data to develop a profile of entities that employ fewer than 20
employees. These estimates are shown in Table V-3.

BILLING CODE 4510-29-P

TABLE V-2
Profile of General Industry Small Buisness Entities

TABLE V-3
Profile of General Industry Entities with fewer than 20 Employees

BILLING CODE 4510-29-C

Employees Using Fall Protection
Based on analysis by ERG (ERG, 2007, Ex. 6), OSHA estimated the
numbers of employees using fall protection equipment by extrapolating
results obtained from OSHA's 1999 PPE Cost Survey. This establishment-
based survey provided industry-specific estimates of the numbers of
workers who used various types of personal protective equipment,
including body harnesses and body belts.\15\ The survey reported the
percent of employees in each industry (SIC classification) that used
these equipment types. ERG extrapolated the survey findings by first
associating the SIC industries covered by the survey with 4-digit NAICS
industries and then multiplying the equipment use percentages by total
employment (presented above in Table V-1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ For a description of the survey, see Eastern Research
Group, PPE Cost Survey: Final Report. Task Order 3, Base Year, DOL
Contract No. J-9-F-9-0010. June 23, 1999 (Exhibit 14, OSHA Docket S-
042: Costs of Personal Protective Equipment). Back support belts and
similar ergonomic devices were explicitly excluded from the types of
personal protective equipment investigated by the survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because the same employees might use both body harnesses and body
belts, OSHA used the maximum value of the two percentages in deriving
these estimates. For example, if for a given industry, six percent of
employees were estimated using body harnesses while four percent were
estimated to use body belts, OSHA used the larger statistic (six
percent) as its estimate of the share of employees using fall
protection. Also, the survey's design did not permit industry-specific
estimates for all industries. For example, only aggregated estimates
are available for several groups of service, wholesale, and retail
trade industries. To make the fall protection estimates consistent with
the numbers of at-risk employees, OSHA constrained the estimated number
of employees using fall protection in any industry to be less than or
equal to the numbers of employees in construction, installation,
maintenance, and repair occupations shown in Table V-1. Table V-4
presents, by 4-digit NAICS industry, OSHA's estimate of the number of
employees using fall protection equipment. Overall, an estimated 1.6
million employees in general industry use fall protection.
Wage Rates
As will be discussed in detail later in this PEA, OSHA anticipates
that much of the cost impact of the proposed standard is associated
with the time requirements for additional training and inspections.
Estimates for these costs depend on the opportunity cost of the labor
hours that would otherwise be devoted to productive activities. Such
opportunity costs are typically valued in terms of employees' hourly
wages, adjusted for benefit and fringe costs. ERG relied on average
hourly earnings as reported by the BLS Occupational Employment
Statistics Survey and constructed a weighted average hourly wage for
the specific occupations comprising production employment. ERG
similarly constructed an average hourly production supervisor wage for
each industry. These wages were then inflated by a factor to account
for fringe benefits. According to a recent BLS survey, this mark-up
factor averaged 43.5 percent.\16\ The loaded wage rates applied by OSHA
in this preliminary economic analysis are shown in Table V-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ BLS, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation--June 2008.
Accessed September 10, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 4510-29-P

TABLE V-4
Estimated Number of Employees Using Fall Protection Equipment

TABLE V-5
Wage Rates in Industry Affected by OSHA's Proposed Standard for Walking and Working Surfaces

BILLING CODE 4510-29-C

D. Benefits, Net Benefits, Cost Effectiveness, and Sensitivity Analysis

This subsection reviews the populations in general industry that
are at risk of occupational injury or death due to hazards addressed by
this proposal, and assesses the potential benefits associated with the
proposed updates to subparts D and I. OSHA believes that compliance
with the proposed rule will yield substantial benefits in terms of
lives saved, injuries avoided, and reduced accident-related costs.
As described in section C above, the employees affected by the
proposed standard work largely in construction, installation,
maintenance, and repair. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics'
2008 Occupational Employment Statistics survey, there are approximately
112.0 million employees in industries within the scope of this
proposal; 5.3 million employees engaged in construction, installation,
maintenance, and repair operations in general industry that would be
directly affected by this proposal; and 1.6 million employees in
general industry using personal fall protection equipment. As explained
earlier, to account for all of these employees, OSHA identified
production employees classified in BLS occupational codes defining
construction, installation, maintenance, and repair in the following
industry sectors: Agriculture; oil and gas extraction; utilities;
manufacturing; wholesale trade; retail trade; transportation;
information; finance and insurance; real estate; professional,
scientific, and technical services; management of companies; enterprise
administration; education; health care; arts, entertainment, and
recreation; and other services. This approach assumes that employees in
construction occupations, but employed by general industry rather than
construction employers, are routinely engaged in what OSHA labels
maintenance (i.e., a general industry activity) rather than
construction activities. The methodology for deriving these estimates
is discussed in the ERG report (ERG, 2007, Ex. 6).
This subsection first examines the available data on the number of
baseline injuries and fatalities among affected employees; then
assesses the extent to which the standard can prevent those injuries
and fatalities; and finally estimates some of the economic benefits
associated with the prevented injuries and fatalities. OSHA's proposed
standards for subpart D, Walking-Working Surfaces, and subpart I,
Personal Protective Equipment (Personal Fall Protection Systems), would
produce benefits to the extent compliance prevents injuries and
fatalities that would not be prevented by the existing OSHA standards.
Profile of Fall Accidents
Fall Fatalities
OSHA examined fall fatalities using two databases. As a baseline
for determining the average number of fall fatalities per year, OSHA
examined data from the BLS Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI)
for 2006 and 2007. To provide a more detailed breakdown of the kinds of
falls included in this total, OSHA examined CFOI data for the longer
period of 1992 to 2002.
As shown in Table V-6, the BLS Census of Fatal Occupational
Injuries (CFOI) reported 285 and 267 fatal falls to lower levels for
2006 and 2007, respectively, in industries covered by the proposed
standard. Distinguished from the larger category of all falls--a set of
accidents that includes falls on the same level and jumps to a lower
level--the narrower category of falls to a lower level are the types of
falls directly addressed by OSHA's proposed standard. For purposes of
estimating the overall rate of fall fatalities for this benefits
analysis, OSHA took the average of these two years--276 fall fatalities
per year. Over the two-year period, industries in the professional,
scientific, technical, administrative, and support services (NAICS 541
and 561) accounted for 30 percent of the fatal falls, while the
manufacturing (NAICS 31-33) and transportation (NAICS 48) sectors
accounted for 10.9 and 6.0 percent of the fall fatalities,
respectively. BLS reported the highest number of fatal falls in NAICS
561, Administrative and Support Services. Although not shown in the
table, a large majority of these fatalities--82 percent for the two-
year period 2006-2007--occurred in the industry concerned with services
to buildings and dwellings (NAICS 5617).

Table V-6--Fatalities From Falls to a Lower Level--General Industry, 2006 & 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of fatalities
NAICS NAICS description -------------------------------
2006 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
113.................................... Forestry and Logging................... 3 4
114.................................... Fishing, Hunting and Trapping.......... 0 0
115.................................... Support Activities for Agriculture and 0 0
Forestry.
211.................................... Oil and Gas Extraction................. 0 0
213111................................. Oil and Gas Well Drilling.............. 5 4
221.................................... Utilities.............................. 0 0
311.................................... Food Manufacturing..................... 5 4
312.................................... Beverage and Tobacco Product 0 0
Manufacturing.
313.................................... Textile Mills.......................... 0 0
314.................................... Textile Product Mills.................. 0 0
315.................................... Apparel Manufacturing.................. 0 0
316.................................... Leather and Allied Product 0 0
Manufacturing.
321.................................... Wood Product Manufacturing............. 7 0
322.................................... Paper Manufacturing.................... 0 0
323.................................... Printing and Related Support Activities 0 0
324.................................... Petroleum and Coal Products 0 0
Manufacturing.
325.................................... Chemical Manufacturing................. 3 3
326.................................... Plastics and Rubber Products 3 0
Manufacturing.
327.................................... Nonmetallic Mineral Product 3 0
Manufacturing.
331.................................... Primary Metal Manufacturing............ 0 0
332.................................... Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing. 10 7
333.................................... Machinery Manufacturing................ 0 0
334.................................... Computer and Electronic Product 0 0
Manufacturing.
335.................................... Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and 0 0
336.................................... Transportation Equipment Manufacturing. 7 4
337.................................... Furniture and Related Product 0 0
Manufacturing.
339.................................... Miscellaneous Manufacturing............ 0 4
423.................................... Merchant Wholesalers, Durable Goods.... 4 7
424.................................... Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods. 12 6
425.................................... Wholesale Electronic Markets and Agents 0 0
and Brokers.
441.................................... Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers........ 4 0
442.................................... Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores.. 0 0
443.................................... Electronics and Appliance Stores....... 0 0
444.................................... Building Material and Garden Equipment 6 4
and Supplies Dealers.
445.................................... Food and Beverage Stores............... 5 0
446.................................... Health and Personal Care Stores........ 0 0
447.................................... Gasoline Stations...................... 0 0
448.................................... Clothing and Clothing Accessories 0 0
Stores.
451.................................... Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, and Music 0 0
Stores.
452.................................... General Merchandise Stores............. 0 0
453.................................... Miscellaneous Store Retailers.......... 0 0
454.................................... Nonstore Retailers..................... 0 0
481.................................... Air Transportation..................... 0 0
482.................................... Railroads.............................. 0 0
483.................................... Water Transportation................... 0 0
484.................................... Truck Transportation................... 11 18
485.................................... Transit and Ground Passenger 0 0
Transportation.
486.................................... Pipeline Transportation................ 0 0
487.................................... Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation.. 0 0
488.................................... Support Activities for Transportation.. 0 4
492.................................... Couriers and Messengers................ 0 0
493.................................... Warehousing and Storage................ 4 5
511.................................... Publishing Industries (except Internet) 0 0
512.................................... Motion Picture and Sound Recording 0 0
Industries.
515.................................... Broadcasting (except Internet)......... 0 0
516.................................... Internet Publishing and Broadcasting... 0 0
517.................................... Telecommunications..................... 6 3
518.................................... Internet Service Providers, Web Search 0 0
Portals, and Data Processing Services.
519.................................... Other Information Services............. 0 0
521.................................... Monetary Authorities--Central Bank..... 0 0
522.................................... Credit Intermediation and Related 0 0
Activities.
523.................................... Securities, Commodity Contracts, and 0 0
Other Financial Investments and
Related Activities.
524.................................... Insurance Carriers and Related 3 0
Activities.
525.................................... Funds, Trusts, and Other Financial 0 0
Vehicles.
531.................................... Real Estate............................ 10 9
532.................................... Rental and Leasing Services............ 0 0
533.................................... Lessors of Nonfinancial Intangible 0 0
Assets (except Copyrighted Works).
541.................................... Professional, Scientific, and Technical 7 10
Services.
551.................................... Management of Companies and Enterprises 0 0
561.................................... Administrative and Support Services.... 66 80
562.................................... Waste Management and Remediation 5 0
Services.
611.................................... Educational Services................... 0 0
621.................................... Ambulatory Health Care Services........ 0 0
622.................................... Hospitals.............................. 0 0
623.................................... Nursing and Residential Care Facilities 4 0
624.................................... Social Assistance...................... 0 3
711.................................... Performing Arts, Spectator Sports, and 6 3
Related Industries.
712.................................... Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar 0 0
Institutions.
713.................................... Amusement, Gambling, and Recreation 0 7
Industries.
721.................................... Accommodation.......................... 8 5
722.................................... Food Services and Drinking Places...... 4 7
811.................................... Repair and Maintenance................. 6 4
812.................................... Personal and Laundry Services.......... 0 0
813.................................... Religious, Grantmaking, Civic, 11 7
Professional, and Similar
Organizations.
Industry not specified \a\............. 57 55
-------------------------------
Total.............................. ....................................... 285 267
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes falls from ship, boat, not elsewhere classified. Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Directorate of
Evaluation and Analysis, Office of Regulatory Analysis, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics, Census of Fatal
Occupational Injuries, 2006 and 2007.

To assess the benefits of this rule, it is necessary to know not
only the total annual number of fall fatalities, but also the numbers
of various types of fall fatalities. Quantifying the various types of
fatal falls is necessary because the
proposal is expected to prevent fall fatalities to different degrees
for different kinds of falls. Table V-7 shows, for the eleven-year
period 1992 to 2002, the breakdown of fall fatalities by type of fall
based on CFOI data. As shown, falls to a lower level (distinguished
from falls on the same level) accounted for about 78 percent of total
fall fatalities. Overall, on average, falls to a lower level accounted
for 217 of the 279 fatal falls per year that occurred in general
industry establishments. On a sector-by-sector basis, falls to a lower
level as a percentage of all fatal falls ranged from 59 percent for the
retail trade sector to 95 percent for the agricultural services sector.
As the table also shows, fatal falls from ladders averaged 41 per year
over the eleven-year period, while fatal falls from scaffolds averaged
15 per year. The category of "other" falls to a lower level includes
falls from floors, docks, or ground level; falls from nonmoving
vehicles; and falls from building girders and other structural steel.

Table V-7--Fatal Falls by Type of Fall and Industry Sector, 1992 to 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Falls to a lower level
----------------------------------------------------------------
Industry sector All falls From a From a
Total ladder From a roof scaffold Other
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Fatal Falls, 1992 to 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agricultural services............. 366 348 47 11 3 287
Manufacturing..................... 665 535 80 64 75 316
Transportation, communications, 438 365 55 9 8 293
electric, gas, and sanitary
services.........................
Wholesale trade................... 196 163 22 10 0 131
Retail trade...................... 318 188 73 9 0 106
Finance, insurance, and real 138 111 37 14 0 60
estate...........................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Services.......................... 944 672 141 84 77 370
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 3,065 2,382 455 201 163 1,563
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Fatal Falls per Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agricultural services............. 33 32 4 1 0 26
Manufacturing..................... 60 49 7 6 7 29
Transportation, communications, 40 33 5 1 1 27
electric, gas, and sanitary
services.........................
Wholesale trade................... 18 15 2 1 0 12
Retail trade...................... 29 17 7 1 0 10
Finance, insurance, and real 13 10 3 1 0 5
estate...........................
Services.......................... 86 61 13 8 7 34
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 279 217 41 18 15 142
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Titles for industry sectors are taken from the SIC system of industry categorization. Source: ERG, 2007,
based on BLS, Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, 1992-2002.

Fall Injuries
Table V-8, based on BLS's 2007 Survey of Occupational Injuries and
Illnesses, shows the total number of lost workday injuries due to falls
in general industry, by type of fall. This table will form the basis
for OSHA's estimate of the number of lost-workday injuries prevented by
the proposal.
Table V-9, based on BLS's 2007 Survey of Occupational Injuries and
Illnesses, provides additional details about the lost-workday injury
rates for the two major categories of falls: falls to a lower level and
falls to the same level. Excluding industry groups where the data may
have been incomplete, the combined fall injury rate ranges from a low
of 2.5 cases per 10,000 workers in NAICS 523 (Securities, Commodity
Contracts, and Other Financial Investments and Related Activities) to a
high of 73.5 per 10,000 employees in NAICS 481 (Air Transportation). Of
the 78 affected industries with reported fall injury data, 25 had fall
injury rates in excess of 30 cases per 10,000 employees, while 23 had
fall injury rates between 20 and 30 cases per 10,000 employees.
Table V-10, also based on BLS's 2007 Survey of Occupational
Injuries and Illnesses, shows lost-workday fall-related injury rates by
specific type of fall, disaggregated by the major industry sectors
covered by the proposed standard. These statistics show that, unlike
fall fatalities, falls to a lower level represent a relatively small
share of injurious, non-fatal falls. For example, in manufacturing,
falls to the same level accounted for 68 percent of all falls resulting
in lost-workday injuries, while falls to a lower level accounted for
only 27 percent. The majority of accidents in the fall-to-same-level
category are characterized as a fall to a floor, walkway, or other
surface.
Table V-8--Estimated Annual Number of Lost-Workday Falls in Workplaces
Affected by the Proposed Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution of falls
Falls by type resulting in lost
workdays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Falls...................................... 215,807
Fall to lower level........................ 55,706
Fall down stairs or steps.............. 16,916
Fall from floor, dock, or ground level. 3,878
Fall from ladder....................... 12,472
Fall from piled or stacked material.... 283
Fall from roof......................... 959
Fall from scaffold, staging............ 434
Fall from building girders or other 131
structural steel......................
Fall from nonmoving vehicle............ 11,018
Fall to lower level, n.e.c. (a)................ 8,433
Fall to lower level, unspecified............... 1,192
Fall on same level............................. 152,788
Fall from ship, boat, n.e.c................ 30
Other falls................................ 7,281
------------------------
Total.............................. 215,807
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) n.e.c.--Not Elsewhere Classified
Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Directorate of Evaluation and
Analysis, Office of Regulatory Analysis, 2009, based on Bureau of
Labor Statistics, Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, 2007.

BILLING CODE 4510-29-P

TABLE V-9
Injuries for Falls -General Industry,2007
(Lost Work Day Cases per 10,000 Workers)

TABLE V-10
Fall Incidents by type of Fall and Sector,2007
(Lost Work Day Cases per 10,000 Workers)

BILLING CODE 4510-29-C

Among falls addressed by the proposed standards, the annual number
of falls to a lower level resulting in a lost-workday injury ranges
from 4.3 per 10,000 employees for the financial activities sector to
10.3 per 10,000 employees for the trade, transportation, and utility
sector. Among specific types of falls to a lower level, falls from
ladders represent 6.7 percent of all falls in manufacturing as
reflected in an injury rate of 1.3 cases per 10,000 employees. Among
other sectors, the injury rate from falls from ladders ranges from 0.4
per 10,000 employees in the education and health services sector to 2.5
per 10,000 employees in the trade, transportation, and utility sector.
In several sectors, falls down stairs or steps represent a major
share of injuries from falls to a lower level. The proposed
requirements for guardrails, handrails, and training would protect
employees from these types of falls. Falls from floor holes, loading
docks, roofs, and scaffolding are directly addressed by the proposed
standard, but constitute much smaller shares of nonfatal fall
accidents.
Fatalities and Injuries Prevented by the Proposed Subpart D and I
Standards
Fatalities Prevented
OSHA's proposed standards for subparts D and I contain safety
requirements designed to prevent, among other incidents, falls from
ladders, scaffolds, unguarded floor holes, and unprotected platform
edges. These types of falls are classified as "falls to lower level."
"Falls on the same level" include slips and trips from floor
obstructions or wet or slippery working surfaces. The proposal has
relatively few new provisions addressing falls on the same level.
Combining the data in Tables V-6 and V-7 with other fatality data
from BLS, Table V-11 shows the estimated number of annual fatalities
from falls in general industry. Based on 2006 and 2007 data, OSHA
calculated an average of 276 fatal falls per year. ERG allocated this
total among the different fall categories based on overall fatal fall
accident experience from 1992 to 2002 as derived from the BLS Census of
Fatal Occupational Injuries and summarized in Table V-7. On this basis,
an estimated 196 fatalities per year result from falls to lower level,
while the remaining 80 fatalities result from falls on the same level
or other types of falls.
In examining the costs of this proposal, ERG found, after reviewing
inspection results, that employers are generally in compliance with
existing standards that have been in place for over 30 years (see Table
V-15). However, this general compliance does not necessarily mean that
existing fall fatalities are not preventable by the existing standard.
For example, it could be the case that employers comply with a standard
99.9 percent of the time, but that all fatalities are the result of the
0.1 percent of the time employers are not in compliance. Thus, it is
possible for there to be a high level of compliance with a standard,
but for all fatalities, nevertheless, to be the result of non-
compliance with that standard.

Table V-11--Fatalities Potentially Prevented As a Result of Compliance With the Proposed Standard for Subparts D and I
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Falls by type Distribution of Estimated annual Incremental preventability of the proposed standard Annual fatalities
fatal falls by number of fatal potentially
type falls by type prevented by the
proposed standard
(a)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fall to lower level...................... 100.0% 196
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fall down stairs or steps............ 4.2% 8 Low.............................. 5.0% 0.4
Fall from floor, dock, or ground 5.1% 10 High............................. 10.0% 1.0
level.
Fall from ladder..................... 18.6% 36 High............................. 15.0% 5.5
Fall from piled or stacked material.. 0.1% 0 High............................. 10.0% 0
Fall from roof....................... 8.9% 17 High............................. 15.0% 2.6
Fall from scaffold, staging.......... 8.6% 17 Very High........................ 40.0% 6.7
Fall from building girders or other 0.8% 2 High............................. 10.0% 0.2
structural steel.
Fall from nonmoving vehicle.......... 15.8% 31 No............................... 0.0% 0
Fall to lower level, n.e.c........... 23.1% 45 Uncertain........................ 2.5% 1.1
Fall to lower level, unspecified..... 14.6% 29 Uncertain........................ 2.5% 0.7
Fall from ship, boat, n.e.c.............. ................. 27 Low.............................. 5.0% 1.4
Other falls.......................... ................. 8 Very Low......................... 0.0% 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals........................... ................. 230 196 ................................. ................. 20.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to rounding, figures may not sum to totals shown.
(a) Prevented fatalities were calculated as the product of annual fatal falls and incremental preventability rate, by type.
Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, 2009, based on ERG, 2007; OSHA IMIS, 1995-2001; and Bureau of Labor Statistics, Census
of Fatal Occupational Injuries, 1992-2007.

For the purposes of this analysis, OSHA did not attempt a
quantitative analysis of how many fatal falls could be prevented by
full and complete compliance with the existing standard. However, a
qualitative examination of the fatal falls to a lower level shows that
a majority, and perhaps a large majority, could be prevented by full
compliance with the existing regulations. For this analysis, OSHA and
ERG have taken the approach that, for current levels of enforcement,
existing fall fatality rates can be used as a baseline from which to
measure the impacts of the proposal in reducing falls. This is because
the existing fall fatality rate reasonably represents what is
preventable with the existing rules and the existing degree of
enforcement and compliance with these rules.
A comparison of the proposed and existing standards shows that the
new provisions largely concern training and inspections, rather than
requirements for additional or more stringent engineering or work
practice controls (see section F below in this PEA). In addition, the
new standard serves to
simplify and clarify the existing standard and bring the existing
standard into conformance with various voluntary standards. The
benefits in terms of reductions in fatal falls can be expected to come
in the form of the effects of increased training, inspections, and
certifications in preventing falls, many of which are preventable by
existing regulations which are not being fully followed. OSHA believes
that the proposed requirements for training, inspections, and
certifications can serve to improve safety and also compliance with
existing requirements.
OSHA based its analysis of accident preventability on ERG's
professional judgment and two published studies. The studies show that
well-designed training programs are an effective means of improving
workplace safety. A NIOSH review of the literature concerning the
benefits of training reported that the studies were nearly unanimous in
showing that improved and expanded training increases hazard awareness
and promotes the adoption of safe work practices. However, the
quantitative relationship between increased training and reduced
accident rates remains uncertain (Cohen and Colligan, 1988, Ex. 7);
analysis of past OSHA experience shows that requiring training programs
does not lead to preventing the majority of accidents addressed by the
training (Seong and Mendeloff, 2004, Ex. 8). For this reason, ERG
concluded that the incremental benefits from the proposed standards
would be modest (ERG, 2007, Ex. 6).
ERG estimated the number of fatal falls that would be prevented
through compliance with the proposed standards, categorized by type of
fall. Since proposed subpart D focuses heavily on ladder safety, ERG
estimated the highest preventability impact--15 percent--for falls from
ladders. For other types of falls directly addressed in the proposal
(e.g., falls from floor or dock), ERG estimated a moderately high
preventability impact of 10 percent. For types of falls less directly
or comprehensively addressed in the proposal (e.g., falls down stairs
or steps), ERG estimated a relatively low preventability impact (5
percent). Several classes of falls are not specifically defined by the
BLS injury survey, and for these, ERG estimated a low level of
preventability (2.5 percent). (See ERG, 2007, Ex. 6, p. 4-10 to 4-14.)
For falls from roofs, ERG assigned a preventability rate of 10
percent. OSHA believes that compliance with the provisions in proposed
subpart D addressing safety systems, work practices, and training
associated with the fall hazards encountered on roof surfaces--
including the requirements referenced in consensus standards such as
ANSI/ASSE A1264.1-2007, Safety Requirements for Workplace Walking/
Working Surfaces and Their Access; Workplace, Floor, Wall and Roof
Openings; Stairs and Guardrail Systems--will yield a preventability
rate comparable to that estimated for ladders: 15 percent. Therefore,
in this preliminary analysis of benefits, OSHA has applied a
preventability rate of 15 percent to roof accidents.
For falls from scaffolds or staging, ERG assigned a preventability
rate of 10 percent. In light of the substantial strengthening of the
fall protection requirements for rope descent systems (RDS), specified
in proposed paragraph 1910.27(b), OSHA believes that a preventability
rate much higher than 10 percent can be applied to scaffold accidents.
Because, according to OSHA and BLS accident data, approximately 40
percent of lost-workday scaffold accidents involve rope descent
systems, and due to the proposed standard's comprehensive approach to
RDS fall protection, OSHA estimates that at least 40 percent of deaths
and injuries associated with scaffolds (including non-RDS scaffolds)
will be prevented by the proposed standard. OSHA's rationale for
assigning this preventability rate to scaffolds is discussed
immediately below. All of the fall preventability factors are presented
in Table V-11.
As shown in Table V-11, falls from scaffolds or staging are one of
the leading types of fall categories in general industry. According to
the Bureau of Labor Statistics, falls from scaffolds or staging caused
an annual average of 18 deaths and 1,474 lost-workday injuries over a
recent eleven-year period (1992-2002). OSHA reviewed a subset of
scaffold accidents recorded in the Agency's Integrated Management
Information System (IMIS) inspection database to expand ERG's analysis
of the extent to which the proposed standard would prevent accidents
involving commercial window washing, and to gain more general insights
into the preventability of fatal falls (OSHA, 2009).
OSHA reviewed 36 incidents (some involving multiple casualties)
that occurred during the period January 1995 to October 2001 (5 years
and 10 months), where workers in general industry were either injured
or killed from a fall from an elevated scaffold or a similar surface
during commercial window washing operations. OSHA's analysis is
presented in Table V-12. In reviewing each incident description, OSHA
evaluated the probability that the incident would have been prevented
by one of the following:
1. The existing standard for walking-working surfaces;
2. ANSI/IWCA I-14.1, Window Cleaning Safety Standard, an earlier
version of which is referenced in a 1991 OSHA memorandum to regional
administrators on the use of descent control devices (rope descent
systems) by employees performing building exterior cleaning,
inspection, and maintenance (OSHA, 1991a); or
3. The proposed standard.
Table V-12, below, summarizes OSHA's analysis of IMIS window
cleaning accidents. Of the 36 window washing incidents in the database,
21 incidents were caused by a malfunction in, or unsafe use of, rope
descent systems (including lifelines). Because the existing standard
for walking-working surfaces lacks provisions that directly address
rope descent systems (RDS), OSHA believes that none of the RDS
incidents would have been prevented by full compliance with the current
rule.

Table V-12--Fall Incidents Associated With the Use of Scaffolds During Window Cleaning
[OSHA IMIS, 1995-2001]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidents potentially preventable by:
-----------------------------------------------
Cause of incident Existing Proposed
standard OSHA 1991 memo standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Malfunction/Mishandling of Rope Descent System or Lifelines..... N/A 19 21
Anchorage Failure............................................... N/A 7 8
Inadequate Training............................................. N/A 12 14
Other Factors (suspension scaffold hardware, manlift, powered 4 N/A 6
platform, roof top equipment, safety belt).....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*N = 36. Some incidents are assigned to more than one category.
Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, and Office of Regulatory Analysis, 2009.
Of the 21 RDS incidents in the database, in OSHA's judgment, 19 of
them would have been prevented if the employer had adhered to the
safety recommendations specified in OSHA's 1991 window cleaning
memorandum, which in turn refers to an existing consensus standard. The
remaining two RDS incidents, in OSHA's estimation, would not be
prevented by the current OSHA standard and the existing consensus
standards, but would be prevented by the proposed standard (in addition
to the other 19 RDS incidents prevented by the proposed standard).
One of the primary causes of accidents in commercial window washing
is the failure of the rooftop anchorage to support the suspended
scaffold. The proposed standard requires that employers use proper
rigging, including sound anchorages and tiebacks, when rope descent
systems are used. OSHA identified eight incidents in the IMIS database
where anchorage failure contributed to the accident. In OSHA's
judgment, all eight anchorage-related incidents involved factors that
are addressed by the proposed standard and therefore are potentially
preventable. All but one of these eight incidents involved factors
addressed by the 1991 memo.
As noted earlier in this section, when workers are adequately
trained--for example in the proper use of harnesses and lifelines--
accidents are less likely to occur. OSHA identified fourteen incidents
in the IMIS database where, if workers had applied the lessons provided
in the kind of training prescribed in the proposed standard, death or
injury to the worker might have been prevented. Of these fourteen
cases, twelve involved factors that are addressed by the 1991 memo.
Other factors that led to a fall from elevation, such as equipment
failure involving suspension scaffolds and powered platforms,
contributed to the death or injury of workers during window washing
operations. These incidents are recognized in the fourth row of Table
V-12.
OSHA believes that this analysis illustrates some of the
complexities in assigning benefits to this standard. Chief among these
complexities is the argument that full compliance with the proposed
standard will prevent fatalities not preventable by the existing
standard due to the proposed addition of major provisions addressing
window washing.
Secondly, there is the question of the proper baseline for such an
analysis. OSHA may not have any rule addressing RDS systems or
anchorages for these and other suspended scaffolds, but there are
consensus standards and OSHA enforcement policies that apply OSHA's
general duty clause when existing standards may not apply. The changes
from a baseline of current enforcement practice are much more marginal
than if no standards or enforcement initiatives existed for a
particular hazard. Nevertheless, a simple comparative prevention table
of this kind may not capture the difference between occasional
enforcement using the general duty clause and consensus standards, and
enforcement of an actual standard. Adopting the additional protections
afforded by consensus standards and materials referenced in general
duty citations into a standard make the information more available,
assures that everyone affected can readily consult the relevant rules,
and simplifies enforcement. These are desirable ends even if no
additional fatalities are prevented, and probably would serve to
prevent some current fatalities and injuries.
Thirdly, there is the issue, already discussed above, of how to
treat the benefits of training requirements. OSHA normally assumes for
the purposes of both benefit and cost analysis, that there is full
compliance with a rule. For some kinds of rules, it can readily be
determined if full compliance with the rule would have prevented an
accident. However, for training rules, it is not at all obvious that
full compliance--assuming training is given--will prevent accidents
that the training is designed to address (Seong and Mendeloff, 2004).
OSHA has made a relatively low estimate of the effects of such training
requirements in Table V-11. The approach used in Table V-12 suggests
that a much higher estimate might be made if employees are assumed to
act as they have been trained to act.
Finally, the proposed standard inevitably builds, for the most
part, on an existing framework. The existing framework, if fully
followed, would prevent many accidents. While the new regulation adds
new kinds of provisions, it also tries to improve compliance with the
existing regulation in a variety of ways. Ways in which it may improve
compliance include additional training; additional certification;
bringing into the regulatory framework materials and ideas from
consensus standards; and codifying existing enforcement practice. Steps
of this kind have a variety of desirable, though difficult-to-quantify
effects.
Based on ERG's estimates, and applying the preventability rate for
scaffolds as explained above, OSHA concluded that the proposed
standards would prevent 20 fall fatalities a year, or approximately 9
percent of the fatal falls in general industry that would be addressed
by the proposed standard. OSHA believes that this is a conservative
estimate, in that the training and work practices specified in this
proposal would likely improve the use and application of safety
equipment (including personal fall protection equipment), thereby
further reducing fatalities and injuries.
OSHA requests comment on the Agency's analysis of scaffold
accidents described above and on the various approaches to measuring
potential benefits achievable from compliance with the proposed
standard in addition to those described in Tables V-11, V-12 (above),
and V-13 (below).
Injuries Prevented
For the purposes of estimating the number of lost workday injuries
that might be prevented by the proposed standards, OSHA used the same
preventability factors for the proposal as for fatal falls,
and applied them to lost workday injuries involving falls.
Table V-13 shows, by type of fall, the distribution of lost-
workday injuries for general industry; these injury categories were
presented earlier in this section in Table V-8. The BLS data show that,
for non-fatal falls to a lower level, 30.4 percent of injuries are due
to falls down stairs or steps, while 22.4 percent are the result of
falls from ladders. Applying these and other fall injury rates (see
Table V-10) to the estimates of total employment within affected
sectors in general industry (see Table V-1), OSHA estimates that, on
average, 63,028 lost-workday fall injuries occur each year for work
operations directly affected by the proposed revisions to subparts D
and I. Using the same preventability estimates that were applied to
fatal incidents, OSHA estimates that 3,706 lost-workday fall injuries
would be prevented annually through compliance with the proposed
revisions to subparts D and I.

Table V-13--Nonfatal Lost-Workday Injuries Potentially Prevented As a Result of Compliance with the Proposed Standard for Subparts D and I
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Falls by type Distribution of Estimated annual Incremental preventability of the Annual nonfatal
falls resulting number of proposed standard injuries
in lost nonfatal falls, potentially
workdays, by by type prevented by the
type proposed
standard (a)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fall to lower level........................ 100.0% 55,716
Fall down stairs or steps.............. 30.4% 16,916 Low................................ 5.0% 846
Fall from floor, dock, or ground level. 7.0% 3,878 High............................... 10.0% 388
Fall from ladder....................... 22.4% 12,472 High............................... 15.0% 1,871
Fall from piled or stacked material.... 0.5% 283 High............................... 10.0% 28
Fall from roof......................... 1.7% 959 High............................... 15.0% 144
Fall from scaffold, staging............ 0.8% 434 Very High.......................... 40.0% 174
Fall from building girders or other 0.2% 131 High............................... 10.0% 13
structural steel.
Fall from nonmoving vehicle............ 19.8% 11,018 No................................. 0.0% 0
Fall to lower level, n.e.c............. 15.1% 8,433 Uncertain.......................... 2.5% 211
Fall to lower level, unspecified....... 2.1% 1,192 Uncertain.......................... 2.5% 30
Fall from ship, boat, n.e.c............ ................ 30 Low................................ 5.0% 2
Other falls............................ ................ 7,281 Very Low........................... 0.0% 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals..................................... ................ 63,028 55,716 ................................... ................ 3,706
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to rounding, figures may not sum to totals shown.
(a) Prevented injuries were calculated as the product of annual nonfatal falls and incremental preventability rate, by type.
Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, 2009, based on ERG, 2007; OSHA IMIS, 1995-2001; and Bureau of Labor Statistics, Survey
of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses: Case and Demographic Information, 2007.

Monetized Benefits, Net Benefits, and Cost Effectiveness
The previous section showed that OSHA estimates that compliance
with the proposed standards will prevent 20 deaths and 3,706 lost
workday injuries each year. Consistent with other regulatory analyses
recently issued by OSHA, the Agency has assigned a dollar value to
these safety benefits.
In estimating the value of preventing a fatality, OSHA has followed
the approach established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). EPA's Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses provides a
detailed review of the methods for estimating mortality risk values and
summarizes the values obtained in the literature (EPA, 2000).
Synthesizing the results from 26 relevant studies, EPA arrived at a
mean value of a statistical life (VSL) of $4.8 million (in 1990
dollars). EPA recommends this central estimate, updated for inflation
(the value is $7.2 million in 2008 dollars), for application in
regulatory analyses. This VSL estimate is also within the range of the
substantial majority of such estimates in the literature ($1 million to
$10 million per statistical life), as discussed in OMB Circular A-4
(OMB, 2003). Applying a VSL of $7.2 million to the estimated number of
prevented fatalities, OSHA estimates that the dollar value of the
benefits from compliance with proposed subparts D and I will be $144
million annually.
OSHA also reviewed the available research literature regarding the
dollar value of preventing an injury. Kip Viscusi and Joseph Aldy
conducted a critical review of 39 studies estimating the value of a
statistical injury (Viscusi and Aldy, 2003, Ex. 9). In their paper,
Viscusi and Aldy reviewed the available willingness to pay (WTP)
literature to identify a suitable range of estimates; using WTP to
value non-fatal injuries is the approach recommended in OMB Circular A-
4.
Viscusi and Aldy found that most studies resulted in estimates in
the range of $20,000 to $70,000 per injury, although several studies
resulted in even higher estimates. This range of values is partly
explained by the fact that some studies used an overall injury rate,
and others used only injuries resulting in lost workdays. The injuries
that would be prevented by these proposed standards often involve
hospitalization and, therefore, are likely to be more severe than the
majority of lost workday injuries. In addition, injuries resulting from
falls involve more pain and suffering, more expensive treatments, and
generally longer recovery periods than other lost workday injuries.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ In 2007, the median number of days away from work was 15
days for falls to a lower level, whereas the median number of days
away from work for all events or exposures leading to injury or
illness was 7 days (BLS, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thus, it is reasonable to believe that the value of a statistical
injury for this rulemaking will be in the upper part of the reported
range of estimates. Nevertheless, OSHA has conservatively used a mid-
range estimate--$50,000--to assess monetized benefits for this
preliminary analysis. Thus, with 3,706 injuries a year potentially
prevented by the proposed standards, OSHA estimates that the dollar
value of prevented injuries through compliance
with proposed subparts D and I will total $185.3 million annually.
OSHA estimates that the combined dollar value of prevented
fatalities and injuries through compliance with the proposed revisions
to subparts D and I will total $328.5 million per year. Comparing gross
monetized benefits with costs of compliance, OSHA estimates that the
net monetized benefits of the proposed standards will be $155.4
million, after rounding ($328.5 million in benefits--$173.2 million in
costs). OSHA notes that these net benefits exclude any unquantified
benefits associated with revising the standards to provide updated,
clear, and consistent requirements. OSHA requests comments from the
public regarding these figures and any benefits estimates presented in
this section. Table V-14 summarizes the costs, benefits, net benefits,
and cost effectiveness of the proposed standard.
There are other benefits of the proposal that OSHA has neither
quantified nor monetized. First, OSHA has not attempted to estimate the
number of fall injuries prevented that do not result in lost workdays.
Second, OSHA has not attempted to estimate the improvements in
efficiency of compliance associated with clarifying the existing rule
and bringing it into closer correspondence with current voluntary
standards.

Table V-14--Net Benefits and Cost Effectiveness of the Proposed Revision
to OSHA's Walking-Working Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1910.22 General $15.7 million.
Requirements.
Sec. 1910.23 Ladders........... $9.7 million.
Sec. 1910.24 Step Bolts and $3.7 million.
Manhole Steps.
Sec. 1910.27 Scaffolds......... $73.0 million.
Sec. 1910.28 Duty to Have Fall $0.09 million.
Protection.
Sec. 1910.29 Fall Protection $8.4 million.
Systems Criteria and Practices.
Sec. 1910.30 Training $44.1 million.
Requirements.
Sec. 1910.140 Fall Protection.. $18.5 million.
----------------------------------
Total Annual Costs........... $173.2 million.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Injuries Prevented..... 3,706.
Number of Fatalities Prevented... 20.
Monetized Benefits (assuming $50,000 $328.5 million.
per injury and $7.2 million per
fatality prevented).
OSHA standards that are updated and Unquantified.
consistent with voluntary standards.
----------------------------------
Net Benefits (benefits minus $155.4 million.
costs).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Effectiveness: Compliance with the proposed standards would result
in the prevention of 1 fatality and 231 injuries for every $10 million
in costs, or alternatively, $1.90 in benefits per dollar of costs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Directorate of Evaluation and
Analysis, Office of Regulatory Analysis, 2009.

Sensitivity of Estimates
OSHA's benefits estimates are most sensitive when it comes to
estimating the percentage of current injuries and fatalities that can
be avoided by full compliance with the proposed standard. OSHA closely
examined available reports of fatalities related to the provisions in
the existing and proposed standards and found that 20 fatalities, or
approximately 9 percent of fall fatalities, would be prevented if
employers comply with the measures in the proposal. The true benefits
of the proposal depend on how well the cases reviewed represent actual
fall-related fatalities in general industry.
The Agency believes that its estimate of annual fatalities
involving slips, trips, and falls (about 230) in general industry is
much less sensitive than the estimate of the percentage of fatalities
avoided, because the estimate of the annual number of baseline
fatalities is derived from 2 years of recent accident data with
averages corroborated by 11 prior years of data. Furthermore, as noted
earlier, OSHA believes that its benefits estimates are conservatively
low. Accordingly, training and work practices specified in this
proposal would likely improve the use and application of safety
equipment (including personal fall protection equipment), thereby
further reducing fatalities and injuries.
In addition to estimating annualized costs using a discount rate of
seven percent, OSHA, for sensitivity purposes, applied an alternative
discount rate of three percent to up-front costs. Under the alternative
scenario of a three-percent discount rate, OSHA estimates that
annualized costs would decline from $173.2 million to $168.8 million.
For both this scenario and for the primary (seven-percent rate)
scenario, OSHA assumed that all costs (first-year and recurring) will
be incurred upon implementation of the final standard (i.e., there are
no phase-in provisions). OSHA is also assuming that the benefits
outlined in this section will accrue once the rule takes effect.
According to the Agency's models for estimating costs and monetized
benefits, the proposed standard generates considerable positive net
benefits; that is, expected benefits are much greater than expected
costs. Only significant errors in OSHA's analysis would bring true net
benefits to or below zero. For net benefits to fall to zero, for
example, the Agency would have had to underestimate the number of
buildings with anchorages subject to inspection and certification by
two-fold (from about 750,000 buildings to 1.5 million buildings), and
would also have had to underestimate the number of employees who would
require training by three-fold (from 363,000 to 1.09 million). In that
case, estimated compliance costs would rise to roughly $334 million
annually, or about equal to the value of estimated monetary benefits.
Alternatively, true net benefits would decline to zero if, for example,
the Agency has overestimated injuries prevented by the standard by at
least a factor of five or more (actual prevented injuries are
approximately 599, down from 3,706 as estimated in this PEA).

E. Technological Feasibility

Based on the substantial evidence collected throughout the history
of this rulemaking, including the data and comments submitted to the
record in response to the earlier proposed standard published on April
10, 1990, and the notice of re-opening of the record on May 2, 2003,
OSHA has determined that compliance with the proposed revisions to
subparts D, I, and other subparts in part 1910 (general industry), as
described in this proposed rule, is technologically feasible. The
details of this conclusion with regard to specific requirements are
presented in this subsection.
General Requirements (Sec. 1910.22)
Section 1910.22 of proposed subpart D revises existing requirements
addressing housekeeping, safe aisles and passageways, covers and
guardrails, and floor loading protection, and introduces new
requirements associated with broad areas of safety on walking-working
surfaces. Proposed paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) address,
respectively, surface conditions, application of loads, access and
egress, and maintenance and repair.
Proposed paragraph (a) requires that all walking-working surfaces
be designed, constructed, and maintained free of hazards that can
result in death or serious injury to employees. Data in OSHA's
inspection file analyzed by ERG (ERG, 2007, Ex. 6) indicate a high
level of compliance with similar requirements in existing subpart D,
suggesting that there have been few if any technical challenges to
employers; therefore, this provision is technologically feasible.
Proposed paragraph Sec. 1910.22(b) requires that all walking-
working surfaces be designed, constructed, and maintained to support
their maximum intended load and that the maximum intended load not be
exceeded when employees use that surface. This language restates and
simplifies the current regulatory, text and should not present any
technological feasibility difficulties.
Proposed paragraph Sec. 1910.22(c) requires that employers ensure
that employees can safely move from one surface to another. Although
new, this requirement will, in OSHA's judgment, not impose any duties
on employers beyond the limits of feasibility.
Proposed paragraph Sec. 1910.22(d) requires that all walking and
working surfaces be regularly inspected, maintained, and repaired by,
or under the supervision of, qualified persons (as defined by the
proposed standard), and that all hazardous conditions be corrected,
repaired, or guarded to prevent employee use until repairs are made.
The inspection, maintenance, repair, and guarding of surfaces can be
accomplished with technologically feasible and currently available
methods.
Ladders (Sec. 1910.23)
Proposed section 1910.23 covers ladders. Proposed Sec. 1910.23(a)
specifies that the section applies to all ladders except for ladders
that are used only for firefighting or rescue operations and ladders
that are designed into a machine or piece of equipment. Proposed Sec.
1910.23(b) provides general requirements for all ladders; proposed
paragraph (c) addresses portable ladders; proposed paragraph (d)
presents standards for fixed ladders; and proposed paragraph (e)
addresses mobile ladder stands and mobile ladder stand platforms. The
requirements in this proposed section are partly based on current
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards, designated A14
series. The ANSI standards provide guidelines for industry and are
generally compatible with current industry practices and technology.
Since virtually all manufactured ladders are already made and tested to
meet the ANSI standards, OSHA anticipates few problems regarding
technological feasibility.
Most of the requirements for ladders in the proposed revision to
subpart D do not represent any change from existing OSHA requirements.
For both current and new requirements, existing and readily available
technology is capable of meeting or exceeding the design and strength
criteria specified for ladders. The proposed language is intended to be
clearer and more concise than the current regulatory text. Moreover,
greater compliance flexibility has been introduced into the standard,
such as in the case of the range provided in the spacing requirements
for rungs, cleats, and steps (see proposed Sec. 1910.23(b)).
Comments submitted to the docket in response to the 1990 proposed
rule generally confirmed OSHA's preliminary conclusion that compliance
with the proposed requirements for ladders would be technologically
feasible. Although several commenters addressed the appropriateness or
the costs associated with the proposed ladder requirements, the
technological feasibility of the requirements was not questioned.
Training in the proper care, use, and inspection of ladders is
grouped with other training requirements under proposed Sec. 1910.30.
Compliance with these proposed training requirements does not require
any additional or new technology.
Step Bolts and Manhole Steps (Sec. 1910.24)
Provisions in revised subpart D for step bolts and manhole steps
provide basic criteria for the safe design, construction, and use of
these components. For example, proposed Sec. 1910.24(a)(2) specifies
that step bolts must be spaced uniformly, between 12 inches (30 cm) and
18 inches (46 cm) center to center, while proposed Sec.
1910.24(b)(2)(iv) would require that manhole steps be spaced uniformly,
not more than 16 inches (41 cm) apart. Although these proposed
requirements would be new to subpart D, the engineering criteria are
based on consensus standards established by the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM), which have been widely adopted throughout
industry. Therefore, OSHA believes that existing technology is capable
of meeting these performance criteria and can be feasibly applied.
Stairways (Sec. 1910.25)
Proposed Sec. 1910.25 describes OSHA safety specifications for
stairs, and covers all types except stairs serving floating roof tanks;
stairs on scaffolds; stairs designed into machines or pieces of
equipment; and stairs on mechanized mobile equipment. Requirements in
this proposed section address the obligations to install handrails,
stair rail systems, and guardrail systems, as necessary. Other
requirements in this proposed section describe design specifications
such as the appropriate load capacities that stairs must be able to
support, minimum vertical clearances for different types of stairs, the
height of risers, the depth of treads, and the proper angle of stairs.
These proposed requirements are not substantially different from those
of the existing standard, are drawn from NFPA and ANSI consensus codes,
and can be feasibly incorporated into industry practice with existing
technology.
Dockboards--Bridge Plates (Sec. 1910.26)
Proposed Sec. 1910.26 provides for the safe movement of personnel
and equipment on dockboards and bridge plates, and would relocate,
update, and clarify requirements for dockboards located in existing
Sec. 1910.30, Other working surfaces. These surfaces must be designed,
constructed, and maintained to support their maximum intended load and
prevent equipment from running off the edge.
According to proposed paragraph Sec.
1910.26(c), portable dockboards must be secured with anchors or other
means, where feasible, to prevent displacement while in use. Other
requirements in this proposed section prevent the sudden displacement
of vehicles on dockboards that are in use, and direct the provision of
handholds or other means for safe handling. Compliance with the revised
requirements for dockboards and bridge plates do not necessitate the
use of any new technologies, materials, or production methods, and is
thus technologically feasible.
Scaffolds and Rope Descent Systems (Sec. 1910.27)
Proposed Sec. 1910.27 would introduce to subpart D the current
requirements for scaffolds in the construction standards. Thus, for
revised subpart D, OSHA proposes to directly reference subpart L in
part 1926. In addition, new requirements for rope descent systems would
ensure daily inspection; proper rigging; the provision of a separate
personal fall arrest system; minimum strength criteria for lines used
to handle loads; establishment of rescue procedures; effective padding
of ropes; and stabilization for descents greater than 130 feet.
Although new to subpart D, these and other specifications for the safe
use of scaffolds have been recognized throughout industry for many
years, owing to the publication of ANSI I-14.1-2001, Window Cleaning
Safety (Ex. 10), and a March 12, 1991, OSHA memorandum to Regional
Administrators addressing the ANSI standard and the provisions listed
above (Ex. OSHA-S029-2006-0662-0019). Therefore, OSHA judges the
requirements in this new section on scaffolds to be technologically
feasible.
Duty To Have Fall Protection (Sec. 1910.28)
Proposed Sec. 1910.28 restates, clarifies, and adds flexibility
and consistency to existing OSHA requirements for providing fall
protection to employees. In addition to general requirements for the
strength and structural integrity of walking-working surfaces, this
proposed section also includes detailed specifications on the following
surfaces for which employers have a duty to provide fall protection:
Unprotected sides and edges;
Holes;
Dockboards (bridge plates);
Runways and similar walkways;
Dangerous equipment;
Wall openings;
Repair, service, and assembly pits four to ten feet in depth;
Fixed ladders;
Outdoor advertising structures (billboards);
Stairways;
Scaffolds and rope descent systems; and
Walking-working surfaces not otherwise addressed.
Hazards on walking-working surfaces can include the accidental
displacement of materials and equipment. To prevent objects from
falling to lower levels and to protect employees from the hazards of
falling objects, proposed Sec. 1910.28(c) provides for head
protection, screens, toeboards, canopy structures, barricades, and
other measures.
The revised subpart D standard reaffirms the existing Agency
interpretation and enforcement practice that fall protection is
generally required for fall hazards associated with unprotected sides
or edges of any surface presenting a fall hazard of four feet or more.
In this regard, the obligation of employers to provide fall protection
has not substantially changed through the revision of subpart D.
Whereas the existing requirements specify that employees must be
protected by installing standard guardrail systems or equivalent
systems, the revised standard more clearly allows employers to provide
fall protection through any of several methods, including guardrails,
personal fall arrest systems, and safety nets. OSHA recognizes that
some work surfaces may present difficult challenges when fall
protection must be applied. One commenter (Ex. OSHA-S041-2006-0666-
0194) pointed out that maintenance work may sometimes require that
employees be located on equipment such as compressors, turbines, or
pipe racks at elevations in the range of four to ten feet above lower
surfaces, and that guardrails, platforms, ladders, or tying off would
not always be possible in such situations. OSHA notes that its
enforcement procedures allow special consideration in unique
circumstances when compliance with a particular standard may not be
feasible or appropriate.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ See OSHA's Field Operation Manual: https://www.osha.gov/
OshDoc/Directive_pdf/CPL_02-00-148.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In general, with few exceptions, employers should be able to
address and eliminate employee exposures to potential slip, trip, and
fall hazards by planning and designing facilities and work procedures
in anticipation of providing employees with adequate protection from
those hazards. Based on widespread baseline industry practice, the
proposed fall protection requirements are, in OSHA's estimation,
technologically feasible.
Fall Protection Systems Criteria and Practices (Sec. 1910.29);
Training Requirements (Sec. 1910.30); General Requirements [for
Personal Protective Equipment]; Hazard Assessment and Training (Sec.
1910.132); and Personal Fall Protection Systems
Fall Protection Criteria (Sec. 1910.140)
In proposed Sec. 1910.29, OSHA specifies or provides references
for revised criteria for fall protection systems such as guardrail
systems, handrails, stair rail systems, toeboards, designated areas,
restraint line systems, and safety net systems. Criteria for personal
fall protection systems are provided in proposed Sec. 1910.140, a new
section that would be added to current subpart I.
With regard to guardrail systems, the revised subpart D standard
does not substantially modify existing requirements involving height,
strength, or other criteria. Some guardrails in violation of existing
standards are granted an exception under the revised standard, and in
some circumstances for which the existing standard requires guardrails
(or equivalent protection), the revised standard allows the alternative
of using designated areas.
Rather than explicitly mandating the use of a midrail in the design
of a guardrail system as in the existing subpart D standard, the
revised subpart D standard uses performance-oriented criteria that
allow midrails, screens, mesh, intermediate vertical members, or
equivalent intermediate structural members. Compliance with the
existing standard would generally also meet the requirements of the
revised standard. Furthermore, the revised standard allows the employer
to choose any of a wide variety of currently used and readily available
guardrail system materials and designs to meet the performance-oriented
criteria. Based on these considerations, revisions to the existing
subpart D requirements for guardrail systems do not involve any
technological feasibility constraints.
Proposed paragraph Sec. 1910.29(c) would reference the
construction standards to specify criteria for safety net systems. The
criteria for safety nets established through this proposed rulemaking
would include requirements for drop tests and inspections for each
safety net installation. Other criteria for safety nets established
through provisions of the revised subpart D involve design and strength
standards. All of these criteria are currently achieved by existing and
commonly available safety net systems.
The revised requirements for the installation of safety net systems
reflect basic safety considerations that have been adopted
by manufacturers of equipment and by employers.
Readily available and currently used technology is capable of meeting
these proposed requirements.
The revised subpart D standard introduces the concept of designated
areas (proposed Sec. 1910.29(d)) as a means of fall protection
available to employers as an option in addition to other acceptable
fall protection measures in certain circumstances. The technology
necessary to implement this option consists of basic materials such as
rope, wire, or chain, and supporting stanchions. The criteria specified
in the revised standard for designated areas such as for strength,
height, and visibility are capable of being achieved with currently
available materials and technology.
Requirements for covers for holes in floors, roofs, and other
walking-working surfaces in the revised standard for fall protection
systems (see proposed Sec. 1910.29 (e)) are similar to those in the
existing subpart D standard, with the exception of new provisions for
visible warnings and measures to prevent accidental displacement. The
performance-oriented criteria applicable to covers allow a wide variety
of technological solutions to be applied.
Requirements in revised subpart D for handrail and stair rail
systems (Sec. 1910.30(f)) specify criteria for height, strength,
finger clearance, and type of surface, among others. These criteria are
currently being met with existing technology, and a wide variety of
different materials and designs are available to comply with the
requirements.
Proposed Sec. 1910.29 contains design and strength criteria for
grab handles, cages, and wells. For the most part, these proposed
standards update and provide greater flexibility to existing
requirements in subpart D. A lone exception, a new requirement that
landing platforms for cages and wells have the same strength as
ladders, would not be expected to create feasibility concerns
considering the availability of appropriate materials and engineering
expertise.
Proposed new language for subpart D would clearly specify criteria
for systems that provide falling object protection. The provisions
addressing toeboards in the existing requirements have been re-written
in more flexible and concise language, while other requirements for
guardrail systems and canopies specified in the proposed design
criteria are within current engineering norms. Therefore, no
feasibility difficulties would be expected for the technology applied
to falling object protection.
Finally, the proposed standard would include requirements for
qualifying employees to climb ladders on outdoor advertising. Although
new to subpart D, the concept of qualified climbers and the training
and other administrative controls that characterize the development and
protection of these climbers, have existed for many years. OSHA
anticipates few if any technological hurdles for industry to implement
the proposed provisions for qualified climbers.
Hazard Assessment and Training
Proposed Sec. 1910.30 introduces requirements specifying that
employees be trained by a qualified person and that the training
prepare employees to recognize hazards created by the work environment
and equipment. As discussed above in the training section of this
preamble (Sec. 1910.30), this training requirement would apply only to
personal fall protection equipment and dockboards. Employees must be
retrained when changes occur in the workplace or in the types of fall
protection systems or equipment used, they exhibit an absence of
understanding and skill needed to recognize fall-related hazards, or
other circumstances indicate that employee safety may be in jeopardy.
The proposed revision to subpart I would introduce a requirement
that employers conduct hazard assessment and training in accordance
with the requirements in Sec. 1910.132(d) and (f) in workplaces where
fall protection PPE would be provided to employees. Survey data
indicate that a significant percentage of employers currently assess
the occupational fall hazards facing their employees, and that a
similarly large percentage of employers train their employees in the
proper use of fall protection PPE (OSHA, 1994). For employers that
would incur the administrative burden of this proposed requirement for
the first time after OSHA issues the final rule, OSHA anticipates that
there would be no technological difficulties to achieve compliance.
The revised subpart D standards include provisions for personal
fall protection systems, including components such as harnesses,
connectors, lifelines, lanyards, anchorages, and travel restraint
lines. The criteria that these components must meet when they are used
are included in proposed 29 CFR part 1910, Sec. 1910.140 of subpart I,
and are referenced in revised subpart D.
The revisions to the walking-working surfaces and fall protection
systems described in this proposal include revisions to several
subparts in 29 CFR part 1910 other than subparts D and I. For purposes
of this analysis, the determinations of technological feasibility
described in this PEA include the revisions proposed for these other
subparts.
The requirements applicable to personal fall protection systems
specified by this proposed rulemaking codify basic safety criteria for
these systems. These criteria reflect common industry safety practices,
and are met by equipment that is currently used and readily available.
The revised standards generally do not require changes in current
technology or current practices for employers who use standard safety
equipment and follow standard safety procedures. The technological
feasibility of the proposed requirements has been demonstrated by
current manufacturers of fall protection equipment, restraint line
systems, and controlled descent devices, and by the application of
these technologies in diverse industrial activities and circumstances.
In conclusion, OSHA has determined that the technological demands
placed upon employers through compliance with the proposed revisions to
subparts D, I, and other affected subparts of part 1910 can be feasibly
implemented within the schedule presented in this proposal. Therefore,
OSHA anticipates that there would be no technological hindrance to the
significant improvement of employee safety on walking and working
surfaces resulting from the issuance of this proposal.

F. Costs of Compliance

Introduction
This subsection presents OSHA's preliminary analysis of the
compliance costs associated with the proposed standards for walking-
working surfaces and fall protection in general industry. This cost
analysis begins with a discussion of the assumptions used in the
analysis. OSHA's preliminary analysis of compliance costs is largely
based on the cost analysis by OSHA's contractor, Eastern Research Group
(ERG, 2007, Ex. 6). The discussion focuses on what constitutes the
regulatory baseline (i.e., current conditions) from which the costs,
impacts, and benefits of the proposed rule are measured. The role of
consensus standards and the compliance rates for the existing rule
are also discussed for their impact on the cost analysis (i.e., where
codification of existing consensus standards result in no incremental
costs for the proposed rule).
Following the discussion of baseline assumptions, the next
subsection reviews the proposed rule on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis
for those paragraphs that potentially could result in costs to
industry. The final subsection examines one-time costs to bring
employers into compliance with the proposed rule, as well as the annual
costs for training new employees and retraining existing employees.
OSHA's cost estimates are presented by affected industry, and by
applicable provision. The final subsection concludes with a discussion
and tables that summarize the costs for each section of the proposed
standard, and aggregates them to estimate total costs.
Cost Assumptions
Baseline From Which Costs Are Estimated
The Office of Management and Budget's guidance on regulatory
analysis (OMB, 2003) recommends developing a baseline against which to
measure the costs and benefits of a rule. The baseline should be the
best assessment of conditions absent the proposed standard, and is
frequently assumed to resemble the present. The baseline for this
preliminary cost analysis, then, includes compliance rates with
existing subpart D and subpart I, as well as with national consensus
standards. For a discussion on the theoretical underpinnings for the
use of consensus standards as a baseline in OSHA's cost analysis, see
ERG, 2007 (Ex. 6).
ERG analyzed OSHA inspections for fiscal year 2005 that resulted in
a citation (OSHA, 2006a); see Table V-15. The first column in the table
presents cases where a citation was issued for any reason, and the
other columns in the table indicate cases of non-compliance with a
section of 29 CFR part 1910, subpart D. Conceivably, the non-compliance
rates in Table V-15 may be overstated because there are inspections
with no citations that are not included in this estimate.
Based on ERG's analysis, OSHA determined that upper-bound non-
compliance rates for floor guarding requirements in proposed Sec.
1910.23 vary by industry. For example, Finance, Insurance, and Real
Estate has the lowest non-compliance rate (2.8 percent), while
Wholesale Trade has the highest non-compliance rate (13.6 percent). For
the requirements for fixed industrial stairs, the non-compliance rates
are quite low, ranging from 0 percent (Finance, Insurance, and Real
Estate) to 2.7 percent (Wholesale Trade). For the remaining paragraphs
(portable wood ladders, portable metal ladders, fixed ladders,
scaffolding, and manually propelled mobile ladder stands and
scaffolds), non-compliance rates do not exceed 1.2 percent.
Thus, for Sec. 1910.25-.29, the assumption of 100 percent industry
compliance may be reasonable.\19\ That is, costs are only incurred when
the proposed requirements exceed, or would be more costly than, the
current requirements. However, where costs might be incurred under more
stringent proposed requirements, the upper-bound non-compliance rate
for existing requirements (i.e., the rates shown in Table V-15, applied
by sector) can be used as an estimate of the proportion of facilities
that might incur costs under the proposed rule. Although OSHA and ERG
use the term "upper-bound" here for theoretical and modeling
purposes, actual non-compliance rates for existing requirements may be
higher. OSHA requests comment on rates and levels of non-compliance
with respect to current requirements in subpart D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ Theoretically, the baseline assumption should be compliance
with the current standards. Costs for all industrial sectors to meet
the current standards were considered at the time the current
standards were promulgated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

If meeting an existing requirement would also meet the proposed
requirement, no costs were assigned by OSHA to the provision. For
example, the existing language for Sec. 1910.27(b)(1)(iii) states that
the clear length of a rung or cleat in a fixed ladder shall be a
minimum of 16 inches. Proposed Sec. 1910.23(b)(5)(ii) states that
fixed ladders used in the telecommunication industry must have a
minimum clear step or rung width of 12 inches. A telecommunication
ladder that meets existing requirements (16 inches) would also meet the
new requirements (a minimum of 12 inches); hence, no costs were
assigned to such changes. Later in this cost analysis, a detailed
provision-by-provision examination of potential costs will provide
further concrete examples of OSHA's application of estimates of current
industry compliance/practice.

BILLING CODE 4510-29-P

TABLE V-15
Compliance With Current 29 CFR 1910 Requirements

BILLING CODE 4510-29-C

Compliance Met by Least-Cost Method
Consistent with traditional cost-impact analyses, OSHA assumed that
employers will meet a regulatory requirement by choosing the least
expensive means to do so. Thus, if the proposed regulation identifies
several other means of meeting a requirement along with the current
method, the employer would be expected to select the least cost method.
Accordingly, if the alternative method specified in the proposed
regulation is more expensive than the current method, the employer
would be expected to use the current method to meet the requirement.
For example, under proposed Sec. 1910.29(b)(1), an employer can meet
the duty to have fall protection for an employee on a walking-working
surface with an unprotected edge by (1) the use of guard rail systems,
safety net systems, or personal fall arrest systems, or (2) having the
employee work in a designated area. The current standard only specifies
option (1). Therefore, OSHA assigned no costs to proposed Sec.
1910.29(b)(1).
In some cases there might be cost savings to an employer in
choosing the least-cost method for complying with a provision in the
proposed rule. However, those savings are not estimated in this report.
Compliance With National Consensus Standards
National consensus standards serve as the "baseline" against
which incremental costs and benefits of a proposed standard are
measured. If the proposed language requires a level of safety
equivalent to that in an existing consensus standard, then there is no
difference between the proposed regulatory language and the baseline,
except that the proposed standard would be mandatory rather than
voluntary. Thus, the costs are those associated with the change from a
voluntary standard to a mandatory standard. These costs would be
incurred only by that part of the population that currently does not
comply with voluntary standards. If, however, the proposed standard is
more stringent than the consensus standard, all employers would incur
compliance costs solely attributable to the proposed OSHA standard.
ERG developed a logic-flow diagram outlining the process for
identifying costs associated with new regulatory language (see ERG,
2007, Ex. 6, Figure 3-2). The starting point is a side-by-side,
provision-by-provision comparison of the existing and new regulatory
language. In many cases, the language might have changed to enhance
comprehension of the regulation without changing in the scope of
activities covered or the requirements for a safe workplace. In some
cases, the revised language gives the employer alternative methods of
compliance that provide protection for employees that is equivalent to
the original standard, and which result in de minimis costs to the
employer.
If there is a change from the existing to the proposed standard,
the second decision point is to determine whether the proposed standard
is equivalent to an existing consensus standard. If it is, then the
cost associated with the new standard is the change from a voluntary
standard to a mandatory standard. Table V-16 presents a listing of
national consensus standards and the associated section of the proposed
rule for subparts D and I. If the proposed rule does not contain more
stringent requirements than an existing national consensus standard,
and equipment purchased or installed meets these standards, no costs
were assigned to the proposed rule. However, for the portion of the
industry that is not currently complying with the voluntary standard,
costs represent compliance with the proposed standards. It can be
argued, however, that costs are attributable to the proposed standard
only if the employer has the option of not complying with the consensus
standard.
At the next decision point, the presence or absence of a
"grandfather" provision determines whether costs are incurred by
existing establishments to retrofit and upgrade to the new requirements
when the standard is implemented or only when establishments replace
infrastructure or equipment at a time of the employer's choosing. The
cost effects of grandfather provisions are discussed in more detail
below and in ERG (ERG, 2007, Ex. 6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ IEEE: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
\21\ TIA: Telecommunications Industry Association.

Table V-16--Proposed Subpart D Requirements and Associated National
Consensus Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart D National consensus standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1910.22 General ANSI/ASSE A1264.2-2006, American
Requirements. National Standard for the Provision
of Slip Resistance on Walking/
Working Surfaces.
ASME B56.1-2004, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, Safety
Standard for Low Lift and High Lift
Trucks.
Sec. 1910.23 Ladders............ ANSI A14.1-2000, American National
Standard for Ladders--Wood Safety
Requirements.
ANSI 14.2-2000, American National
Standard for Ladders--Portable
Metal--Safety Requirements.
ANSI A14.3-2002, American National
Standard for Ladders--Fixed--Safety
Requirements.
ANSI A14.4-2002, American National
Standard Safety Requirements for
Job-Made Wooden Ladders.
ANSI A14.5-2000, American National
Standard for Ladders--Portable
Reinforced Plastic--Safety
Requirements.
ANSI A14.7-2006, American National
Standard for Mobile Ladder Stands
and Mobile Ladder Stand Platforms.
Sec. 1910.24 Step Bolts and ASTM C478-07, American Society for
Manhole Steps. Testing and Materials Standard
Specification for Precast
Reinforced Concrete Manhole
Sections.
ASTM A394-05, American Society for
Testing and Materials Specification
for Steel Transmission Tower Bolts,
Zinc-Coated and Bare.
ASTM C497-05, American Society for
Testing and Materials Test Methods
for Concrete Pipe, Manhole
Sections, or Tile.
IEEE\20\ 1307-2004, IEEE Standard
for Fall Protection for Utility
Work.
TIA\21\ -222-G-2005, Structural
Standard for Antenna Supporting
Structures and Antennas.
Sec. 1910.25 Stairways.......... ANSI A1264.1-1995 (R2002), American
National Standard for Safety
Requirements for Workplace Floor
and Wall Openings, Stairs and
Railing Systems.
ANSI A1264.1-2007, American National
Standard Safety Requirements for
Workplace Walking/Working Surfaces
and Their Access; Workplace, Floor,
Wall and Floor Openings; Stairs and
Guardrail Systems.
NFPA 101-2006, National Fire
Protection Association Life Safety
Code.
ICC-2003, International Code Council
International Building Code.
Sec. 1910.26 Dockboards (Bridge ASME B56.1-2004, American Society of
Plates). Mechanical Engineers, Safety
Standard for Low Lift and High Lift
Trucks.
ANSI/MH30.1-2000, American National
Standard For the Safety
Performance, and Testing of Dock
Leveling Devices Specification.
ANSI/MH30.2-2005, Portable Dock
Loading Devices: Safety,
Performance, and Testing.
Sec. 1910.27 Scaffolds and Rope ANSI/IWCA I-14.1-2001, Window
Descent Systems. Cleaning Safety.
ANSI/ASCE 7-2005, American National
Standard for Minimum Design Loads
for Buildings and Other Structures.
ANSI A1264.1-1995 (R2002), American
National Standard for Safety
Requirements for Workplace Floor
and Wall Openings, Stairs and
Railing Systems.
ANSI A1264.1-2007, American National
Standard Safety Requirements for
Workplace Walking/Working Surfaces
and Their Access; Workplace, Floor,
Wall and Floor Openings; Stairs and
Guardrail Systems.
Sec. 1910.28 Duty to have Fall ANSI A10.11-1989 (R1998), American
Protection. National Standard for Construction
and Demolition Operations--
Personnel and Debris Nets.
Sec. 1910.29 Fall Protection ANSI A14.3-2002, American National
Systems Criteria and Practices. Standard for Ladders--Fixed--Safety
Requirements.
ANSI A14.7-2006, American National
Standard for Mobile Ladder Stands
and Mobile Ladder Stand Platforms.
Sec. 1910.30 Training ANSI A1264.1-1995 (R2002), American
Requirements. National Standard for Safety
Requirements for Workplace Floor
and Wall Openings, Stairs and
Railing Systems.
ANSI A1264.1-2007, American National
Standard, Safety Requirements for
Workplace Walking/Working Surfaces
and Their Access; Workplace, Floor,
Wall and Floor Openings; Stairs and
Guardrail Systems.
ANSI/IWCA I-14.1-2001, Window
Cleaning Safety.
ANSI Z359.0-2007, American National
Standard, Definitions and
Nomenclature Used for Fall
Protection and Fall Arrest.
ANSI Z359.4-2007, American National
Standard, Safety Requirements for
Personal Fall Arrest Systems,
Subsystems and Components.
ANSI Z359.3-2007, American National
Standard, Minimum Requirements for
a Comprehensive Managed Fall
Protection Program.
ANSI Z359.3-2007, American National
Standard, Safety Requirements for
Positioning and Travel Restraint
Systems.
ANSI Z359.4-2007, American National
Standard, Safety Requirements for
Assisted-Rescue and Self-Rescue
Systems, Subsystems and Components.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and
Guidance, 2009.

Some equipment addressed by the proposed standard, such as portable
ladders or mobile ladder stands, is commercially produced and purchased
in ready-to-use conditions by employers. OSHA believes that such
equipment, in virtually all cases, will be designed and fabricated to
meet current consensus standards because equipment manufacturers will
seek to avoid: (1) The small market represented by employers that would
purchase non-compliant equipment, and (2) the liabilities associated
with the manufacture of non-compliant equipment.
Typically, an employer would use architects, engineers, and/or
contractors to design, fabricate and install certain types of site-
specific equipment. While it is conceivable that an employer might
insist on installing nonconforming equipment, OSHA believes that
professional standards for architects and engineers, local building
codes, and potential liability concerns would dictate that virtually
all employers would voluntarily choose to upgrade equipment to conform
to existing national consensus standards. For these reasons, OSHA
concludes that compliant equipment will be available for the proposed
requirements. For example, proposed Sec. 1910.23(b)(1) specifies that
ladder rungs and steps must be parallel, level, and uniformly spaced
when the ladder is in a position for use. While steps are covered in
the existing Sec. 1910.25(c)(2)(i)(b), rungs are not. However, both
rungs and steps are covered in the national consensus standards (see
Table V-16).
Likewise, the spacing for rungs, cleats, and steps of step stools
and extension trestle ladders in proposed Sec. 1910.23(b)(3) and (4)
are new with respect to the existing standard, but not with the
consensus standard for ladders. Proposed Sec. 1910.23(e)(5) requires
that grab bars on fixed ladders extend 42 inches above the access/
egress level or landing platform served by the ladder. This provision
is found in the ANSI 14.3-2002 standard for fixed ladders. Therefore,
no costs were assigned to proposed Sec. 1910.23(e)(5).
In conclusion, for the purpose of establishing a baseline, OSHA
assumed that equipment met the national consensus standard in effect at
the time of installation. For additional analysis of the interface of
national consensus standards with OSHA standards, see ERG, 2007, pp. 3-
6 and 3-14 (Ex. 6).
No Costs Due to Grandfathering Provision
Table V-17 lists the paragraphs in the proposed standard with new
requirements, but which also have a "grandfather" provision for
existing conditions. A grandfather provision exempts equipment that
currently is in place from requirements that strengthen or upgrade the
safety features of the equipment. Due to this provision, no costs will
be incurred for modification or replacement of equipment covered by
these paragraphs.

Table V-17--Proposed Paragraphs with Grandfather Provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph Subject
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1910.23(d)(2).............. Fixed ladders must be designed,
constructed, and maintained as
follows: (i) Fixed ladders must be
capable of supporting two live
loads of at least 250 pounds each,
concentrated between any two
consecutive attachments, plus
anticipated loads caused by ice
buildup, winds, rigging, and impact
loads resulting from the use of
ladder safety systems * * * (ii)
Each step or rung must be capable
of supporting at least a single
concentrated load of 250 pounds
applied in the middle of the step
or rung.
Sec. 1910.24(a)(1).............. All step bolts that are used in
corrosive environments must be
constructed of, or coated with, a
material that will retard corrosion
of the step or bolt.
Sec. 1910.24(a)(7).............. Each step bolt installed must be
capable of supporting, without
failure, at least four times its
maximum intended load.
Sec. 1910.24(b)(2).............. The employer must ensure that
manhole steps: (i) are provided
with slip-resistant surfaces such
as, corrugated, knurled, or dimpled
surfaces; (ii) used in corrosive
environment are constructed of, or
coated with, a material that will
retard corrosion of the step; (iii)
have a minimum clear step width of
10 inches; (iv) are spaced
uniformly, not more than 16 inches
apart; (v) have a minimum
perpendicular distance between the
centerline of the manhole step to
the nearest permanent object in
back of the step of at least 4.5
inches; and (vi) are designed to
prevent the employee's foot from
slipping or sliding off the end of
the manhole step.
Sec. 1910.25(a)(6).............. When a door or a gate opens directly
on a stairway, a platform must be
provided, and the swing of the door
or gate must not reduce the
effective usable depth to less than
22 inches.
Sec. 1910.26(b)................. Dockboards must be designed,
constructed, and maintained to
prevent equipment from running off
the edge.
Sec. 1910.29(f)(1)(ii).......... The height of stair rail systems
must not be less than 36 inches.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: ERG, 2007.

Sections of the Proposed Standard With Cost Impacts
This subsection provides a brief paragraph-by-paragraph review of
the proposed rule. Only requirements that might involve costs
incremental to those associated with current requirements and national
consensus standards are described.
Table V-18 summarizes the proposed paragraphs that might result in
costs to the employer. These are primarily inspection and training
costs. For the purpose of this analysis, OSHA distinguished between
informal and formal training (ERG, 2007, Ex. 6). For example, proposed
Sec. 1910.23(b)(12) states that an employee must face the ladder when
ascending or descending the ladder. OSHA assumed such instruction can
be done on an in-house, informal basis (e.g., "on-the-job" training),
using materials such as OSHA training videos. When training is done on
an informal basis, OSHA did not assign a cost to the training. When the
proposed regulatory text uses the words "trained" or "training,"
OSHA assumed that the instruction will be done on a more formal basis,
possibly with an outside person being hired to provide the course. OSHA
assumed that an employer will choose to maintain documentation of all
formal training and, thus, assigned a cost for the administrative task.

Table V-18--Paragraphs of the Proposed Standards for Subparts D and I
Analyzed for Cost Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph Subject
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1910.22(d)(1).............. Regular and periodic inspection of
walking/working surfaces.
Sec. 1910.22(d)(2).............. Unsafe conditions must be guarded
until repaired.
Sec. 1910.22(d)(3).............. Qualified person must inspect
repair.
Sec. 1910.23(b)(11)............. Training: When ascending or
descending a ladder, the user must
face the ladder.
Sec. 1910.23(b)(12)............. Training: Each employee must use at
least one hand to grasp the ladder
when progressing up and down the
ladder.
Sec. 1910.23(b)(13)............. Training: An employee must not carry
any object or load that could cause
the employee to lose his or her
balance and fall.
Sec. 1910.23(c)(5).............. Training: Use of portable single
rail ladders is prohibited.
Sec. 1910.23(c)(6).............. Training: Ladders must not be moved,
shifted, or extended while occupied
by employees.
Sec. 1910.23(e)................. Due diligence on the part of the
employer to ensure mobile ladder
stands and platforms meet the
requirements.
Sec. 1910.23(e)(1)(vii)......... Mobile ladder stands and platforms
must not be moved.
Sec. 1910.24(a)(8).............. Visual inspection of step bolts
before each use.
Sec. 1910.24(b)(3).............. Visual inspection of manhole steps
before each use.
Sec. 1910.24(b)(2)(i)........... Manhole steps are provided with slip-
resistant surfaces.
Sec. 1910.24(b)(2)(vi).......... Manhole steps are designed to
prevent the employee's foot from
slipping or sliding off the end of
the manhole step.
Sec. 1910.27(b)(2)(ii).......... When rope descent systems are used,
employees must be trained in
accordance with Sec. 1910.30.
Costs for this paragraph are
therefore included in Sec.
1910.30.
Sec. 1910.27(b)(2)(iv).......... When rope descent systems are used,
employees must use proper rigging,
including sound anchorages and
tiebacks.
Sec. 1910.28(a)(2).............. Employer must determine that walking-
working surfaces have the strength
and structural integrity to safely
support employees.
Sec. 1910.28(b)(4).............. Installation of guardrails and
handrails on dockboards.
Sec. 1910.28(b)(10)(iii)........ Inspection of ladder safety systems.
Sec. 1910.28(b)(10)(v).......... Each employee who routinely climbs
fixed ladders must satisfy the
criteria for qualified climber
found in Sec. 1910.29(h). Costs
associated with this training are
assigned to Sec. 1910.29(h).
Sec. 1910.28(b)(10)(vi)......... Training: Employee must have both
hands free while ascending or
descending ladder (outdoor
advertising/billboards operations).
Sec. 1910.29(b)(15)............. Inspection of manila, plastic, or
synthetic rope being used as top
rails or midrails.
Sec. 1910.29(h)................. Training for qualified climbers.
Retraining for qualified climbers as
necessary.
Performance observations.
Sec. 1910.30(a)................. Training: Fall hazards.
Sec. 1910.30(b)................. Training: Equipment hazards.
Sec. 1910.30(c)................. Retraining.
Sec. 1910.140................... Hazard assessment.
Sec. 1910.140(c)(18)............ Personal fall protection systems
inspected before each use.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: ERG, 2007.

Finally, three requirements in the proposed standard specify that
training must be done in accordance with proposed Sec. 1910.30:
Proposed Sec. 1910.27(b)(2)(ii): Rope descent systems;
Proposed Sec. 1910.28(b)(1): Unprotected sides and edges;
and
Proposed Sec. 1910.28(b)(10)(v): Outdoor advertising
(billboards).

The costs for proposed Sec. 1910.30 include the costs for the three
paragraphs listed above.
In the following subsection, organized by proposed regulatory
provision, OSHA discusses the potential cost implications of the new
requirements. Proposed changes expected to result in little or no costs
were described in general terms earlier in this cost analysis and are
not addressed below. For further details, see the ERG report (ERG,
2007, Ex. 6).
General Requirements (Sec. 1910.22)
Sec. 1910.22(c). Access and egress. The employer must ensure that
employees are provided with and use a safe means of access to, and
egress from, one surface to another. The language in the existing Sec.
1910.22(b) specifies that aisles and passageways must be kept clear, in
good repair, and with no obstruction across or in aisles that could
create a hazard. For this PEA, OSHA interpreted the language in
proposed Sec. 1910.22(c) as generalizing the terms "aisles" and
"passageways" to cover all means of access and egress. With this
interpretation, the terminology in the proposed rule is consistent with
that in a National Fire Protection Association consensus standard (NFPA
101). Thus, OSHA assigned no costs to proposed Sec. 1910.22(c).
Sec. 1910.22(d) Maintenance and repair. This new provision sets
forth requirements for the employer to inspect the walking/working
surfaces, guard hazardous conditions to prevent employee use until the
hazard is corrected, and ensure that the repair or maintenance work is
inspected by a qualified person. The costs for these safe work
practices are considered below under COST ESTIMATION and are assumed to
include the costs for inspection described in proposed Sec. 1910.28.
Ladders (Sec. 1910.23)
Sec. 1910.23(a) Application. This proposed paragraph covers
special wood ladders specifically excluded in the existing standard,
including fruit picker's ladders, combination step and extension
ladders, stockroom step ladders, aisle-way step ladders, shelf ladders,
and library ladders. However, OSHA assumed that these ladders meet
consensus standards for wooden ladders (see Table V-16); therefore,
OSHA expects that no costs will be incurred with the expanded
application.
Sec. 1910.23(b)(4)(iii). This proposed paragraph concerns rolling
ladders in communications centers and was moved from Sec.
1910.268(h)(5)--Telecommunications. Thus, this is not a new requirement
and has no costs.
Sec. 1910.23(b)(9). Both the existing and proposed standards have
a requirement to inspect ladders before use. OSHA anticipates that the
inspection frequency would not increase under the proposed standard.
Therefore, no additional costs are expected.
Sec. 1910.23(b)(11)-(13); Sec. 1910.23(c)(5) and (6), (10)-(11),
and (13). These eight paragraphs include instructions to employees on
the proper use of ladders. Proposed Sec. 1910.23(c)(5) prohibits the
use of single-rail ladders. This is consistent with the requirements
for the construction industry standard at Sec. 1926.1053(b)(19). Thus
the requirement not to use a single-rail ladder is a matter of
training. The wide availability of permitted ladders means there are no
equipment costs associated with the prohibition. Training costs are
considered below under COST ESTIMATION.
Sec. 1910.23(c)(14). This proposed provision states that the reach
of the ladder and ladder sections must not be increased by any means
unless specifically designed for the application. Ladders and ladder
sections cannot be tied or fastened together to provide longer length
unless the equipment is designed for this purpose. This provision might
cause the employer to incur a cost if it were necessary to purchase a
longer ladder of sufficient length for the task. However, the existing
regulations at Sec. 1910.25(d)(2)(ix) and Sec. 1910.26(c)(3)(vi)
specify that neither wood nor metal portable ladders may be spliced,
tied, or fastened together to create a longer section unless the
manufacturer has designed the equipment for such a purpose. The
proposed standard, then, expands the prohibition to all other means of
joining ladder sections. There are no data estimating the frequency of
such occurrences but, presumably, they are rare. Thus, OSHA did not
assign a cost to this paragraph.
Sec. 1910.23(d)(2)(i). As proposed, fixed ladders must be capable
of supporting two live loads of at least 250 pounds, plus an additional
concentrated load of 250 pounds each, plus anticipated loads caused by
ice build-up and other conditions. Each rung must be capable of
supporting at least a single concentrated load of 250 pounds. The
language in this new requirement reflects the consensus standard in
ANSI A14.3-2002 (see Table V-16). The existing language, however,
specifies a single concentrated load of 200 pounds.
ERG estimated that there are approximately 2.75 million fixed
ladders over 20 feet in length in the Untied States (ERG, 2007, Ex. 6).
The requirement to support two loads of 250 pounds each dates back to
the 1984 version of ANSI A14.3. It is therefore highly likely that much of the
population of existing fixed ladders was built when the 250-pound
requirement was in the voluntary standard. However, we do not know the
age distribution of fixed ladders in the United States or when a ladder
was most recently reconstructed.
The cost differential for each ladder is the difference between a
design to support one live load of 200 pounds and two live loads of 250
pounds each. Given that the fixed ladder must be constructed to fit a
specific site, it is likely that the labor costs for either design
would be comparable. Therefore, the cost attributable to the consensus
standard is primarily attributable to the difference in materials,
e.g., thicker steel. Such costs are likely to be highly site-specific
and not easily estimated. However, given (1) that the cost for
materials is a fraction of the overall cost of building or rebuilding
the fixed ladder, and (2) the incremental cost is the difference
between the materials planned and materials needed, these incremental
costs are likely to be modest and will not impose a significant impact
on the small population of employers who are non-compliant with the
current consensus standards. OSHA invites public comment on the
potential costs and impacts associated with this requirement.
Sec. 1910.23(d)(12)(i). In the proposed text, "step-across
distance" is measured from the centerline of the steps or rungs of a
fixed ladder. The existing definition measures the step-across distance
from the nearest edge of the ladder to the nearest edge of the
structure or equipment. The minimum distance under the proposed
standard is 7 inches, and under the existing standard it is 2.5 inches;
the proposed maximum distance is 12 inches. Proposed paragraph Sec.
1910.23(b)(4) specifies a minimum clear step or rung width of 11.5
inches for portable ladders and 16 inches for individual rung and fixed
ladders; thus, the distance from the centerline to the inside edge of
the ladder ranges from roughly 6 to 8 inches. Adding the existing
requirement of 2.5 inches from the nearest edge of the ladder to the
nearest edge of the structure or equipment to the 6- to 8-inch
centerline width results in a step-across width of 8.5 to 10.5 inches.
Thus any fixed ladder that meets the current requirements also meets
the proposed requirements. No costs were assigned to this paragraph.
Sec. 1910.23(d)(12)(ii). The proposed standard specifies that the
step-across distance from the centerline of the steps or rungs of a
fixed ladder to the access/egress point of the platform edge for side
step ladders must be between 15 and 20 inches. Based on Figure D-10 in
the existing standard, the maximum space from the edge of the ladder to
the platform (i.e., access/egress point) is 12 inches. As noted in the
previous paragraph, the centerline width for a fixed ladder ranges from
roughly 6 to 8 inches. The total step-across distance under the
existing standard ranges from 18 to 20 inches. Thus, a fixed ladder
that meets the current requirements also meets the proposed
requirements. Therefore, OSHA assigned no costs to this paragraph.
Sec. 1910.23(e). The only provision that does not have a
corresponding requirement in the national consensus standard, proposed
Sec. 1910.23(e)(1)(vii) (specifying that occupied mobile ladder stands
and platforms must not be moved), is a work practice requirement, and
compliance is achieved through ladder safety training and enforcement.
Therefore, any cost for proposed Sec. 1910.23(e)(1)(vii) would be
associated with workplace practices addressed through training. See the
section COST ESTIMATION, below, for ladder safety training costs.
All other provisions meet the national consensus standard in the
ANSI A14 series. An analysis of fiscal year 2005 OSHA inspection data
for violations of existing subpart D indicate that the failure to
provide safe ladders is low (e.g., 0.2 percent of the violations were
for portable wood ladders, 0.4 percent for metal ladders, and 0.8
percent for fixed ladders). Based on these data, OSHA infers that there
is a nearly 100 percent compliance with the provisions of the current
consensus standards. Therefore, no costs were assigned for equipment
upgrades. However, OSHA assigned costs for meeting the technical
specifications found in proposed Sec. 1910.23(e).
Step Bolts and Manhole Steps (Sec. 1910.24)
The requirements for step bolts are new to subpart D. In the
preliminary regulatory impact analysis for the 1990 proposed rule, OSHA
noted, "Manufactured products, such as ladders, step bolts, manhole
steps * * * generally meet or exceed proposed OSHA specifications."
(OSHA, 1990a.) A 2003 OSHA interpretation document comments that OSHA
believes the IEEE 1307-1996 consensus standard, in most cases, prevents
or eliminates serious hazards (OSHA, 2003a). IEEE 1307-1996 defines
"failure" in a step bolts as occurring when step bolts are bent
greater than 0.26 rad (15 degrees) below the horizontal. Proposed Sec.
1910.24(a)(9) mirrors that definition. Because IEEE revised the
standard in 2004, OSHA assumed that industry is using the more up-to-
date consensus standard.
Sec. 1910.24(a)(1). This proposed provision reads:

All step bolts installed on or after (date 90 days after the
effective date of the final rule in the Federal Register) that are
used in corrosive environments must be constructed of, or coated
with, a material that will retard corrosion of the step or bolt.
The national consensus standard applicable to this proposed
requirement is ASTM Specification for Steel Transmission Tower
Bolts, Zinc-Coated and Bare (ASTM A394-05). The appendix to the
consensus standard notes that the dimensions of ladder bolts, step
bolts, and equipment support bolts shall be specified by the
purchaser. The ASTM standard describes three types of bolts covered
by the standard:
Type 0: hot-dip zinc-coated bolts made of low or medium
carbon steel (ASTM 394-05, section 1.1.1).
Type 1: hot-dip zinc-coated bolts made of medium carbon
steel, quenched and tempered (ASTM 394-05, section 1.1.2).
Type 3: Bare (uncoated), quenched and tempered bolts
made of weathering steel (ASTM 394-05, section 1.1.4).\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ Type 2 bolts were withdrawn in 2005.

Appendix A.2 of the consensus standard mentions that bolts should
be Type 0 unless agreed upon by the manufacturer and purchaser. That
is, the default condition is that the bolt be zinc-coated; therefore,
such bolts would meet the proposed OSHA requirement for corrosion
resistance. Presumably, the use of any other bolt type would suggest
that the manufacturer and purchaser have agreed that the bolt is
appropriate for the intended environment and intended use. Since
manufacturers of step bolts are unlikely to make non-compliant step
bolts, OSHA assigned no costs to Sec. 1910.24(a)(1).
Sec. 1910.24(a)(6). This proposed provision reads:

Step bolts installed before (date 90 days after the effective
date of the final rule in the Federal Register) must be capable of
supporting their maximum intended load.

The requirement that a step bolt must be capable of supporting its
maximum intended load is consistent with IEEE 1307-2004, Standard for
Fall Protection for Utility Work. Section 9.1.1.1(d) in that standard
reads:

Step bolts shall [b]e capable of supporting the intended
workload [as defined for the application per the applicable ANSI
standard(s)], but in no case shall the minimum design live load be
less than a simple concentrated load of 271 kg (598.4 lb) applied
51mm (2 inches) from the inside face of the step bolt head.
Therefore, no costs were assigned to this provision.
Sec. 1910.24(a)(7). This proposed paragraph requires that step
bolts installed after the effective date of the final rule be capable
of supporting four times their maximum intended load. As discussed in
the preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA considers a 5/8-inch bolt to
meet this requirement, and that bolts of that size are readily
available. Therefore, no incremental costs would be expected in
relation to this provision.
Sec. 1910.24(a)(8) and Sec. 1910.24(b)(3). Under these proposed
paragraphs, step bolts and manhole steps must be visually inspected
before each use. Inspection costs are considered below under COST
ESTIMATION.
Sec. 1910.24(b). The language in the proposal is summarized in
Table V-19, along with the corresponding section of ASTM C-478-06b.
There are three additional proposed requirements that exceed what
is specified in a national consensus standard for steps in pre-cast
concrete manhole sections:
Manhole steps must be provided with slip-resistant
surfaces such as corrugated, knurled, or dimpled surfaces;
Manhole steps must be designed to prevent the employee's
foot from slipping or sliding off the end of the manhole step; and
Manhole steps must be replaced if they are bent to such a
degree that there is no longer 4 inches of clearance to the wall.

Table V-19--Manhole Steps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASTM C 478-
Provision Proposed language 06b
section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1910.24(b)(1)............................ Manhole steps installed before (date 90 days
after the effective date of the final rule in
the Federal Register) must be capable of
supporting their maximum intended load.
Sec. 1910.24(b)(2)............................ The employer must ensure that manhole steps
installed on or after (date 90 days after the
effective rule in the Federal Register):
Sec. 1910.24(b)(2)(i)......................... Are provided with slip-resistant surfaces such
as, corrugated, knurled, or dimpled surfaces;
Sec. 1910.24(b)(2)(ii)........................ Used in corrosive environments are constructed
of, or coated with, a material that will retard
corrosion of the step;
Sec. 1910.24(b)(2)(iii)....................... Have a minimum clear step width of 10 inches (25 16.5.2
cm);.
Sec. 1910.24(b)(2)(iv)........................ Are spaced uniformly, not more than 16 inches 16.4.1
apart. The spacing from the entry and exit
surface to the first manhole step may be
different from the spacing between other steps;
Sec. 1910.24(b)(2)(v)......................... Have a minimum perpendicular distance between the \23\ 16.5.3
centerline of the manhole step to the nearest
permanent object in back of the step of at least
4.5 inches (11.4 cm); and
Sec. 1910.24(b)(2)(vi)........................ Are designed to prevent the employee's foot from
slipping or sliding off the end of the manhole
step.
Sec. 1910.24(b)(3)............................ Manhole steps must be visually inspected before
each use and be maintained in accordance with
Sec. 1910.22.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: ERG, 2007.

ASTM C478-06b permits the use of uncoated or untreated ferrous
steps as long as they are at least 1 inch in cross section, but is
silent with regard to a slip-resistant surface or design. Because the
proposed requirements appear to exceed those in a consensus standard,
when a manhole section needs to be built or replaced, there would be
incremental costs for slip-resistant/corrosion-resistant surfaces.
Moreover, the proposed paragraph defines when a step has "failed"
when still present in the manhole; thus there would also be step
replacement costs. These costs are discussed further in the subsection
below, COST ESTIMATION.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ ASTM C478-06b Section 16.5.3 specifies that the rung or
cleat shall project a uniform clear distance of 4 inches minimum
from the wall, to the embedment side of the rung. The proposed OSHA
distance is measured from the centerline of the manhole step. Thus,
if a step is at least an inch wide, a step that meets the ASTM 4-
inch requirement would also meet the OSHA 4.5-inch requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stairs and Stairways (Sec. 1910.25)
Sec. 1910.25(a)(6). The existing standard says that for doors or
gates that open directly onto a stairway, a platform must be provided,
and the swing of the door must not reduce the effective width to less
than 20 inches. In the proposed standard, platforms installed before 90
days after the effective date of the final rule need only comply with
the existing requirements; therefore, there are no retrofit costs. For
platforms installed on or after 90 days after the effective date of the
final rule, the effective width is increased to 22 inches.\24\ The
incremental cost is that associated with adding 2 inches in clearance
to the platform whenever the platform is replaced. This is likely to be
a minimal increase in materials cost borne by the employer to meet the
clearance specification. For the reasons given above under the
subsection titled Compliance with National Consensus Standards, no
incremental costs for meeting a consensus standard are attributable to
the proposed OSHA standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ The 22-inch clearance requirement for new structures
matches ANSI A1264, Section 6.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1910.25(c). Existing Sec. 1910.25(b) does not permit spiral
stairways except under special conditions. Spiral stairs would now be
permitted under proposed Sec. 1910.25(c). An existing spiral staircase
that does not meet the proposed requirements would need to be modified
or replaced. However, spiral staircases are likely to be relatively
rare given that they are exceptions to the existing rule. Thus, OSHA
did not assign costs to proposed Sec. 1910.25(c).
Sec. 1910.25(d). This proposed paragraph is a response from OSHA
to an OMB-initiated, government-wide effort to reform regulation in the
U.S. manufacturing sector. The Copper and Brass Fabricators Council
submitted a comment indicating that OSHA required the use of fixed
stairs when ship stairs would be safer (OMB, 2005). Proposed Sec.
1910.25(d) addresses that comment.
Ship stairs typically are installed with slopes of 50 degrees or
greater; however, the existing standard for fixed stairs addressed
stairs installed at angles between 30 and 50 degrees. Thus, ship stairs
were not specifically addressed in the existing standard. Recently,
OSHA has interpreted the standard in such a way that if an inspection
found a set of ship stairs at an establishment (a violation of the
existing standard) that
conformed to the 1990 proposed standard for subpart D, OSHA would
consider it a de minimus violation \25\ (OSHA 2006b and 2006c).
Therefore, the need to retrofit or replace a set of ship stairs under
the proposed rule would be minimal; for that reason, OSHA assigned no
costs to proposed Sec. 1910.25(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ See OSHA's Field Operation Manual: https://www.osha.gov/
OshDoc/Directive_pdf/CPL_02-00-148.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1910.25(e). Alternating tread stairs were not specifically
mentioned in the existing standard. A letter from OSHA to a
manufacturer of alternating tread stairs judged the stair design to be
safe (OSHA, 1981). Alternating tread stairs are discussed in NFPA 101,
section 7.2.11 (NFPA, 2006). Any alternating tread stair that meets the
requirements of NFPA 101 also meets the requirements in proposed Sec.
1910.25(e). Thus, there are no costs assigned to this provision.
Dockboards--Bridge Plates (Sec. 1910.26)
Sec. 1910.26(b). The proposed text for this provision reads:

Dockboards put into service on or after [date 90 days after the
effective date of the final rule in the Federal Register] must be
designed, constructed, and maintained to prevent equipment from
running off the edge.

Sec. 1910.26(e). The proposed text for this provision reads:

Portable dockboards must be equipped with handholds or other
means to permit safe handling.

The definition of a dockboard in ANSI MH30.2-2005, section 2.2,
contains the language "as well as providing a run-off guard, or
curb." OSHA believes that dockboards that are currently being
manufactured conform to the ANSI standard. Therefore, the commercial
dockboards likely come equipped with handholds, required in proposed
Sec. 1910.26(e). Therefore, OSHA believes that any costs associated
with this provision would be minimal.
Scaffolds and Rope Descent Systems (Sec. 1910.27)
Sec. 1910.27(a). This proposed paragraph extends the construction
industry requirements for scaffolds (except rope descent systems) to
all other parts of industry. The construction industry scaffold
standards (subpart L of 29 CFR part 1926) were updated on August 30,
1996 (OSHA, 1996), and contain requirements for all scaffolds that are
now regulated by the general industry standards. OSHA believes that
many general industry employers who use scaffolds also perform work
covered by the construction industry standards and are already familiar
with, and in compliance with, the construction industry scaffold
standards. Therefore, the proposed requirements resolve any
inconsistencies and, thus, no costs are attributed to this paragraph.
Sec. 1910.27(b)(1). Rope descent systems (also known as controlled
descent devices) are an alternative to powered platforms. The proposed
rule states that rope descent systems cannot be used for heights
greater than 300 feet unless access cannot otherwise be obtained safely
and practicably. The wording of the proposed rule is consistent with
the industry consensus standard, ANSI/IWCA I-14.1, 2001. In other
words, both the IWCA consensus standard and the proposed OSHA standard
(1) prohibit the use of rope descent systems for descents exceeding 300
feet, and (2) contain an exclusion clause-i.e., unless access cannot
safely and practicably be obtained by other means. Because both contain
the same exclusion clause, the OSHA requirement is no more restrictive
than the consensus standard. Since this is a work-practice as opposed
to an equipment specification requirement, incremental costs are
attributable to the proposed standard to the extent that employers
would not otherwise voluntarily comply with the IWCA standard.
The potential cost is, at most, limited to situations where (1) the
building is 300 feet tall or higher, and (2) there is an alternative to
the rope descent system that is practicable and safe. ERG examined a
database developed by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat,
and identified slightly more than 1,900 buildings that are 300 feet
(91.7 m) tall or higher (CTBUH, 2006). More than one in every four of
these buildings is in New York City where State law does not allow the
use of rope descent systems (DiChacho, 2006). Therefore, according to
ERG, a better estimate of the number of potentially affected buildings
is 1,500 buildings nationwide (ERG, 2007). OSHA presumes that some of
these 1,500 buildings have permanently installed power platforms for
access to the exterior of the building, and further presumes that using
an existing system would be less expensive than setting up a rope
descent system.
The final set of buildings for which proposed Sec. 1910.27(b)(1)
could result in costs are those where a safe and practicable
alternative to a rope descent system exists but cannot be used due to
technical factors specific to a building's history, architecture, or
style of operation. For example, to regularly wash the windows of a
tall building with many sharp angles or tiered levels, management may
have found it cost-effective to contract for the use of rope descent
systems rather than use powered platforms. Because all companies
bidding on the project would be making those bids under the same set of
constraints, proposed Sec. 1910.27(b)(1) would not result in a loss in
income to the window cleaning industry. There may be higher costs to
the building owners but, although the cost cannot be estimated, OSHA
considers the cost to be small given the limited number of buildings
that potentially would be affected. OSHA requests information on the
potential costs that building owners will incur to provide safe and
practicable alternatives to rope descent systems.
Sec. 1910.27(b)(2)(ii). This proposed paragraph codifies safety
provisions presented in the 1991 memorandum to OSHA's Regional
Administrators, which are similar to what is now contained in the
national consensus standard, ANSI/IWCA I-14.1 (OSHA, 1991b).
These safety provisions are:
Training employees in the use of the equipment before it
is used.
Inspection of the equipment each day before use.
Proper rigging, including sound anchorages and tiebacks,
in all cases, with particular emphasis on providing tiebacks when
counterweights, cornice hooks, or similar non-permanent anchorage
systems are used.
Use of a separate personal fall arrest system.
All lines installed using knots, swages, or eye splices
when rigging descent control devices shall be capable of sustaining a
minimum tensile load of 5,000 pounds.
Provisions are made for prompt rescue of employees.
Ropes are effectively padded where they contact edges of
the building, anchorage, obstructions, or other surfaces that might cut
or weaken the rope.
Provide for stabilization at the specific work location
when descents are greater than 130 feet.
Some of the language in the OSHA 1991 memo has been updated for the
proposed revision to the standard for subpart D, but most of these text
changes (e.g., "prompt rescue" rather than "rescue" and "harness"
rather than "body belt") are not anticipated to result in compliance
costs. The exceptions are proposed Sec. 1910.27(b)(2)(ii) and Sec.
1910.27(b)(2)(iv). Proposed paragraph Sec. 1910.27(b)(2)(ii) specifies
that training must now be done in accordance with Sec. 1910.30. OSHA
presumes that costs for any training beyond what was done as a result
of the 1991 memorandum would be attributed to proposed Sec. 1910.30.
Those costs are discussed below. Costs associated with proposed Sec.
1910.27(b)(2)(iv) are described immediately below.
Sec. 1910.27(b)(2)(iv). When rope descent systems are used, the
proposal requires employers to use proper rigging, including sound
anchorages and tiebacks with particular emphasis on providing tiebacks
when counterweights, cornice hooks, or similar non-permanent anchorages
are used. It is apparent that IWCA expects to find buildings without
anchorages. A key provision of ANSI/IWCA I-14.1 is a written work plan
(section 1.7), and the IWCA Web site recommends that the person "whose
job it is to look at and price jobs should be the primary person to
develop the written plan." IWCA states further, that "this is the
time when you see things like anchor points (or lack thereof), entrance
ways, sharp edges, and other concerns. The best part of the written
plan is the fact that it allows the building owner or manager to work
with you in creating a safe place to work for you and your employees."
(IWCA, 2007b) ANSI/IWCA I-14.1, section 17 lists options for roof
support equipment, including:
Parapets, cornices, and building anchorages (section
17.1).
Davits and davit fixtures (a crane-like structure, section
17.2).
Sockets (section 17.3).
Tie-backs (section 17.4).
Counterweighted outriggers (section 17.5).
Parapet clamps and cornice hooks (section 17.6).
Overhead monorail tracks and trolleys (section 17.7).
Several of these options, such as counterweighted outriggers, are
transportable and are likely to be supplied by the contractor. Thus,
the work plan delineates how the work is to be performed using a mix of
contractor and property owner equipment. The voluntary standard
provides several acceptable options for roof support equipment, and
specifies the development of a work plan where both the contractor and
property owner concur on how a safe job can be done at that property.
OSHA believes that voluntary compliance with the consensus standard is
likely to be high. Therefore, for this proposed provision, no costs
were assigned for equipment.
Costs do result, however, from inspections and certification for
providing assurances that an anchorage is sound. These costs are
discussed below in the subsection titled COST ESTIMATION.
Sec. 1910.27(b)(2)(x). The proposed requirement to secure
equipment is consistent with the consensus standard IWCA I-14.1-2001,
section 3.10. Thus, no incremental costs are incurred for this proposed
requirement.
Sec. 1910.27(b)(2)(xi). The proposed requirement to protect
suspension ropes from exposure to open flames, hot work, corrosive
chemicals, or other destructive conditions is an extension of the
requirement to protect the integrity of the ropes specified in the 1991
OSHA memorandum. The costs for meeting this requirement are part of the
training costs estimated in proposed Sec. 1910.30.
Duty To Have Fall Protection (Sec. 1910.28)
The proposed regulatory text for Sec. 1910.28 is a consolidation
of the fall protection requirements in the existing rule, with two
major revisions. First, comments submitted in response to the reopening
of the rule in 2003 suggested that the fall protection requirements in
subpart D should be consistent with those in subpart M of the
construction standard. The proposed text for Sec. 1910.28 brings
consistency between the rules that might affect employers and employees
in both the construction and general industry sectors. Second, the
existing standard does not address the use of restraint systems,
designated areas, or safety nets systems, nor is it clear as to where
the use of personal fall protection systems is permitted. In contrast,
the proposed standard allows employers to choose from various options
in providing fall protection, that is, it is not as restrictive as the
existing standard that primarily requires the use of standard railings
(guardrails).
Sec. 1910.28(a)(2)--General. In the proposal, the employer must
determine that the walking-working surface has the strength and
structural integrity to safely support employees. In interpreting this
proposed requirement to analyze costs, OSHA believes that this
requirement can be met by a five- to ten-minute inspection of the
surface or review of engineering paperwork. In rare circumstances, an
employer might need to spend 15 to 30 minutes to determine if the work
can proceed. Costs for this proposed provision are discussed later in
this subsection where the duty to inspect is considered as part of the
general requirement for an employer to periodically and regularly
inspect walking/working surfaces in proposed Sec. 1910.22(d). OSHA
requests public comment on the expenses that employers typically would
incur to comply with this requirement.
Sec. 1910.28(b)(1)--Unprotected sides and edges. Under the
proposed rule, if a walking-working surface (vertical and horizontal)
has an unprotected side or edge that is four feet or more above a lower
level, an employee must be protected from falling by the use of
guardrail systems, safety net systems, personal fall arrest systems, or
the employee must work in a designated area. In the existing rule, the
trigger height of four feet is found in:
Sec. 1910.23(b): every wall opening;
Sec. 1910.23(c)(1): every open-sided floor or platform;
and
Sec. 1910.23(c)(2): the open sides of any runway.
Thus, there is no change in the height requirement for fall
protection between the existing rule and the proposed revision. OSHA
believes that the language and organization for the proposed rule is
less complex than that for the existing rule, and, furthermore, the
proposed rule provides additional flexibility in the methods used for
fall protection, and allows for exceptional conditions. For example, if
it is not feasible to install guardrails on the working surface,
guardrails are not required provided that access to the working surface
is limited to authorized employees. For these reasons, OSHA did not
assign costs to this paragraph.
Section 1910.28(b)(2)--Hoist areas. The proposed rule states that
fall protection must be provided in hoist areas where the potential
fall distance is four feet or greater. OSHA intends for this revised
text to clarify the existing requirements for hoist areas found in
proposed Sec. 1910.23(b)(1) and Sec. 1910.23(c)(1). Therefore, no
costs were assigned to this paragraph.
Section 1910.28(b)(3)--Holes. The existing rule requires guarding
for every hole and skylight floor opening. The proposed rule specifies
that fall protection is needed when an employee might fall more than
four feet. Thus, the new language harmonizes the proposed requirement
for fall protection for holes with the proposed requirements for
unprotected sides and edges, as well as hoist areas. The new language
also permits the requirement to be met by personal fall arrest systems
and covers, as well as guardrails. No costs are assigned to this
paragraph.
Section 1910.28(b)(4)--Dockboards (bridge plates). This new
requirement for guardrails or handrails on dockboards would protect an
employee from falls of four or more feet. There is an exception for
cases where the dockboards are used exclusively for material handling
operations performed with motorized equipment. In these cases, neither
guardrails nor handrails are required if the fall hazard is 10 feet or
less and the employee has been trained according to proposed Sec.
1910.30.
The costs for installing handrail or guardrail systems for dockboards
are discussed later in this subsection. OSHA assigned training costs to
proposed Sec. 1910.30.
Section 1910.28(b)(6)--Dangerous equipment. The existing language
requires a standard railing and toe board for walking-working surfaces
above dangerous equipment. The proposed rule introduces a distinction
among required controls according to the potential fall distance. For
potential falls of less than four feet onto or into dangerous
equipment, the employer has the additional options of covering or
guarding the dangerous equipment to eliminate the hazard. For potential
falls of four feet or more, the employer has the options of guardrail
systems, restraint systems, personal fall arrest systems, or safety net
systems. OSHA assumes employers already have implemented controls under
the current standard using the least-cost method; therefore, no costs
were assigned to this paragraph.
Section 1910.28(b)(7)--Wall openings. For wall openings, the
proposed standard limits the need for fall protection to cases where
the inside bottom edge of the wall opening is less than 39 inches above
the walking-working surface. The employer has the additional options of
a safety net system or personal fall arrest system to meet this
proposed requirement. OSHA believes that, currently, protection of wall
openings is widespread throughout industry. Therefore, no costs were
assigned to this paragraph.
Section 1910.28(b)(8)--Repair, service, and assembly pits (pits)
less than 10 feet in depth. Pits, in general, were subsumed within the
definition of a floor opening in the existing Sec. 1910.21(a)(2). In
the proposed standard, pits between 4 feet and 10 feet in depth used
for repair, service, and assembly operations need not have a fall
protection system provided that a (minimum) 6-foot perimeter is marked
around the pit and access to that area is limited to trained and
authorized employees. OSHA did not assign incremental costs to this
proposed paragraph for two reasons. First, an employer would only incur
costs for caution signs and floor markings if they were less expensive
than the fall protection system required under the existing regulation.
Second, existing Sec. 1910.145 already requires an employer to post
caution signs where needed, and existing Sec. 1910.144 describes what
is required for marking the signs. OSHA assumed an employer has signs
and marking materials available, so no incremental costs are assigned
to this paragraph.
The proposed rule for this working surface provides more than one
method to comply with the paragraph. That is, an employee may be
protected by a conventional fall protection system or by implementing
specific safe work practices. Where the alternative method--the use of
safe work practices (marking, posting, and limited access)--is less
expensive than the method specified in the existing rule (guardrails),
an employer might incur lower costs to comply with the paragraph. OSHA
anticipates that some employers may encounter reduced costs (cost
savings) through this proposed revision; however, OSHA did not quantify
cost savings for this preliminary analysis.
Section 1910.28(b)(9)--Fixed ladders. The existing regulatory text
specifies cages or wells as means of providing fall protection for
fixed ladders. In the 1990 proposal for subpart D, OSHA would have
permitted certain fixed ladders to be climbed without the use of ladder
safety devices, cages, or wells if qualified climbers were assigned to
the task and certain other conditions were met. In particular,
qualified climbers could only be used when the ladder was climbed two
or fewer times per year, and it would be a greater hazard to the
employee to install the fall protection system than to climb the ladder
without fall protection (which OSHA believes rarely occurs). In the
proposed standard issued today, the use of qualified climbers as an
option is limited to the outdoor advertising/billboard industry (see
discussion on proposed Sec. 1910.28(b)(10)(v), below). However, in
addition to cages and wells, the employer will have the added option of
meeting the fall protection requirement for fixed ladders through the
use of personal fall protection systems. OSHA believes that qualified
climbers are not being used in these situations; therefore, no costs
were assigned to this paragraph.
Section 1910.28(b)(10)(i), (ii), and (iv)--Outdoor advertising
(billboards). This new paragraph addresses fall hazards on outdoor
advertising, also known as billboards. Under the language of the
existing subpart D, no distinction is made for billboards. However, for
analytical purposes, the fixed ladder portion of the billboard could be
considered covered under the existing fixed ladder requirements. Under
current Sec. 1910.27(d)(1), cages or wells are required for ladders
more than 20 feet in length. Under proposed Sec. 1910.28(b)(10)(i), an
employee climbing a fixed ladder portion of a billboard up to 50 feet
in length needs either a body belt or body harness with an appropriate
18-inch rest lanyard to tie off to the fixed ladder. Presumably, these
additional options, where not already deployed, would be less expensive
than cages or wells. Any ladder safety system (i.e., a device other
than a cage or well, see proposed Sec. 1910.21(b)) that is in current
use must be maintained (see proposed Sec. 1910.28(b)(10)(iv), a
requirement that, according to ERG, is consistent with widespread
industry practice (ERG, 2007). Thus, OSHA assigned no incremental
compliance costs to these paragraphs.
If, however, the fixed ladder portion extends beyond 50 feet, the
entire length of the fixed ladder must have ladder safety systems (see
proposed Sec. 1910.28(b)(10)(ii). Ladder safety systems refer to any
device other than a cage or well. Presumably, because the ladder safety
systems are generally less expensive than cages or wells (ERG, 2007),
ladder safety systems would have replaced cages or wells where the
latter do not already exist or are no longer in good working order.
Thus, using these industry retrofit activities as the baseline, no
incremental compliance costs were assigned by OSHA to the proposed
provision for ladder safety systems.
Section 1910.28(b)(10)(iii) and (vi). Proposed Sec.
1910.28(b)(10)(iii) requires the employer to follow inspection
procedures for the safety systems. The frequency of inspection is not
specified but ERG assumed that inspections would occur prior to each
use. Proposed Sec. 1910.28(b)(10)(vi) specifies that the employee is
to have both hands free of tools and material while climbing up or down
the ladder. Costs were assigned to these two paragraphs and are
discussed later in this subsection under COST ESTIMATION.
Sec. 1910.28(b)(10)(v). This proposed paragraph effectively
requires employees who routinely climb fixed portions of billboard
ladders that do not have cages or wells to be "qualified" climbers as
specified in proposed Sec. 1910.29(h); therefore, costs for this
paragraph are assigned to proposed Sec. 1910.29(h). Because of the
uncertainties connected with the concept "routinely," OSHA, to
estimate costs for this proposed requirement, conservatively assumed
that all employees in NAICS 5418 (Advertising and Related Services) who
use personal fall protection are trained as qualified climbers (see the
discussion for proposed Sec. 1910.29(h) below).
Sec. 1910.28(b)(10)(vii). Under this proposed provision, climbers
must be protected by an appropriate fall protection system when they reach
their work positions. The costs for these systems are already
considered in the existing requirements for fixed ladder systems. Thus,
no additional costs for equipment are assigned to this provision.
Sec. 1910.28(b)(12)--Scaffolds and rope descent systems. The
proposed standard addressing the duty to provide fall protection for
employees on scaffolds now refers to Sec. 1926, the construction
standards, thus avoiding any inconsistencies between the general
industry and construction standards. The proposed revision extends the
requirements found in the construction standards to all other
industries. Fall protection on scaffolds in Sec. 1926 generally
follows consensus standards; thus OSHA assigned zero costs to this
paragraph.
Section 1910.28(b)(13)--Walking-working surfaces not otherwise
addressed. OSHA considers this new paragraph to be a clarification of
the existing Sec. 1910.23(c)(3), which requires a railing and
toeboard. The proposed language restricts the requirement to working
surfaces 4 feet or more above a lower level and permits the employer to
comply with the paragraph by the use of a personal fall protection
system. Under the assumptions that employers choose the least-cost
compliance option and that current industry practice is widespread,
OSHA expects that there will be few if any costs associated with this
paragraph.
Section 1910.28(b)(14)--Protection for floor holes. This paragraph
provides protection for stairway floor holes, ladderway floor holes,
and hatchway and chute floor holes, and updates Sec. 1910.23(a) in
current subpart D by incorporating the best practices found in industry
consensus standards (notably ANSI/ASSE A1264.1-2007) and clarifying
terminology regarding applicability of the provision (e.g.,
"infrequently"). Furthermore, proposed Sec. 1910.28(b)(14) mandates
that guardrail systems must be constructed in accordance with proposed
Sec. 1910.29, Fall protection criteria. Because these requirements
have been recognized throughout industry either as part of an OSHA
standard or industry consensus standards for at least fifteen years,
OSHA believes that the incremental cost burden will be minimal. OSHA
requests public input on the cost impacts and benefits of the
provisions in proposed paragraph Sec. 1910.28(b).
Fall Protection Systems Criteria and Practices (Sec. 1910.29)
Sec. 1910.29(b)(15)--Guardrail systems. This new paragraph
requires that manila, plastic, or synthetic rope being used for top
rails or midrails be inspected "as frequently as necessary" to ensure
that it meets the strength requirements. The inspection costs are
considered below in the next subsection, Cost Estimation.
Sec. 1910.29(c)--Safety net systems. The proposed criteria for
these systems now refer to Sec. 1926, thus avoiding any
inconsistencies between general industry and construction standards,
and effectively extending the requirements found in the construction
standards to most other industries. Given that safety net system
requirements in Sec. 1926 follow consensus standards, OSHA anticipates
few, if any, incremental compliance costs connected with this proposed
requirement.
Sec. 1910.29(h)--Qualified climbers. This proposed paragraph sets
forth the criteria for the use of "qualified climbers" and limits the
use of qualified climbers to employees engaged in billboard operations.
The costs for this proposed paragraph are those to train and, as
necessary, retrain qualified climbers. That is, OSHA assumed that
qualified climbers require training beyond that now required for fixed
ladders. Additional costs are incurred through the proposed requirement
that the employer observe the performance to ensure the qualified
climber has the skills necessary to perform the climb safely. These
costs are discussed further in the next subsection, Cost Estimation.
With respect to other requirements in proposed Sec. 1910.29,
including those found in paragraphs (d) Designated areas, (e) Covers,
and (f) Handrail and stair rail systems, OSHA believes that existing
industry practice, which includes significant widespread compliance
with the proposed requirements, will result in minimal incremental cost
burden to employers. OSHA requests comment on the reasonableness of
this assumption.
Training Requirements (Sec. 1910.30)
This new section requires that employees in general industry be
trained regarding fall and equipment hazards, as well as re-trained
when necessary. OSHA assumed that an employer that trains employees in
compliance with Sec. 1910.30 would choose to maintain records of the
training, and the cost estimates reflect this time commitment on the
part of the employer. The training costs estimated for proposed Sec.
1910.30 encompass requirements from other proposed paragraphs that
specify that the training must be done in accordance with proposed
Sec. 1910.30 (see Table V-18 for examples). These costs are discussed
in more detail below and are incurred only by the percentage of
establishments that do not already provide regular safety training.
Personal Fall Protection Systems (Sec. 1910.140)
OSHA is proposing that within subpart I of Sec. 1910, a new
section, Sec. 1910.140, be added to address personal fall protection
equipment. The proposed text for Sec. 1910.140 adds specific design
and performance requirements for personal fall protection systems to
the existing regulation. In addition, the proposed standard would
require that the provisions for hazard assessment found in existing
Sec. 1910.132 apply to personal fall protection systems.
Section 1910.140(c)(18). This proposed paragraph would require that
personal fall protection systems be inspected prior to each use. Costs
for this requirement are discussed below in the next subsection, Cost
Estimation.
Section 1910.132(d). This existing provision requires an employer
to assess the workplace to identify any potential hazards and the need
for PPE. Costs associated with hazard assessment required by this
proposal are discussed below under proposed Sec. 1910.140, Personal
fall protection systems.
Section 1910.132(f). The revision proposed for this existing
paragraph would require that--before using personal fall protection
systems, and after any component or system is changed--employees must
be trained in the application limits of the equipment, proper hook-up,
anchoring and tie-off techniques, methods of use, and proper methods of
equipment inspection and storage. The costs for the proposed revision
are included in the costs for proposed Sec. 1910.30, and are described
in further detail below under COST ESTIMATION.

Cost Estimation

This subsection presents OSHA's detailed estimates of the costs,
provision by provision, associated with the proposed rule. These
compliance costs represent the incremental burden incurred by employers
beyond the current baseline of fall-related safety expenditures. OSHA
did not attempt to estimate potential cost savings to industry from
increased flexibility in meeting specific requirements, such as the use
of personal fall protection systems rather than the currently mandated
hand/guardrail systems, even if some of the new alternatives might
actually be safer than the currently mandated requirements.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ The new alternatives are assumed to be at least as
effective in employee protection as that provided by the current
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Estimated Compliance Costs by Provision in the Proposed Standard
Labor costs associated with compliance with the proposed standard
are generally characterized as additional employer and supervisor time
for training and inspection. The number of establishments and employees
are taken from Statistics of U.S. Businesses: 2006. The number of
employees covered by subpart D and subpart I is based on the share of
employees employed in building and grounds; construction; \27\
installation, maintenance, and repair; production; and material moving
occupations as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational
Employment Statistics (BLS, 2008). See subsection C above for more
industry-profile information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ Production employees include those in building and grounds;
construction; installation, maintenance, and repair; production; and
material moving occupations. It is conceivable that employees in
construction and related occupations, even though not employed by
establishments in construction industries, might on occasion perform
work that would be regulated by OSHA under its construction
standards in Sec. 1926. For the purpose of estimating costs,
however, ERG assumed that these are employees are covered by the
general industry standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Employee and supervisor wages (see Table V-5) are based on data
reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics through their Occupational
Employment Statistics program (BLS, 2008). OSHA adjusted wages to
include the cost of benefits; estimated benefits were based on data
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation--June 2008 (released September 2008). Current compliance
rates are based on OSHA inspection statistics for Fiscal Year 2005 (see
Table V-13). The percentage of businesses that already provide regular
safety training is based on the National Occupational Exposure Survey
conducted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH, 1988). See Table V-20, below.

Table V-20--Fraction of Businesses Providing Regular Safety Training
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fraction
NAICS Industry providing regular
safety training
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11............................ Agriculture, .796
Forestry, Fishing,
and Hunting.
21............................ Mining (2111 Oil and .751
Gas Extraction).
22............................ Utilities............ .890
31-33......................... Manufacturing........ .855
42............................ Wholesale Trade...... .668
44-45......................... Retail Trade......... .668
48-49......................... Transportation....... .890
51............................ Information.......... .664
52............................ Finance and Insurance .664
53............................ Real Estate.......... .664
54............................ Professional, .664
Scientific, and
Technical Services.
55............................ Management........... .664
56............................ Administrative and .664
Support, Waste
Management and
Remediation Services.
61............................ Educational Services. .83
62............................ Health Care.......... .957
71............................ Arts, Entertainment, .664
and Recreation.
72............................ Accommodation and .664
Food Services.
81............................ Other Services....... .664
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: ERG, 2007, based on NIOSH, 1988.

General Requirements (Sec. 1910.22)
Although the underlying hazard of unsafe walking-working surfaces
is addressed within various Sec. 1910 requirements, proposed Sec.
1910.22 contains three paragraphs with new requirements:
Sec. 1910.22(d)(1): Regular and periodic inspection of
walking-working surfaces;
Sec. 1910.22(d)(2): Unsafe conditions must be guarded
until repaired; and
Sec. 1910.22(d)(3): Qualified person must inspect repair.
For the purpose of estimating costs for Sec. 1910.22(d)(1), ERG
assumed that a significant percentage of facilities include regular and
periodic inspections of walking-working surfaces as part of the general
obligation to provide a safe and healthful workplace. ERG used the non-
compliance rates for floor-guarding (Sec. 1910.23 has the highest non-
compliance rates, see Table V-13) to estimate the number of
establishments that need to perform regular and periodic inspections of
walking-working surfaces. ERG assumed that a supervisor would spend 15
minutes every quarter making the inspection for a total of 1 hour per
year. Based on these unit costs, OSHA estimates that the total annual
inspection cost is $15.3 million.
For estimating the costs of proposed Sec. 1910.22(d)(2), ERG
assumed that within a year, ten percent of affected establishments
would identify an unsafe condition, and furthermore, that it takes an
employee 15 minutes to set up the guard mechanism (e.g., cones,
barriers, etc.). Incremental material costs are assumed to be
negligible in that it is likely that most employers currently stock
guard equipment but only occasionally deploy it. Estimated compliance
costs for this proposed provision are $0.2 million.
For proposed Sec. 1910.22(d)(3), ERG assumed that it takes 5
minutes for a supervisor or qualified person to inspect the repair of
the unsafe condition. Applying this time unit across all affected
employers, OSHA estimates that the costs for a supervisor or qualified
person to inspect repairs will total $0.1 million ($107,350).
Summing costs for the three paragraphs in proposed Sec. 1910.22(d)
with cost impacts, the total estimated cost for compliance with
proposed Sec. 1910.22(d) is, after rounding, $15.7 million per year.
Ladders (Sec. 1910.23)
Eight paragraphs within proposed Sec. 1910.23 would provide new
requirements for protecting employees from slip, trip, and fall hazards
during operations involving ladders. Table V-21 summarizes these
proposed requirements, all of which are assumed by OSHA to be addressed
in a single training session. In addition, OSHA anticipates that
compliance with this proposed provision can be met by informal training
and, thus, no administrative costs are included for an employer.
OSHA's Web site includes a Resource Center with a loan program for
training videos (OSHA, 2006d). The index lists ten training videos for
ladders and stairways with times ranging from five to 19 minutes, for
an average of 12 minutes. For the purposes of estimating costs, ERG
applied a 15-minute training period for this cost analysis.

Table V-21--Training Requirements Under Proposed Sec. 1920.23
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph Subject
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1910.23(b)(11)..................... When ascending or descending
a ladder, the user must
face the ladder.
Sec. 1910.23(b)(12)..................... Each employee must use at
least one hand to grasp the
ladder when progressing up
and down the ladder.
Sec. 1910.23(b)(13)..................... An employee must not carry
any object or load that
could cause the employee to
lose his or her balance and
fall.
Sec. 1910.23(c)(5)...................... Portable single rail ladders
must be rigidly supported
when used.
Sec. 1910.23(c)(6)...................... Ladders must not be moved,
shifted, or extended while
occupied by employees.
Sec. 1910.23(c)(10)..................... The top of a non-self-
supporting ladder must be
placed with the two rails
supported unless it is
equipped with a single
support attachment. [New
for wood ladders.]
Sec. 1910.23(c)(11)..................... When portable ladders are
used to gain access to an
upper landing surface, the
ladder siderails must
extend at least 3 feet (0.9
m) above that upper landing
surface. [New for metal
ladders.]
Sec. 1910.23(c)(13)..................... Ladders and ladder sections
must not be tied or
fastened together to
provide longer length
unless they are
specifically designed for
such use. (New for wood
ladders.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: ERG, 2007.

In ERG's cost model, ten employees are trained per session with one
supervisor in attendance. ERG further assumed that $1 in materials cost
is incurred for handouts for each employee trained.
Some establishments already provide regular safety training. OSHA
applied an estimate for the percentages of establishments that already
provide training from the NIOSH National Occupational Exposure Survey
(NOES) database (NIOSH, 1988). Although the data are over 20 years old,
the NIOSH NOES survey is still the primary source for such information
and covers a broad range of industries. The proportion of
establishments that already offer regular safety training is likely to
have increased in the past two decades; hence, the training costs may
be overestimated.
The cost to train all the employees at establishments that do not
offer regular safety training is a one-time cost that is annualized
over a 10-year period at an interest rate of seven percent. Summing
across all affected employers, the total first-year cost is $11.2
million, with an annualized cost of $1.6 million.
New employees that enter the workforce would also need training.
For the purpose of estimating the cost of the rule, ERG conservatively
assumed that training received at a prior place of employment was not
considered sufficient to meet the proposed subpart D requirement for
the new employer. Based on ERG's analysis of 2003 turnover data
collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (ERG, 2007, Ex. 6), OSHA
applied 2008 BLS industry turnover rate data to the cost analysis.
Table V-22 summarizes the data and the NAICS codes to which they are
assigned. OSHA assigned the turnover rate for manufacturing to logging
(NAICS 1133), oil and gas extraction (NAICS 2111), and information
(NAICS 51). Under these assumptions, the estimated cost is $4.3 million
per year to train new employees about ladder safety.

Table V-22--Industry Turnover Rates Applied in OSHA's Preliminary Cost
Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turnover rate
Industry sector NAICS codes \a\ (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturing..................... 1133, 2111, 31-33, 24.3
51.
Transportation and Public 22, 48-49........... 31.5
Utilities.
Wholesale Trade................... 42.................. 26.1
Retail Trade...................... 44-45............... 47.1
Finance, Insurance, and Real 52-53............... 27.2
Estate.
Service........................... 54-81............... 47.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Hires as a percent of total employment.
Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Directorate of Evaluation and
Analysis, Office of Regulatory Analysis, based on ERG, 2007, and
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey,
2008.

To estimate the costs for ensuring that mobile ladder stands and
mobile ladder stand platforms conform with the applicable ANSI
standards (see the note to proposed Sec. 1910.23(e)), OSHA's cost
formula, adopted from ERG's analysis (ERG, 2007, Ex. 6), includes the
6.74 million establishments covered in subpart D, as presented in the
industry profile earlier in this PEA. ERG assumed that a typical
lifetime for a ladder is five years; thus, one-fifth of the
establishments would purchase a ladder in any given year. Furthermore,
ERG assumed that a supervisor from each establishment would take 5
minutes to read ladder specifications to ensure the ladder about to be
purchased meets all ANSI 14 requirements for that type ladder. With
these assumptions, the estimated annual cost for proposed Sec.
1910.23(e) is $3.8 million.
Step Bolts and Manhole Steps (Sec. 1910.24)
Step bolts. ERG identified three general cost categories for the
requirements addressing step bolts and pole steps:
Utility poles.
Communication structures.
Sports and performance arenas with pole-mounted lights.
Utility poles. According to the 2007 Utility Data Institute
Directory of Electric Power Producers and Distributors, there are
6,297,596 distribution line miles across the United States (Platts,
2007). Of these, the proposed OSHA rule would concern the overhead (as
opposed to underground) line miles. According to ERG, the most recent
estimate available for the overhead distribution system is 4.1 million
line miles in 1996, about two-thirds of total line miles (NCAMP, 1997).
Considering the maturity of the electric power industry in the United
States, ERG assumed that there has not been a significant amount of new
line miles built in the past decade, and of the new lines miles, there
probably has been a trend to build the lines underground. Assuming one
utility pole every 100 feet, ERG estimated that there are 216,480,000
utility poles across the United States. According to a recent highway
safety study, this estimate is 2.5 times the number of reported utility
poles on highways in 1999, and therefore this estimate appears to be
reasonable (NCHRP, 2004). Assuming 1 percent of the poles are climbed
each year and 1 minute is taken for inspection of the step bolts, the
estimated annual cost is $1.5 million.
Communication structures. ERG estimates that there are roughly
190,000 fixed ladder structures in the communications industry (see
ERG, 2007, Appendix A, Ex. 6). This estimate encompasses communication
structures with fixed ladders and step bolts. Fixed ladders, however,
have an existing requirement for inspection while step bolts do not. To
narrow the estimate to fixed ladders with step bolts, ERG searched an
FCC database (Antenna Structure Registration (ASR)) and determined that
most communication structures meet at least one of the following
criteria:
Height is 200 feet or greater.
Height <199 feet if within 5 miles of an airport and fails
the glide calculation (part 17 requirement).
Height of the extension (e.g., beyond the building roof)
is 20 feet or more.
ERG assumed that these structures are more likely to have fixed
ladders rather than step bolts. As of May 2007, there were
approximately 93,000 structures in the ASR database. Communication
structures that are not in the ASR database are smaller and, thus, more
likely to have step bolts. ERG assumed that the difference between the
total number of structures (190,000) and the number in the ASR database
(93,000) would represent the number of structures that could
potentially have step bolts. ERG assumed that the 97,000 structures
with step bolts are climbed once a year and that one minute is spent
inspecting the structure before it is climbed. These unit estimates
resulted in an annual cost of $0.050 million for NAICS 51
(Information).
Sports and performance arenas. According to a recent census, there
are 1,699 promoters of performing arts, sports, and similar events with
facilities (Census, 2002). ERG was unable to estimate the number of
step bolts at each facility, but assuming that one hour per year is
dedicated to inspecting all step bolts at each facility, ERG calculated
that annual costs would total $0.034 million for NAICS 7113 (promoters
of performing arts, sports, and similar events with facilities).
Summing costs for utility poles, communication structures, and
sports and performance arenas, OSHA estimated that the total annual
inspection cost for step bolts would be $1.54 million. OSHA requests
comment on the extent to which visual inspection of step bolts is
currently conducted in the telecommunications and electric utility
industries, and in sports and performance arenas. OSHA, in addition,
requests comment on the assumptions underlying its analysis of costs,
as well as information on the potential impacts of the proposed
revision to the requirements to safely climb surfaces with step bolts.
Manhole steps. ERG estimates there are between 6.6 and 13.2 million
manholes, with a mid-point estimate of 9.9 million manholes (ERG, 2007,
Ex. 6). Of these manholes, approximately 85 percent, or 8.4 million
manholes, are 20 feet or less in depth and, therefore, the majority
would use steps or portable ladders instead of fixed ladders. By way of
simplification, ERG assumed that 10 percent of all manholes 20 feet or
less would be entered once a year, on average, and that it would take
one minute to inspect the steps prior to entering the manhole. These
assumptions resulted in an annual cost of $2.1 million for the industry
that would be primarily affected, NAICS 2213 (water, sewage, and other
systems).
Other industries also use manholes for access, such as the electric
power generation, transmission, and distribution (NAICS 2211) and
natural gas distribution (NAICS 2212). ERG, however, had no data on the
number of manholes for those industry groups, but OSHA presumes that
the costs would be proportional to the number of manholes that are
estimated for water and sewage systems. OSHA was not able to estimate
costs for NAICS 2211 and 2212, and, therefore, requests public comment
on the impact of the requirement for inspecting manhole steps on these
and any other affected industries.
The incremental costs for the provision of slip-resistant and
corrosion-resistant manhole step surfaces would be incurred in the
future as manholes with steps are replaced at the end of their useful
life. As described above, there are 9.9 million manholes, of which 85
percent are 20 feet or less in depth and 15 percent are more than 20
feet in depth. The manholes less than 20 feet are assumed to have a
uniform distribution in the use of portable ladders, fixed ladders, and
steps, resulting in 2.9 million manholes with steps. The manholes 20
feet or more in depth are assumed to have a uniform distribution
between fixed ladders and steps, resulting in 0.7 million manholes with
steps. Therefore, 3.6 million manholes are considered as the universe
affected by the proposed requirement. The most expensive step found has
a per-unit cost of $8.50, and it is assumed that this includes a 10
percent premium to ensure the steps meet the proposed requirements
(ERG, 2007, Ex. 6).
OSHA estimated annual step replacement costs by assuming that 10
percent of the manholes are entered each year, and of those 10 percent
have a failed rung. At the incremental cost of $0.85 each (10 percent
of $8.50 per rung), the estimated annual step replacement cost is $0.03
million. Annual manhole replacement costs are estimated assuming 5
percent of manholes need to be replaced a year and that steps are
installed every 16 inches. The estimated annual manhole replacement
cost is $1.7 million.
Scaffolds and Rope Descent Systems (Sec. 1910.27)
Training. Cost for any training beyond what is done as a result of
the 1991 OSHA memorandum on descent control devices are attributed to
proposed Sec. 1910.30 (see below).
Sound anchorages. To provide assurances that an anchorage is sound,
assigned costs involved: (1) A qualified/competent person who would
inspect the rigging and anchorages on buildings annually, and (2) a
professional engineer who would certify the soundness of the rigging
and anchorages every 10 years.
According to an industry expert contacted by ERG, an estimated 3.0
million window-cleaning descents take place annually at 750,000
buildings (ERG, 2007, Ex. 6). Using data collected by the Department of
Energy (DOE) for surveys on energy use, ERG compared this estimate with
the number of commercial and residential buildings with four or more
floors. The 2003 Commercials Buildings Energy Consumption Survey
identified about 140,000 commercial buildings nationwide (DOE, 2006).
The 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey identified about 2.4
million apartment buildings with 5 to 10 floors, 0.9 million apartment
buildings with 11 to 20 floors, and an unspecified number of buildings
with more than 20 floors (DOE, 2004). Summing the three categories of
residential buildings, ERG estimated that there are approximately 3.3
million residential buildings with at least 5 or more floors.
If it is assumed that each commercial building has its windows
cleaned annually, that would account for 140,000 of the estimated
750,000 cleanings per year. If the remaining 610,000 cleanings are
distributed over the 3.3 million residential buildings, each building
would, on average, have its windows cleaned every five to six years.
ERG's industry expert estimated that a minimum of 20 percent of the
building owners comply with the inspection standard and that the number
is increasing. However, comments submitted to the Agency in response to
the 2003 reopening presented a wide range of perspectives on the
likelihood that building owners inspect their anchorages on a periodic
basis. Amodeo (2003) noted that some clients view ANSI I-14.1 as
voluntary and resist having inspections. Kreidenweis (2003) commented
that few buildings are inspected by an engineer. In contrast, Lebel
(2003) shared the view that many buildings have a roof plan and
identified anchorages certified by a professional engineer. Zeolla
(2003) stated that most buildings that have invested in anchors are
performing the inspections.
If, as estimated by ERG, 75 percent of the approximately 750,000
buildings that are cleaned each year will be affected by the change
from a voluntary requirement to a mandatory requirement, then OSHA
estimates that 562,500 buildings would require annual inspections and
decennial certifications. ERG further assumed that the annual
inspections would be performed by a production supervisor ($29.73/hour)
and that it would take one hour to perform the inspection. Annual costs
for the building inspections would total $16.7 million.
Table V-23 summarizes the range in costs for a professional
engineer to certify building anchorages; cost estimates were drawn from
comments in the record. The estimates are adjusted to 2003 dollars
using as the deflator the Consumer Price Index--All Urban Consumers
(BLS, 2007). The costs range from a low of $175 to a high of $2,500,
and probably represent the range in the size of buildings, complexity
of anchorage arrangements, and regional standards. The median value is
$1,000.

Table V-23--Estimated Cost for the Certification of Building Anchorages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated cost Estimated cost (2003
--------------------------------- dollars)
Source ---------------------
Low High Year Low High
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bright, 2007............................................. $300 $1,500 2006 $274 $1,369
Kreidenweis, 2003........................................ 1,000 2,500 2003 1,000 2,500
Lebel, 2003.............................................. 175 1,000 2003 175 1,000
Wright, 2003............................................. 400 ......... 2003 400 .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: ERG, 2007.

Assuming, as indicated earlier, that building anchorages would be
certified every ten years, OSHA estimates that 56,250 buildings (one-
tenth of 562,500 buildings certified annually) would need anchorage
certification every year. At an average cost of $1,000 for
certification, annual costs for anchorage certification would total
$56.3 million.
Summing costs for inspecting and certifying building anchorages,
OSHA estimates that annual costs for ensuring that building anchorages
are sound, as required by proposed Sec. 1910.27(b)(2)(iv), would total
$73.0 million.
Duty To Have Fall Protection (Sec. 1910.28)
Table V-24 lists the requirements in this proposed section that are
likely to create new cost burdens on employers. The following
discussion presents, by requirement, the details of OSHA's cost
analysis for this section.
General protection. Proposed Sec. 1910.28(a)(2) covers all
walking-working surfaces and specifies that walking-working surfaces
must have the strength and structural integrity to support employees
safely. As discussed earlier in this cost subsection, the proposed
general requirements (Sec. 1910.22) provide for the periodic and
regular inspection of walking-working surfaces by employers to ensure
that the surfaces are in a safe condition for employees to use.
Proposed Sec. 1910.28(a)(2) provides further detail as to what should
be considered in the inspection of surfaces. Thus, OSHA believes that
the costs for the inspections required by proposed Sec. 1910.28(a)(2),
are included in the costs estimated for general inspection in proposed
Sec. 1910.22(d), described earlier.
Dockboards (bridge plates). Proposed Sec. 1920.28(b)(4) would
require that guardrails or handrails be installed to protect employees
on dockboards from falls of four feet or more to a lower level.
Employers with dockboards having maximum heights that are less than
four feet would not incur costs under this paragraph. Dockboards
presenting a fall hazard of four feet up to ten feet are exempted from
the hand/guardrail requirement if the ramp is used exclusively for
material handling operations with motorized equipment. To qualify for
the exception, employees need to be trained.
Training costs for this provision are discussed later in this section.

Table V-24--New Requirements in Sec. 1910.28, Duty To Have Fall
Protection
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph Subject
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1910.28(a)(2).............. Employer must ensure that walking-
working surfaces have the strength
and structural integrity to safely
support employees.
Sec. 1910.28(b)(4)(i)........... Installation of guardrails and
handrails on dockboards (bridge
plates).
Sec. 1910.28(b)(4)(ii).......... Fall protection training required
for dockboards, in accordance with
Sec. 1910.30, including proper
placement and securing of
dockboards, securing of vehicles,
and proper use of material handling
equipment.
Sec. 1910.28(b)(10)(iii)........ Inspection of safety systems on
fixed ladders used in outdoor
advertising.
Sec. 1910.28(b)(10)(v) and (vi). Employees that routinely climb the
fixed ladder portions of a
billboard must be a "qualified
climber" and must have both hands
free of tools or material when
ascending or descending a ladder.
Costs associated with this training
are assigned to proposed Sec.
1910.29(h).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, 2007.

ERG judged that a substantial proportion of dockboards would either
not incur costs due to height or be able to use the exception. Thus,
OSHA anticipates that any costs incurred under this provision are
unlikely to be substantial. OSHA requests comment on the potential
impacts associated with the duty to protect employees on dockboards
from falls.
Outdoor advertising. Based on discussions with the Outdoor
Advertising Association of America, ERG estimated that the number of
billboards with fixed ladders over 20 feet is approximately 20,500
(ERG, 2007, Ex. 6). Billboards are climbed anywhere from one to more
than 12 times a year, whenever the copy is changed. For the purpose of
estimating costs, ERG assumes that billboards are climbed an average of
six times a year, totaling 123,000 climbs (20,500 billboards x 6
climbs). Each time a billboard is to be climbed, the employee takes two
minutes to inspect the ladder safety system (246,000 minutes or 4,100
hours). Employees who climb billboards are generally found in NAICS
5418 (Advertising and Related Services). In 2008, the average wage
including benefits for this category was $21.39/hr. Thus, the estimated
cost to comply with the provision for inspection of ladder safety
systems on billboards will total approximately $88,000 per year.
As specified in proposed Sec. 1910.28(b)(10)(v) and (vi),
employees that routinely climb the fixed ladder portions of a billboard
must satisfy the criteria for "qualified climbers" found in proposed
Sec. 1910.29(h), must undergo training and demonstrate the capacity to
perform the necessary climbs safely, and must have both hands free of
tools or material when ascending or descending a ladder. For the
purpose of estimating costs, ERG assumed that all employees who climb
billboards are "qualified climbers" and that the training for a
qualified climber includes the instruction to have both hands free
while ascending or descending the ladder (see proposed Sec.
1910.29(h)(2)). For this preliminary cost analysis, OSHA assigned the
costs to train a qualified climber under proposed paragraphs Sec.
1910.28(b)(10)(v) to Sec. 1910.29(h).
Fall Protection Systems Criteria and Practices (Sec. 1910.29)
For proposed Sec. 1910.29, two requirements are expected to impose
significant new burdens on employers. Below are details of OSHA's
approach to estimating costs for this section of the proposed standard.
Inspection of manila, plastic, and synthetic rope. The proposed
regulatory text for Sec. 1910.29(b)(15), requiring the inspection of
manila, plastic, or synthetic rope being used as rails, specifies that
the inspections must be done as frequently as necessary to ensure the
strength requirement is met. The estimated inspection cost, then, would
be the product of the:
Number of guardrail systems;
Proportion that use manila, plastic, or synthetic rope
used as toprails or midrails;
Number of inspections per year;
Time required for each inspection (hours); and
Average wage per inspector per industry ($/hr.).
At this time, OSHA lacks data on the proportion of guardrail
systems that use manila, plastic, or synthetic rope as top rails or
midrails. However, OSHA considers it likely that the inspection of
these alternate materials for toprails and siderails would form part of
the inspections performed under proposed Sec. 1910.22, the general
inspection of walking-working surfaces for safety. That is, proposed
Sec. 1910.29(b)(15) provides a detail to be included in the inspection
for those workplaces that use manila, plastic, or synthetic rope as top
rails or midrails. Therefore, OSHA allocated no additional costs to
this provision.
Qualified climbers. Proposed paragraph Sec. 1910.29(h) concerns
the outdoor advertising/billboard industry. "Qualified climbers" are
an option open only to this industry. Qualified climbers must:
Have climbing duties as one of their routine work
activities (proposed Sec. 1910.29(h)(4));
Be physically capable of performing the climbing duties
(proposed Sec. 1910.29(h)(1));
Undergo training or an apprenticeship program (proposed
Sec. 1910.30(h)(2)); and
Be retrained as necessary (proposed Sec. 1910.30(h)(2)).
Employers are required to ensure that a qualified climber has the
skill to safely perform the climb by using (1) performance observations
throughout the training, and either formal classroom or on-the-job
training; or (2) performance observations once the climber has had
formal classroom training, or ensuring the skill of the qualified
climber through on-the-job training. In the second option, the employer
does not need to personally observe the climber. In ERG's cost model, a
combination of employer performance observation and classroom
training--as found in the first option--contributes to the proper
preparation of employees.
For the purposes of estimating costs, ERG assumed that 90 percent
of the employees in the outdoor advertising industry who climb have
been trained as qualified climbers. Thus, there would be one-time costs
associated with qualifying the remaining ten percent of climbers. These
costs are annualized over ten years at a rate of seven percent. In
addition, the industry incurs annual costs for:
Employer performance observation;
Training of new employees;
Retraining of employees as necessary; and
Administrative costs to document training and re-training.
For the purpose of estimating one-time costs, ERG estimated that
ten percent of the total number of employees who perform construction,
installation, maintenance, and repair operations in NAICS 5418
(advertising and related services) (or 713 out of 7,132 employees)
would need to undergo training to be qualified climbers.
The National Association of Tower Erectors has developed a climber
training standard with varying levels of expertise (authorized,
competent, and competent rescuer), but does not offer training itself
(NATE, 2006). The OSHA Web site lists a 4-day training session in fall
arrest systems for $750. Commercial courses in fall protection searched
on the Web range from one to five days with costs ranging from $500 to
$2,500 per course (ERG, 2007, Ex. 6). The prices include materials and
the trainer's time. For the purposes of estimating costs, ERG assumed
that the requirements in the proposed standard could be met by a 4-day
training course, at a cost of $1,500 plus the employee's time ($684,
based on an average wage of $21.39/hr and 32 hours), for a total of
$2,184. Furthermore, administrative tasks to document the training are
assumed to be 15 minutes of a supervisor's time for every ten employees
trained. In all, OSHA estimates that the one-time cost to qualify the
estimated 713 climbers would be $1.56 million, and the annualized cost
is $0.22 million per year.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ Employers may offer on-the-job training and would
presumably do so if the costs are less than that for commercial
training. Thus, the estimated costs presented here may be
conservatively high.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the purposes of estimating the annual costs associated with
this proposed paragraph, ERG applied the following unit estimates and
assumptions:
A supervisor observes each of the estimated 7,132
qualified climbers for 15 minutes per quarter or 1 hour per qualified
climber per year;
A supervisor spends 15 minutes per year per qualified
climber on administrative tasks for training and re-training;
Ten percent of the climbers need re-training;
Retraining consists of an 8-hour refresher course at a
cost of $500; and
The turnover rate is 47 percent.
Based on ERG's analysis (ERG, 2007, Ex. 6), OSHA estimates that the
annual cost would be $8.2 million, of which $7.4 million is due to the
need to train new hires.\29\ OSHA requests comment on the assumptions
and unit cost estimates applied to its analysis of costs for qualified
climber training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ OSHA presumes that a qualified climber could not bring his
or her accreditation if he or she changes companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Training Requirements (Sec. 1910.30)
Fall hazards and equipment hazards. Proposed Sec. 1910.30(a)
addresses training with respect to fall hazards. The training must be:
Conducted by a qualified person;
Include the nature of fall hazards in the workplace;
Include the correct procedures for erecting, maintaining,
disassembling, and inspecting the fall protection system used; and
Include the use and operation of guardrail systems,
personal fall protection systems, safety net systems, warning lines
used in designated areas, and other (unspecified) protection to be
used.
Proposed Sec. 1910.30(b) addresses training with respect to
equipment hazards. In particular, employees must be trained in the
proper:
Care, use, and inspection of equipment covered by subpart
D before their use in accordance with recognized industry practices and
manufacturers' recommendations;
Placement and securing of dockboards to prevent
unintentional movement; and
Rigging and safe use of rope descent systems.
The costs for the training allocated under proposed Sec.
1910.27(b)(2)(ii) (rope descent systems) and Sec. 1910.28(b)(4) (duty
to have fall protection: dockboards) are included in the cost estimate
for proposed Sec. 1910.30.
In a previous analysis, ERG estimated the number and percent of
employees by industry that use personal protective equipment such as
body belts and/or body harnesses (ERG, 1999, Ex. OSHA-S042-2006-0667-
0318). ERG then applied these industry-specific percentages to the
number of at-risk employees in 2008 to estimate the number of employees
that need the type of training required under proposed Sec. 1910.30.
Some companies already provide this training. ERG used data from
the NOES survey to estimate, by NAICS code, the level of training that
is already provided at the baseline.
For the purpose of estimating costs, ERG assumed that all employees
that have not already been trained and use personal fall protection
systems would undergo six hours of training on fall hazards and
equipment hazards to address the requirements in proposed Sec. Sec.
1910.30(a) and 1910.30(b)(1).
Employees in the utility, sewage, and communications industry
sectors (NAICS 2211-2213 and 5121-5191) are assumed to undergo an
additional half-day of training to specifically address the proposed
requirements for step bolts (thus, a total of 10 hours of training).
Similarly, employees in NAICS codes 4881 through 4884 (support
activities for transportation by air, rail, water, and road,
respectively) are assumed to undergo a half-day of training
specifically to address requirements for dockboards. Window washers,
found in NAICS 5617 (services to buildings and dwellings), are assumed
to have an entire day devoted to training on rope descent systems
(thus, a total of 14 hours of training).
As specified in the proposed standard, training would be provided
by a qualified person. For the purpose of estimating costs, ERG assumed
that the trainer conducts the training at the workplace, for a fee of
$500 per day. The training fee includes instruction, travel, lodging,
and per diem expenses, as well as hand-out materials. This fee is
incurred per every 10 employees (i.e., class size is limited to 10
people). A supervisor is assumed to spend 15 minutes per employee per
year in administrative costs to maintain and update training records.
The estimated total one-time cost for proposed Sec. 1910.30(a) and
(b) is $81.5 million. This cost is annualized over ten years at an
interest rate of seven percent. The annualized cost is $11.6 million.
There is also an annual cost due to the need to train new employees.
The BLS turnover rates are applied to estimate the annual number of new
employees that need training. The estimated annual cost is $28.1
million.
Retraining. Proposed Sec. 1910.30(c) concerns the need to retrain
employees whenever the employer has reason to believe that retraining
is required for safety purposes. This need can occur through such
circumstances as changes in the workplace, fall protection systems, or
fall protection equipment that render previous training invalid; or the
discovery that employee knowledge or use of fall protection systems or
equipment is no longer adequate. ERG assumed that retraining already
occurs at establishments that have training programs in place. For the
remaining employees, ERG assumed that five percent require retraining
in any given year. The retraining course is assumed to be a 1-hour
supervisor-led refresher course that focuses on the areas in
which the employee is deficient. Estimated costs for retraining would
total $4.4 million.
Subpart I[horbar]Personal Protective Equipment
PPE inspection. Proposed Sec. 1910.140(c)(18) would require that
personal fall protection systems be inspected before each use for
mildew, wear, damage, and other deterioration and that defective
components be removed from service. For the purposes of estimating
costs, ERG assumed that each employee who wears a personal fall
protection system does so at the beginning of every work week, the
employee works 50 weeks per year, and the inspection takes about one
minute. The associated inspection cost is approximately $7.3 million
per year.
Hazard assessment. Proposed Sec. 1910.132(d) requires an employer
to assess the workplace to determine if hazards are present or are
likely to be present. ERG assumed that the amount of time needed by an
employer to walk around the establishment, assess the potential hazard,
and determine the appropriate PPE and training needed by the employees
would vary with the size of the establishment. ERG used the number of
employees as an indicator of establishment size. The time required for
the hazard assessment was estimated as:
1 to 19 employees: 1 hour.
20 to 99 employees: 2 hours.
100 to 499 employees: 3 hours.
500+ employees: 4 hours.
Furthermore, ERG assumed that:
All establishments in the forestry, oil and gas, utility,
manufacturing, and transportation sectors (NAICS 1131 through 3399 and
4811 through 4931) would undertake a hazard assessment because of
perceived risks;
Half the establishments in wholesale and retail sales
(NAICS 4231 through 4543) would undertake a hazard assessment; and
One-quarter of the establishments in the service
industries (NAICS 5111 through 8139) would undertake a hazard
assessment.
This analysis results in a one-time cost of $79.0 million which can
also be expressed as an annualized cost of $11.3 million.
PPE training. Proposed Sec. 1910.132(f) requires that employees be
trained prior to using PPE in the workplace. The costs for this
paragraph are included in the costs for proposed Sec. 1910.30,
described earlier.

Cost Summary

Tables V-25 through V-27 summarize the costs by industry for each
paragraph in the proposed standard. Table V-25 lists the first-year
costs. These costs are incurred once to bring the employee population
into compliance with the new requirements. For the purpose of
evaluating impacts, these one-time costs are annualized over a 10-year
period at an interest rate of 7 percent. Total first-year costs are
$173.3 million; annualized, the costs for the first year total $24.7
million.
Table V-26 lists the recurring costs, such as inspections and
training new employees. These costs are incurred annually and are
estimated at $148.5 million. Table V-27 lists the annual costs to
industry, that is, the sum of the recurring costs and the annualized
one-time costs. The cost to industry is estimated at $173.2 million.
Listing annualized costs in descending order by section of the
rule, OSHA projects that the most costly provisions are associated with
scaffolds ($73.0 million), training programs ($44.1 million), and fall
protection equipment criteria ($18.5 million). For scaffolds, proposed
Sec. 1910.27(b)(2)(iv) requires that employers use proper rigging,
including sound anchorages and tiebacks. As described earlier in this
cost analysis, OSHA interpreted this provision as implying that
periodic inspections and certifications of building anchorages would be
scheduled to ensure compliance.
Because of the inherent risk involved with cleaning windows of
office buildings and other tall structures while suspended on scaffolds
or other devices (see Table V-6 for the number of reported fatalities
in NAICS 561, Administrative and Support Services), the issue of proper
safety during window cleaning was raised by OSHA in the 2003 notice
that reopened the rulemaking record. In this notice, OSHA requested
comment on the hazards associated with window cleaning and the safe
practices that have been recommended and implemented through the use of
rope decent systems (controlled descent devices) (68 FR 23534). OSHA's
analysis of the costs of ensuring sound anchorages and rigging,
described above and in the ERG report (ERG, 2007, Ex. 6), is based upon
the experiences and observations of the industry representatives who
responded to OSHA's request for comment in 2003. In this current
rulemaking, OSHA requests that interested parties review the details of
OSHA's analysis of costs for scaffolds in this PEA and submit comments
into the record.

BILLING CODE 4510-29-P

TABLE V-25
First Year Costs for the Propsed Standard on Walking-Working Surfaces by Paragraph and Industry

BILLING CODE 4510-29-C

G. Economic Impacts
Introduction
OSHA has determined that the costs of complying with the
requirements of the proposed revisions to subparts D and I will not
impose adverse economic impacts on employers in the industries affected
by the rule. The costs imposed by the standard are modest, and the
increased safety and reduction in injuries and fatalities associated
with the standard will ultimately reduce employers' direct and indirect
costs. This preliminary analysis of economic impacts is based on
industry data described above in section C, Profile of Affected
Industries, Firms, and Workers, the cost analysis presented in section
E, Costs of Compliance, and analysis by OSHA's contractor, ERG (ERG,
2007, Ex. 6).
OSHA's preliminary impacts are summarized in Table V-28 for the
two-digit NAICS industry groups affected by the proposed standard.
"Minimum" and "Maximum" refer to the lowest and highest costs among
the four-digit NAICS industries categorized within the two-digit group.
The following section discusses OSHA's methodology for assessing the
significance of the impacts at the aggregate level presented in Table
V-29 and at levels of greater industry detail.
Economic Screening Analysis
To determine whether the proposed rule's projected costs of
compliance would raise issues of economic feasibility for employers in
affected industries, i.e., would adversely alter the competitive
structure of the industry, OSHA first compared compliance costs to
industry revenues and profits. OSHA then examined specific factors
affecting individual industries where compliance costs represent a
significant share of revenue, or where the record contains other
evidence that the standard could have significant impact on the
competitive structure of the industry.
As noted, OSHA examined the potential impacts of the proposed
standards rule two ways--as a percentage of revenues and as a
percentage of profits. The estimated average receipts and profits by
establishment and industry are presented in the Table V-29. Applying
the methodology employed by ERG (ERG, 2007, Ex. 6), OSHA estimated 2006
receipts based on 2002 receipts and payroll data from U.S. Census
Bureau, Statistics of U.S. Businesses, 2002, and payroll data from U.S.
Census Bureau, Statistics of U.S. Businesses, 2006. For that
calculation, OSHA assumed that the ratio of receipts to payroll
remained unchanged between 2002 and 2006. OSHA estimated profits from
ratios of net income to total receipts as reported for 2000-2006
(seven-year average) by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, Corporation
Source Book. Profit data were not available at disaggregated levels for
all industries; therefore, profit rates at more highly aggregated
levels were used for such industries.

BILLING CODE 4510-29-P

TABLE V-28
Summary of Cost Impacts Associated with OSHA's Proposed Revisions to the Standards for Supparts D and I

TABLE V-29
Average Sost impacts on Establishments Affected by OSHA's Proposed Revision to Subparts D and I
(per Established by 4-Digist NAICS Code)

BILLING CODE 4510-29-C

OSHA compared the baseline financial data with total annualized
incremental costs of compliance by computing compliance costs as a
percentage of revenues and profits. This impact assessment for all
firms, presented in Tables V-28 and V-29, is considered a screening
analysis and is the first step in OSHA's analysis of whether the
compliance costs potentially associated with the proposed standard
would lead to significant impacts on establishments in the affected
industries. The actual impact of the proposed standard on the viability
of establishments in a given industry, in a static world, depends, to a
significant degree, on the price elasticity of demand for the services
sold by establishments in that industry.
Price elasticity refers to the relationship between the price
charged for a service and the demand for that service; that is, the
more elastic the relationship, the less able is an establishment to
pass the costs of compliance through to its customers in the form of a
price increase and the more it will have to absorb the costs of
compliance from its profits. When demand is inelastic, establishments
can recover most of the costs of compliance by raising the prices they
charge for that service; under this scenario, profit rates are largely
unchanged and the industry remains largely unaffected. Any impacts are
primarily on those using the relevant services. On the other hand, when
demand is elastic, establishments cannot recover all the costs simply
by passing the cost increase through in the form of a price increase;
instead, they must absorb some of the increase from their profits.
Commonly, this will mean both reductions in the quantity of goods and
services produced and in total profits, though the profit rate may
remain unchanged. In general, "when an industry is subject to a higher
cost, it does not simply swallow it, it raises its price and reduces
its output, and in this way shifts a part of the cost to its consumers
and a part to its suppliers," in the words of the court in American
Dental Association v. Secretary of Labor (984 F.2d 823, 829 (7th Cir.
1993)).
The court's summary is in accordance with micro-economic theory. In
the long run, firms can only remain in business if their profits are
adequate to provide a return on investment that assures that investment
in the industry will continue. Over time, because of rising real
incomes and productivity, firms in most industries are able to assure
an adequate profit. As technology and costs change, however, the long-
run demand for some products increases and the long-run demand for
other products decreases. In the face of rising external costs, firms
that otherwise have a profitable line of business may have to increase
prices to stay viable. Commonly, increases in prices result in reduced
demand, but rarely eliminate all demand for the product. Whether this
decrease in the total production of the product results in smaller
production for each establishment within the industry, or the closure
of some plants within the industry, or a combination of the two, is
dependent on the cost and profit structure of individual firms within
the industry.
If demand is completely inelastic (i.e., price elasticity is 0),
then the impact of compliance costs that are 1 percent of revenues for
each firm in the industry would result in a 1 percent increase in the
price of the product or service, with no decline in quantity demanded.
Such a situation represents an extreme case, but might be correct in
situations in which there are few if any substitutes for the product or
service in question, or if the products or services of the affected
sector account for only a small portion of the income of its consumers.
If the demand is perfectly elastic (i.e., the price elasticity is
infinitely large), then no increase in price is possible and before-tax
profits would be reduced by an amount equal to the costs of compliance
(minus any savings resulting from improved employee health and/or
reduced insurance costs) if the industry attempted to keep producing
the same amount of goods and services as previously. Under this
scenario, if the costs of compliance are such a large percentage of
profits that some or all plants in the industry can no longer invest in
the industry with hope of an adequate return on investment, then some
or all of the firms in the industry will close. This scenario is highly
unlikely to occur, however, because it can only arise when there are
other goods and services that are, in the eyes of the consumer, perfect
substitutes for the goods and services the affected establishments
produce.
A common intermediate case would be a price elasticity of one. In
this situation, if the costs of compliance amount to 1 percent of
revenues, then production would decline by 1 percent and prices would
rise by 1 percent. In this case, the industry revenues would stay the
same, with somewhat lower production, but similar profit rates (in most
situations where the marginal costs of production net of regulatory
costs would fall as well). Consumers would, however, get less of the
product or the service for their expenditures, and producers would
collect lower total profits; this, as the court described in American
Dental Association v. Secretary of Labor, is the more typical case.
If there is a price elasticity of one, the question of economic
feasibility is complicated. On the one hand, the industry will
certainly not be "eliminated" with the level of costs found in this
rulemaking, since under these assumptions the change in total profits
is somewhat less than the costs imposed by the regulation. But there is
still the question of whether the industry's competitive structure will
be significantly altered. For example, given a 20 percent increase in
costs, and an elasticity of one, the industry will not be eliminated.
However, if the increase in costs is such that all small firms in an
industry will have to close, this could reasonably be concluded to have
altered its competitive structure. For this reason, when costs are a
significant percentage of revenues, OSHA examines the differential
costs by size of firm, and other classifications that may be important.
As indicated by the impact estimates shown in Tables V-28 and V-29,
OSHA has determined that, for all affected establishments in general
industry, revenue impacts will not exceed 0.08 percent for any affected
industry group, and that profit impacts will not exceed 1.7 percent for
any affected industry group.
The economic impact of the proposal is most likely to consist of a
small increase in prices for the goods and services provided by the
affected employers of less than 0.02 percent in the majority of cases.
It is unlikely that a price increase of the magnitude of 0.02 percent
will significantly alter the quantity of goods or services demanded by
the public or any other affected customers or intermediaries. If the
compliance costs of the proposal can be substantially recouped with
such a minimal increase in prices, there may be little effect on
profits.
In general, for most establishments, it would be unlikely that none
of the compliance costs could be passed along in the form of increased
prices. In the event that unusual circumstances may inhibit even a
price increase of 0.02 percent, profits in the majority of affected
industries would be reduced by a maximum of about 0.1 percent.
In profit-earning entities, compliance costs can generally be
expected to be absorbed through a combination of increases in prices or
reduction in profits. As discussed above, the extent to which the
impacts of cost increases affect prices or profits depends on the price
elasticity of demand for the
products or services produced and sold by the entity.
In the case of cost increases that may be incurred due to the
requirements of the proposal, all businesses within each of the covered
industry sectors would be subject to the same requirements. Thus, to
the extent potential price increases correspond to costs associated
with achieving compliance with the proposed standards, the elasticity
of demand for each entity will approach that faced by the industry as a
whole.
Given the small incremental increases in prices potentially
resulting from compliance with the proposed standards and the lack of
readily available substitutes for the products and services provided by
the covered industry sectors, demand is expected to be sufficiently
inelastic in each affected industry to enable entities to substantially
offset compliance costs through minor price increases without
experiencing any significant reduction in total revenues or in net
profits.
For the economy as a whole, OSHA expects the economic impact of the
proposed rulemaking to be both an increase in the efficiency of
production of goods and services and an improvement in the welfare of
society. First, as demonstrated by the analysis of costs and benefits
associated with compliance with the requirements of the proposed rule,
OSHA expects that societal welfare will increase as a result of these
standards, as the benefits achieved clearly and strongly justify the
relatively small costs necessary. The impacts of the proposal involve
net benefits of over $100 million that are achieved in a relatively
cost-effective manner.
Second, many of the costs associated with the injuries and
fatalities resulting from the risks addressed by the proposal have
until now been externalized. That is, the costs incurred by society to
protect workers exposed to falls during the production of certain goods
and services have not been fully reflected in the prices of those
products and services. The costs of production have been partly borne
by workers who suffer the consequences associated with the activities
causing the risks. To the extent that fewer of these costs are
externalized, the price mechanism will enable the market to result in a
more efficient allocation of resources. It should be noted that
reductions in externalities by themselves do not necessarily increase
efficiency or social welfare unless the costs of achieving the
reductions are outweighed by the associated benefits.
OSHA concludes that compliance with the requirements of the
proposal is economically feasible in every affected industry sector.
This conclusion is based on the criteria established by the OSH Act, as
interpreted in relevant case law. In general, the courts have held that
a standard is economically feasible if there is a reasonable likelihood
that the estimated costs of compliance "will not threaten the
existence or competitive structure of an industry, even if it does
portend disaster for some marginal firms" (United Steelworkers of
America v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1272 (DC Cir. 1980)). As
demonstrated by the PEA and the supporting evidence, the potential
impacts associated with achieving compliance with the proposal fall far
within the bounds of economic feasibility in each industry sector.
OSHA does not expect compliance with the requirements of the
proposal to threaten the viability of entities, or the existence or
competitive structure of any of the affected industry sectors. In
addition, based on an analysis of the costs and economic impacts
associated with this rulemaking, OSHA preliminarily concludes that the
effects of the proposal on international trade, employment, wages, and
economic growth for the United States would be negligible.

H. Voluntary Initial Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended in 1996 (SBA, 1996),
requires the preparation of an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) for certain proposed rules (5 U.S.C. 601-612). Under the
provisions of the law, each such analysis shall contain:
1. A description of the impact of the proposed rule on small
entities;
2. A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being
considered;
3. A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for,
the proposed rule;
4. A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number
of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
5. A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an
estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the
requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record;
6. An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant
Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the
proposed rule; and
7. A description and discussion of any significant alternatives to
the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable
statutes and which minimize any significant economic impact of the
proposed rule on small entities, including
a. The establishment of differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into account the resources
available to small entities;
b. The clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small
entities;
c. The use of performance rather than design standards;
d. An exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for
such small entities.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act further states that the required
elements of the IRFA may be performed in conjunction with, or as part
of, any other agenda or analysis required by any other law if such
other analysis satisfies the relevant provisions.
To determine the need for an IRFA, OSHA conducted a voluntary
initial regulatory flexibility screening analysis to assess the
potential impacts of the proposed standard on affected small entities.
On the basis of the screening analysis, presented below, OSHA certifies
that the proposed standard will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
1. Impact of the Proposed Rule on Small Entities
Based on analysis by ERG (ERG, 2007, Ex. 6), OSHA estimated
compliance costs and economic impacts for small entities affected by
the proposed rule. Tables V-2 and V-3 in section C presented,
respectively, the profiles for general industry entities classified as
small according to Small Business Administration (SBA) criteria and for
entities with fewer than 20 employees. ERG assigned costs to small
entities by first determining the per-employee compliance costs for
those cost items that are a function of the number of affected
employees at a facility, and the per-establishment cost for those items
that do not vary with establishment size. ERG then calculated, by
industry, the average number of employees for each of the two classes
of small entities, multiplied these averages by per-employee compliance
cost, and then added the establishment-based cost to determine the
average compliance cost for each type of small entity. These
statistics, multiplied by the numbers of small entities, produced the
total compliance costs in each industry incurred by small entities.
Table V-30 shows the resultant annualized compliance costs by
industry sector for SBA-defined small entities, while Table V-31 shows
the costs for entities with fewer than 20 employees. Compliance costs
for small entities totaled $125.0 million, compared to $173.2 million
for all establishments. Compliance costs for the smallest entities
totaled $96.0 million.
OSHA calculated the economic impacts of these costs by comparing
average compliance costs with average receipts and profits. These
calculations are shown in Tables V-32 and V-33, presenting OSHA's
preliminary assessment of impacts on small entities and very small
entities (fewer than 20 employees). Among SBA-defined small entities,
impacts of project compliance costs on profits were less than five
percent for all industries, and these impacts were larger than 0.5
percent for only two industries: NAICS 2213, Water, Sewage and Other
Systems (0.57 percent); and NAICS 5617, Services to Buildings and
Dwellings (1.87 percent). For entities with fewer than 20 employees,
compliance costs as a percent of profits were also less than five
percent for all industries, and these impacts were larger than one
percent for only two industries: NAICS 2213, Water, Sewage and Other
Systems (1.24 percent); and NAICS 5617, Services to Buildings and
Dwellings (3.34 percent).

BILLING CODE 4510-29-P

TABLE V-30
Compliance Costs for Small Buisiness Entities Affected by OSHA's Proposed Standard (by 2-Digit NAICS)

TABLE V-31
Compliance Costs for Small Buisiness Entities (Fewer than 20 Employees) Affected by OSHA's Proposed Standard
Annualized Compliance Costs

TABLE V-32
Average Cost Impacts on Small Buisiness Entities Affected by OSHA's Proposed Revision to Subparts D and I
(Per Entitiy by 4-Digit NAICS Code)

TABLE V-33
Cost Impacts Impacts on Very Small Buisiness Entities (Fewer than 20 Employees) Affected by OSHA's Proposed Revision to Subparts D and I
(Per Entitiy by 4-Digit NAICS Code)

BILLING CODE 4510-29-C

2. A Description of the Reasons Why Action by the Agency Is Being
Considered
Employees in general industry performing construction,
installation, maintenance, and repair tasks are exposed to a range of
significant slip, trip, and fall hazards that can and do cause serious
injury and death. OSHA estimates that approximately 300,000 serious
injuries and 300 fatalities occur annually among these employees.
Although some of these incidents may have been prevented with better
compliance with existing safety standards, research and analyses
conducted by OSHA have found that many preventable injuries and
fatalities would continue to occur even if full compliance with the
existing standards were achieved. Without counting incidents that would
potentially have been prevented with compliance with existing
standards, an estimated 3,706 additional injuries and 20 fatalities
would be prevented annually through full compliance with the proposed
standards.
As explained above, additional benefits associated with this
rulemaking involve providing updated, clear, and consistent safety
standards regarding fall protection in general industry to the relevant
employers, employees, and interested members of the public. The
existing OSHA standards for walking-working surfaces in general
industry are over 30 years old and inconsistent with the more recently
promulgated standards addressing fall protection in construction. OSHA
believes that the proposed updated standards are easier to understand
and to apply and will benefit employers and employees by facilitating
compliance while improving safety.
3. Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Proposed
Rule
The primary objective of the proposed standards is to provide an
increased degree of occupational safety for employees in general
industry performing construction, installation, maintenance, and repair
tasks. As stated above, an estimated 3,706 injuries and 20 fatalities
would be prevented annually through compliance with the proposed
standards in addition to those that may be prevented through compliance
with existing standards. Another objective of the proposed rulemaking
is to provide updated, clear, and consistent safety standards regarding
fall protection in general industry to the relevant employers,
employees, and interested members of the public. The proposed updated
standards are easier to understand and to apply, and they will benefit
employers by facilitating compliance while improving safety.
The legal basis for the proposed rule is the responsibility given
the Department of Labor through the Occupational Safety and Health
(OSH) Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 561 et seq.). The OSH Act authorizes and
obligates the Secretary of Labor to promulgate mandatory occupational
safety and health standards as necessary "to assure so far as possible
every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working
conditions and to preserve our human resources." 29 U.S.C. 651(b). The
legal authority can also be cited as 29 U.S.C. 655(b).
4. Description of and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rule Will Apply
OSHA has completed a preliminary analysis of the impacts associated
with this proposal, including an analysis of the type and number of
small entities to which the proposed rule would apply. The proposed
standards would primarily impact workers performing construction,
installation, maintenance, and repair tasks throughout general
industry. To determine the number of small entities potentially
affected by this rulemaking, OSHA used the definitions of small
entities developed by the Small Business Administration for each
industry. In section C of this PEA, OSHA discussed its methodology for
determining the number of affected small entities and presented its
estimates in Table V-2. As shown in that table, OSHA estimates that 5.1
million small entities, employing 43.5 million employees, including 9.3
million employees directly exposed to slip, trip, and fall hazards,
would be covered by the scope of the proposed standard. Industries
expected to have the highest number of affected at-risk employees
include wired telecommunications carriers (606,000 employees);
automotive repair and maintenance (480,000 employees); and lessors of
real estate (231,000 employees).
5. Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other
Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule
OSHA is proposing to revise the standards addressing the work
practices to be used, and other requirements to be followed, for the
activities in general industry that expose workers to slip, trip, and
fall hazards. The existing standards in subpart D deal with the hazards
of walking and working surfaces and are part of the initial package of
standards promulgated by OSHA in 1971 under section 6(a) of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the Act) (29 U.S.C.
655(a)). During the period since OSHA promulgated subpart D, interested
parties have suggested changes in these regulations. The majority of
the existing OSHA standards for walking-working surfaces are over 30
years old and inconsistent with numerous national consensus standards
and more recently promulgated OSHA standards addressing fall protection
elsewhere in general industry and construction.
Section E, Costs of Compliance, described, for categories of
employee training, the administrative costs that are expected to
present a new burden for affected employers. The costs to document the
training and re-training of employees are not considered by OSHA to be
recordkeeping, but rather are seen as typical administrative expenses
in a safety program.
6. Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rule
OSHA has not identified any Federal rules which may duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with the proposal, and requests comments from the
public regarding this issue.
7. Alternatives to the Proposed Rule Which Accomplish the Stated
Objectives of Applicable Statutes and Which Minimize Any Significant
Economic Impact of the Proposed Rule on Small Entities
OSHA evaluated several alternatives to the proposed standards to
ensure that the proposed requirements would accomplish the stated
objectives of applicable statutes and would minimize any significant
economic impact of the proposal on small entities. In developing the
proposal, and especially in establishing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that affect small entities, the resources
available to small entities were taken into account. Compliance and
reporting requirements under the proposal that are applicable to small
entities were clarified, consolidated, and simplified to the extent
practicable. Wherever possible, OSHA has proposed the use of
performance rather than design standards. An exemption from coverage of
the rule for small entities was not considered to be a viable option
because the safety and health of the affected employees would be unduly
jeopardized.
Many other specific alternatives to the proposed requirements were
considered. Section IV of the notice, Summary and Explanation of the
Proposed Rule, provides discussion and explanation of the particular
requirements of the proposal.
OSHA has made every effort to provide maximum flexibility in the
choice of controls that are permitted under the proposed rule. To
demonstrate the relative economic efficiency (i.e., cost effectiveness)
of the proposed standard, OSHA has selected eight provisions in
proposed subpart D where alternative control strategies were considered
but rejected as inefficient from a cost-effectiveness perspective. For
these eight provisions, the table below presents OSHA's evaluation of
the potential impacts associated with alternatives to the proposed
requirements.

Table V-34--Impacts Associated With Regulatory Alternatives for Selected Provisions in Proposed Subpart D
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative Potential impacts of
Provision Primary-choice control(s) control(s) alternative control(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1910.23 Ladders...... Covers all ladders except for All ladders in Probably not significant in
machine-integrated or fire scope. costs, but not justified with
fighting/rescue ladders. respect to benefits.
Section 1910.24 Step bolts Design changes to step bolts Eliminate Requirement to ensure that all
and manhole steps. and manhole steps on new grandfathering step bolts and manhole steps
installations must be of older meet the strength and design
performed 90 days after the structures. criteria in proposed subpart
standard's effective date. D would demand technical
resources that could exceed
the capacity of affected
industries in the near term,
given the need to inspect all
existing manholes and make
changes to many.
Section 1910.25 Stairways.... Where ship stairs and spiral Prohibit ship Potentially large costs with
stairs are used as primary stairs and few benefits.
means of egress, they must spiral stairs
meet the requirements in all new
specified by the standard. installations.
Section 1910.26 Dockboards In paragraph (b), OSHA proposes Specify the Probably modest costs but with
(bridge plates). that dockboards put into means of few benefits.
service at least 90 days after achieving the
the effective date of the desired
final rule be designed, performance.
constructed, and maintained to
prevent equipment (such as
hand trucks and vehicles) from
running off the edge.
Section 1910.27 Scaffolds and Proposed paragraph (b)(1) Allow use of RDS OSHA states earlier in this
rope descent systems. prohibits the use of a rope at all heights. PEA that impacts of the
descent system (RDS) at primary choice would be minor
heights greater than 300 feet due to current availability
(91.4 m) above grade unless of powered platforms or other
access cannot otherwise be systems for washing windows
attained safely and on tall buildings. OSHA
practicably. requests comment on this
assessment.
Section 1910.28 Duty to have The proposed rule allows Specify, surface Depending on specifications,
fall protection. employers to choose from by surface, the costs could be substantial
several options in providing means of with modest benefits.
fall protection. These include achieving the
conventional fall protection desired
systems such as guardrail performance.
systems, safety net systems,
and personal fall protection
systems (restraint systems,
personal fall arrest systems,
and positioning systems) and,
in some instances, non-
conventional means. An example
of non-conventional means
would be the establishment of
a designated area in which an
employee is to work.
Section 1910.28 Duty to have Proposed paragraph (b)(8) is a Require Potentially significant costs
fall protection. new provision, proposed to conventional with feasibility/
address the specific fall fall protection practicability concerns.
hazard created by vehicle systems:
repair pits and assembly pits. guardrails,
Access to the edge (within 6 personal fall
feet (1.8 m)) of the pit must arrest or
be limited to trained, travel
authorized employees restraint
((b)(8)(i)); the floor must be systems.
marked ((b)(8)(ii)) to
designate the unprotected
area; and caution signs must
be posted to warn employees of
the unprotected area
((b)(8)(iii)).
Section 1910.28 Duty to have In proposed paragraph (b)(9), For fixed Major costs and modest
fall protection. OSHA addresses fall hazards ladders, benefits; tens of thousands
related to fixed ladders. require that of fixed ladders would need
Under the proposed standard, cages, wells, cages, wells, and landing
no fall protection is required and landing platforms.
when employees are exposed to platforms be
falls from fixed ladders of 24 provided, but
feet (7.3 m) in length or less. disallow the
If the employer chooses a cage use of ladder
or well, no ladder sections safety systems.
may exceed 50 feet (15.2 m) in
length, and each section must
be offset from adjacent
sections with landing
platforms at maximum intervals
of 50 feet (15.2 m). If an
employer chooses a ladder
safety system, no additional
measures are proposed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Directorate of Evaluation and Analysis, Office of Regulatory Analysis.
Non-regulatory alternatives were also considered in determining the
appropriate approach to reducing occupational hazards associated with
work on elevated or slippery surfaces in general industry. These
alternatives were discussed in the section of this PEA entitled
"Examination of Alternative Approaches."

I. References

American National Standard Institute/International Window Cleaning
Association. (ANSI/IWCA, 2001.) Window Cleaning Safety. IWCA I-14.1-
2001, October 2001.
Amodeo, Linda. (Amodeo, 2003.) Comments submitted to OSHA Docket
S029, Exhibit 3-14, Linda Amodeo, Vice President, City Wide Building
Services, Inc., July 24, 2003.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (BLS, 2007.) Consumer Price Index, All
Urban Consumers, U.S. City Average, June 15, 2007. ftp://
ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (BLS, 2008.) Occupational Employment
Statistics, 2008. http://www.bls.gov/oes/home.htm.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (BLS, 2008.) Job Openings and Labor
Turnover Survey, 2008.
Cohen, Alexander and Michael Colligan. (Cohen and Colligan, 1998.)
Assessing Occupational Safety and Health Training: A Literature
Review. DDHS (NIOSH) Publication 98-145, June 1998.
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. (CTBUH, 2006.) Web
Site: http://www.ctbuh.org/. Accessed 23 August 2006. Database
hosted by Emporis. http://buildings.emporis.com/
?nav=theplatformconcept&lng=3. Accessed by ERG on August 23, 2006.
Department of Energy. (DOE, 2006.) 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy
Consumption Survey. Table B10: Number of Floors, Number of Buildings
and Floorspace for Non-Mall Commercial Buildings. Energy Information
Administration, 2006. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/cbecs2003/detailed_tables_2003/detailed_tables_2003.html.
Department of Energy. (DOE, 2004.) 2001 Residential Energy
Consumption Surveys. 2001 Housing Characteristics Tables. Table HC1-
1a. Housing Unit Characteristics by Climate Zone, Million U.S.
Households, (2001). Energy Information Administration, 2004. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/detail_tables.html.
DiChacho, Rosita. (DiChacho. 2006.) Personal communication between
Rosita DiChacho, New York Department of Labor, Division of Safety &
Health, Engineering Services Unit and Maureen F. Kaplan, Eastern
Research Group, August 23, 2006.
Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG, 2007.) Technical and Analytical
Support and Docket Review for OSHA's Preliminary Analysis of Costs,
Benefits, and Economic Impacts for OSHA's Proposed Standard for
Walking and Working Surfaces. Final Report. Prepared under Contract
No. GS10F0125P for the U.S. Dept. of Labor, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, Directorate of Evaluation and Analysis,
Office of Regulatory Analysis, July 27, 2007. (Ex. 6.)
Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG, 1999.) PPE Cost Survey: Final
Report. Prepared under Contract No. J-9-F-9-0010 for the U.S. Dept.
of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Office of
Regulatory Analysis, June 23, 1999. Docket No. S-042, Exhibit 14
(Ex. OSHA-S042-2006-0667-0318).
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. (IEEE, 2006.)
IEEE Standard for Fall Protection for Utility Work. IEEE Standard
1307-2004. http://standards.ieee.org/reading/ieee/std/numerical.html.
Accessed by ERG on July 24, 2006.
Kreidenweis, Andy. (Kreidenweis, 2003.) Comments submitted to OSHA
Docket S-029, Exhibit 3-126, Andy Kreidenweis, Braco Window Cleaning
Service Inc., July 30, 2003.
Lebel, Marc. (Lebel, 2003.) Comments submitted to OSHA Docket S-029,
Exhibit 3-1. Marc Lebel, Pro-Bel Enterprises Limited, July 18, 2003.
National Association of Tower Erectors. (NATE, 2006.) Web site:
http://www.natehome.com/MemberBenefitsServices/NATECLIMBERTRAININGSTANDARD/Index.cfm).
Accessed by ERG on July 24,2006.
National Coalition Against the Misuses of Pesticides. (NCAMP, 1997.)
Poison Poles--A Report About Their Toxic Trail and Safer
Alternatives. Estimate of Pole Miles and Distribution Poles by
State, 1997. http://www.ncamp.org/poisonpoles/tables/table2.html.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program. (NCHRP, 2004.) NCHRP
Report 500: Guidance for Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic
Highway Safety Plan. Volume 8: A Guide for Reducing Collisions
Involving Utility Poles. Transportation Research Board, 2004.
http://safety.transportation.org/htmlguides/utl_pole/exec_sum.htm.
National Fire Protection Association. (NFPA, 2006.) Standard 101.
Life Safety Code. 2006 Edition. 7.2.2.2.3 Spiral stairs.
http://www.nfpa.org/freecodes/free_access_document.asp. Accessed by ERG
on July 24, 2006.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (NIOSH,
1988.) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Centers for
Disease Control. National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health. National Occupational Exposure Survey. Volume III: Analysis
of Management Interview Responses, March 1988.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (OSHA, 2009.)
Analysis of OSHA Integrated Management Information System inspection
data, 1995-2001. January 2009.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (OSHA, 2007.)
Accident Investigation Search, 2007.
http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/accidentsearch.html.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (OSHA, 2006a.)
Accident Investigation Search, 2006.
http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/accidentsearch.html.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (OSHA, 2006b.)
Standard Interpretations: 2/10/2006--The use of ship's stairs
instead of fixed stairs in general industry.
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=25301.
Accessed by ERG on July 24, 2006.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (OSHA, 2006c.)
Standard Interpretations: 2/10/2006--Circumstances under which
installation of fixed industrial stairs with a slope between 50
degrees and 70 degrees from the horizontal would be considered a de
minimis violation.
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=25299.
Accessed by ERG on July 24, 2006.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (OSHA, 2006d.) OSHA
Web site. Resource Center Loan Program. Materials by subject.
http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/ote/resource-center/loan.html.
Accessed by ERG on July 28.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (OSHA, 2003.)
Standard Interpretations: 05/05/2003--Standards applicable to step
bolts and manhole steps; load requirements for step bolts.
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24564 corrected 4/4/2005.
Accessed by ERG on July 24, 2006.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (OSHA, 2003.) 29 CFR
Part 1910 Walking and Working Surfaces; Personal Protective
equipment (Fall Protection Systems); Proposed Rule. Federal Register
68: 23528-23568, May 2, 2003.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (OSHA, 1996.) 29 CFR
Part 1926. Safety Standards for Scaffolds Used in the Construction
Industry; Final Rule. Federal Register 61: 46026-46126, August 30,
1996.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (OSHA, 1994.)
Background Document to the Regulatory Impact and Regulatory
Flexibility Assessment for the PPE Standard. Office of Regulatory
Analysis, March 15, 1994. Docket S-060, Exhibit 56.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (OSHA, 1993.) Fixed
Ladders Used on Outdoor Advertising Structures/Billboards in the
Outdoor Advertising Industry. OSHA Instruction STD 1-1.14, January
26, 1993. http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=DIRECTIVES&p_id=1756.
Accessed by ERG on August 25, 2006.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (OSHA, 1991a.)
December 5, 1989, letter from Mr. Thomas J. Shepich to Mr. Carl
Pedersen regarding Descent Control Devices. Memorandum to Regional
Administrators from Patricia K. Clark, Director, Directorate of
Compliance Programs, March 12, 1991. OSHA Docket S-029, Exhibit 1-
18.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (OSHA, 1991b.) Grant
of Variance. Federal Register 56: 8801, March 1, 1991.
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=FEDERAL_REGISTER&p_id=13148.
Accessed by ERG on August 26, 2006.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (OSHA, 1990a.)
Preliminary Regulatory Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of
Proposed Subparts D and I of 29 CFR Part 1910 Walking and Working
Surfaces. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Office of
Regulatory Analysis, March 6, 1990. OSHA Docket S-029, Exhibit 4.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (OSHA, 1990a.)
Application of Gannett Outdoor Companies for a Variance Concerning
Fixed Ladders. Federal Register 55: 26796-26797, June 29, 1990.
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=FEDERAL_REGISTER&p_id=13085.
Accessed by ERG on August 25,
2006.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (OSHA, 1981.)
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Standard
Interpretations: 12/02/1981. Alternating tread type stair is
approved as safe for use.
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=18983.
Accessed by ERG on July 24, 2006.
Office of Management and Budget. (OMB, 2005.) Regulatory Reform of
the U.S. Manufacturing Sector.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/inforeg/reports/manufacturing_initiative.pdf.
Accessed by ERG on July 24, 2006.
Office of Management and Budget. (OMB, 2003.) Regulatory Analysis.
Circular A-4, September 17, 2003.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf.
Office of Management and Budget. (OMB, 2002.) North American
Industry Classification System--2002. Executive Office of the
President, 2002.
Platts.com. (Platts, 2007.) 2007 UDI Directory of Electric Power
Producers and Distributors. 115th Edition of the Electrical World
Directory. The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2007.
Small Business Administration. (SBA, 1996.) Regulatory Flexibility
Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354), amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121).
Small Business Administration. (SBA, 2006.) Table of Small Business
Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification
System Codes, 2006.
http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf.
U.S. Census Bureau. (Census Bureau, 2002/2006.) Statistics of U.S.
Businesses, 2002/2006. http://www.census.gov/csd/susb/index.html.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (U.S. EPA, 2000.) Guidelines
for Preparing Economic Analyses. EPA 240-R-00-003, September 2000.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/Guidelines.html;
Chapter 7 also available in OSHA Docket No. H-054a, Exhibit 35-334.
U.S. Internal Revenue Service. (IRS, 2003.) Corporation Source Book,
2003. http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/bustaxstats/article/0,,id=149687,00.html.
Viscusi, Kip and Joseph Aldy. (Viscusi and Aldy, 2003.) "The Value
of a Statistical Life: A Critical Review of Market Estimates
Throughout the World." The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 27-1
(2003): 5-76.
Workers' Compensation Research Institute. (WCRI, 1993.) "Income
Replacement in California." WCRI Research Brief; Special Edition.
Volume 9, number 4S, Cambridge, MA, December 1993. Also available in
OSHA Docket S-777, Exhibit 26-1608.
Wright, Michael C. (Wright, 2003.) Comments submitted to OSHA Docket
S-029, Exhibit 4-19, Michael C Wright, LJB, Inc., July 23, 2007.
Zeolla, Robert J. (Zeolla, 2003) Comments submitted to OSHA Docket
S-029, Exhibit 4-6, Robert J. Zeolla, Jr., President, Sunset Window
Cleaning Company. June 5, 2003.

VI. Applicability of Existing National Consensus Standards

Section 6(b)(8) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
("the Act"; 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(8)) requires OSHA to explain "why a
rule promulgated by the Secretary differs substantially from an
existing national consensus standard," by publishing "a statement of
the reasons why the rule as adopted will better effectuate the purposes
of the Act than the national consensus standard." The Agency is not
proposing to adopt any of the 34 national consensus standards listed in
the Reference section of the proposal because the Agency believes that
it is too difficult and costly for employers, especially employers in
small businesses, to determine which of these national consensus
standards apply to their workplaces, and then to collate and organize
the relevant standards for compliance purposes. In this regard, no
single, national consensus standard would fully address all of the fall
hazards found in most of these workplaces.

VII. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

The proposed Walking-Working Surfaces and Personal Protective
Equipment (Fall Protection PPE) Standard contains collection of
information (paperwork) requirements that are subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 ("PRA-95"), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and OMB's regulations
at 5 CFR part 1320. The Paperwork Reduction Act defines a "collection
of information" as "the obtaining, causing to be obtained,
soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third parties or the public
of facts or opinions by or for an agency regardless of form or format"
(44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)). OSHA has OMB approval for the existing
paperwork requirements contained in both the Walking and Working
Surfaces Standard, and in the Personal Protective Equipment Standard in
two separate Information Collection Requests (ICRs) titled, Standard on
Walking-Working Surfaces (29 CFR part 1910, subpart D) OMB control
number 1218-0199, and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for General
Industry (29 CFR part 1910, subpart I), OMB Control number 1218-2005.
OSHA has submitted both ICRs addressing the collection of
information requirements identified in this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) to OMB for review (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). OSHA solicits
comments on the collection of information requirements and the
estimated burden hours associated with these collections, including
comments on the following:
Whether the proposed collection of information
requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's
functions, including whether the information is useful;
The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
cost) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information collected; and
Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply,
for example, by using automated or other technological techniques for
collecting and transmitting information.

The title, a description of the need for and proposed use of the
information, a description of the likely respondents, and the proposed
frequency of response to the information collections are described
below for the collection of information requirements in the proposed
revisions to subparts D and I,along with an estimate of the annual
reporting burden and cost.
For proposed 29 CFR part 1910, subpart D:
Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
Title: Standard on Walking-Working Surfaces (29 CFR part 1910,
subpart D).
OMB Control Number: 1218-0199.
Description and Proposed Use of the Collections of Information: The
proposed standard would impose new information collection requirements
for purposes of PRA-95 and removes collection of information
requirements in the existing standard (see 1218-0199). The collection
of information requirements in the proposed standard have not been
approved by OMB. These two proposed requirements are described in the
following paragraphs.
Proposed Sec. 1910.23(b)(10) requires employers to place "Do Not
Use" or similar language on signs on ladders with structural or other
defects in accordance with Sec. 1910.145 (Specifications for accident
prevention signs and tags). This provision is necessary to protect
workers from defective ladders.
Under proposed Sec. 1910.28(b)(8), employers need not provide fall
protection to employees who are exposed to falling into automotive,
repair, or assembly pits provided certain conditions are met, including
a requirement to post a caution sign stating "Caution--Open Floor" or
similar legend to warn of the fall hazard. (See proposed Sec.
1910.28(b)(8)(iii)). These signs provide warning to employees who are
exposed to fall hazards in repair, service, and assembly pits.
Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.
Number of Respondents: 62,310.
Frequency: On occasion.
Average Time per Response: 3 minutes.
Estimated Total Burden Hours: 3,116 hours.
Estimated Costs (Operation and Maintenance): $0.
For proposed 29 CFR part 1910, subpart I:
Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
Title: Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for General Industry (29
CFR part 1910, subpart I).
OMB Control Number: 1218-0205.
Description and Proposed Use of the Collections of Information: The
proposed standard would expand the burden of the currently approved
information collection requirements (see 1218-0205) because the
proposed standard would impose new information collection requirements
for purposes of PRA-95. The two collection of information requirements
in the proposed standard, described in the following paragraphs, have
not been approved by OMB.
Paragraph (d) of existing Sec. 1910.132 requires employers to
conduct a hazard assessment of the workplace to determine if there are
certain hazards from which employees can be protected through the use
of PPE; namely eye and face, foot, head, and hand hazards. Under the
proposal, this provision would be expanded to add fall hazards to the
list of hazards covered by the workplace assessment, thus requiring
employers to determine if there are any fall hazards from which
employees can be protected by the use of fall protection PPE. This
provision is necessary to protect workers from fall hazards.
Likewise, under existing Sec. 1910.132(f), employers must provide
training for each employee who was identified in the hazard assessment
as needing to use fall protection. The proposed revision would expand
the current requirement to include training employees who would be
using fall protection PPE. Also, under existing Sec. 1910.132(f)(3),
employers must provide retaining when there is reason to believe that
any previously trained employee does not have the understanding and
skill to use PPE properly, and existing paragraph (f)(4) of Sec.
1910.132 requires that employers certify that employees have received
and understood the required PPE training. The training certification
must include the name of the employee(s) trained, the date(s) of
training, and the subject of the certification (i.e., a statement
identifying the document as a certification of training in the use of
PPE). The proposed revision would expand the certification record to
include employees who have been trained in the use of PPE for fall
protection.
The proposed revisions would result in the initial (first year)
burden outlined below. After the first year, however, the burden will
be significantly lower.
Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.
Number of Respondents: 1.3 million establishments.
Frequency: On occasion.
Average Time per Response: Ranges from three minutes to document
and maintain training records, to four hours for larger establishments
to do a hazard assessment to include identification of fall hazards.
Estimated Total Burden Hours: 5.1 million burden hours.
Estimated Costs (Operation and Maintenance): $0.
Submitting comments. Members of the public who wish to comment on
the paperwork requirements in this proposal must send their written
comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn:
OSHA Desk Officer (RIN 1218-AB80), Office of Management and Budget,
Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. The Agency
encourages commenters to also submit their comments on these paperwork
requirements to the rulemaking docket (Docket Number OSHA-2007-0072),
along with their comments on other parts of the proposed rule. For
instructions on submitting these comments to the rulemaking docket, see
the sections of this Federal Register notice titled DATES and
ADDRESSES. Comments submitted in response to this notice are public
records; therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about submitting personal
information such as Social Security numbers and date of birth.
Docket and inquiries. To access the docket to read or download
comments and other materials related to this paperwork determination,
including the complete Information Collection Request (ICR) (containing
the Supporting Statement with attachments describing the paperwork
determinations in detail), use the procedures described under the
section of this notice titled ADDRESSES. You also may obtain an
electronic copy of the complete ICR by visiting the Web page at
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, scroll under "Currently Under
Review" to "Department of Labor (DOL)" to view all of the DOL's
ICRs, including those ICRs submitted for proposed rulemakings. To make
inquiries, or to request other information, contact Ms. Theda Kenney,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, Room N-3609, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20210; telephone (202) 693-2222.
The Department notes that a Federal agency cannot conduct or
sponsor a collection of information unless it is approved by OMB under
the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB control number, and the
public is not required to respond to a collection of information unless
it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Also, not
withstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall be subject to
penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the
collection of information does not display a currently valid OMB
control number.

VIII. Federalism

OSHA reviewed this NPRM in accordance with the Executive Order on
Federalism (Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), which
requires that Federal agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from
limiting State policy options, consult with States prior to taking any
actions that would restrict State policy options, and take such actions
only when clear constitutional authority exists and the problem is
national in scope. Executive Order 13132 provides for preemption of
State law only with the expressed consent of Congress. Any such
preemption must be limited to the extent possible.
Under section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
("OSH Act"; U.S.C. 651 et seq.), Congress expressly provides that
States may adopt, with Federal approval, a plan for the development and
enforcement of occupational safety and health standards; States that
obtain Federal approval for such a plan are referred to as "State-Plan
States." (29 U.S.C. 667.) Occupational safety and health standards
developed by State-Plan States must be at least as effective in
providing safe and healthful employment and places of employment as the
Federal standards. Subject to these requirements, State-Plan States are
free to develop and enforce their own requirements for occupational
safety and health standards.
While OSHA drafted this NPRM to protect employees in every State,
section 18(c)(2) of the Act permits State-Plan States and Territories
to develop and enforce their own standards for walking-working surfaces
and personal fall protection provided these requirements are at least
as effective in providing safe and healthful employment and places of
employment as the final requirements that result from this proposal.
In summary, this NPRM complies with Executive Order 13132. In
States without OSHA-approved State Plans, any standard developed from
this proposal would limit State policy options in the same manner as
every standard promulgated by OSHA. In States with OSHA-approved State
Plans, this rulemaking would not significantly limit State policy
options.

IX. State Plan States

Section 18(c)(2) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
(29 U.S.C. 667(c)(2)) requires State-Plan States to adopt mandatory
standards promulgated by OSHA. Accordingly, the 25 States and 2
Territories with their own OSHA-approved occupational safety and health
plans would have to adopt provisions comparable to the provisions in
this proposed rule within 6 months after the Agency publishes the final
rule that it develops from this proposal. The Agency believes that the
proposed rule would provide employers in State-Plan States and
Territories with critical information and methods necessary to protect
their employees from falls and other hazards associated with walking-
working surfaces. The 25 States and 2 Territories with State Plans are:
Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland,
Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto
Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington,
and Wyoming. Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and the
Virgin Islands have OSHA-approved State Plans that apply to State and
local government employees only. Until a State-Plan State/Territory
promulgates its own comparable provisions based on the final rule
developed from this proposal, Federal OSHA will provide the State/
Territory with interim enforcement assistance, as appropriate.

X. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

OSHA reviewed this proposed rule according to the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 ("UMRA"; 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) and Executive
Order 12875 (58 FR 58093). As discussed above in section V. of this
preamble ("Preliminary Economic Analysis and Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Screening Analysis"), the Agency estimates that compliance
with this proposed rule would require private-sector employers to
expend about $159.2 million each year. However, while this proposed
rule establishes a federal mandate in the private sector, it is not a
significant regulatory action within the meaning of section 202 of the
UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1532).
Under voluntary agreement with OSHA, some States enforce compliance
with their State standards on public sector entities, and these
agreements specify that these State standards must be equivalent to
OSHA standards. Thus, although OSHA has included compliance costs for
the affected public-sector entities in its analysis of the expected
impacts associated with the proposal, the proposal would not involve
any unfunded mandates being imposed on any State or local government
entity. Consequently, this proposed rule does not meet the definition
of a "Federal intergovernmental mandate" (see section 421(5) of the
UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5))). Therefore, for the purposes of the UMRA, the
Agency preliminarily certifies that this proposed rule does not mandate
that State, local, and tribal governments adopt new, unfunded
regulatory obligations.

XI. Public Participation

OSHA invites comments on all aspects of the proposed rule.
Throughout this document OSHA has invited comment on specific issues
and requested information and data about practices at establishments
and industries affected by this proposal. OSHA will carefully review
and evaluate these comments, information, and data, as well as all
other information in the rulemaking record, to determine how to
proceed.
Comments. The Agency invites interested parties to submit written
data, views, and arguments concerning this proposal. In particular, the
Agency welcomes comments on its determination of the economic or other
regulatory impacts of the proposed rule on the regulated community.
When submitting comments, follow the procedures specified above in the
sections titled DATES and ADDRESSES. The comments must clearly identify
the provision of the proposal being addressed, the position taken with
respect to each issue, and the basis for that position. Comments, along
with supporting data and references, received by the end of the
specified comment period will become part of the proceedings record,
and will be available electronically for public inspection at the
Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov), or may be read
at the OSHA Docket Office, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington. (See the section of this Federal Register notice titled
ADDRESSES for additional information on how to access these documents.)
Informal Public Hearings. Requests for a hearing should be
submitted to the Agency as set forth above under the sections of this
notice titled DATES and ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910

Falls; Fall arrest; Fall protection; Fall restraint; Ladders;
Occupational safety and health; Scaffolds; Stair; Walking-working
surfaces; Window cleaning.

XII. Authority and Signature

This document was prepared under the authority of David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20210.

Signed at Washington, DC, on April 29, 2010.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.

Proposed Regulatory Text

Pursuant to sections 4, 6, and 8 of the OSH Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C.
653, 655, 657), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2007 (72 FR 31159),
and 29 CFR part 1911, it is hereby amending subparts D and I of 29 CFR
part 1910 as set forth below.

PART 1910--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS

1. Subpart D is revised to read as follows:
Subpart D--Walking-Working Surfaces
Sec.
1910.21 Scope, application, and definitions.
1910.22 General requirements.
1910.23 Ladders.
1910.24 Step bolts and manhole steps.
1910.25 Stairways.
1910.26 Dockboards (bridge plates).
1910.27 Scaffolds (including rope descent systems).
1910.28 Duty to have fall protection.
1910.29 Fall protection systems criteria and practices.
1910.30 Training requirements.

Authority: Secs. 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), Secretary of Labor's
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), and 9-83 (48 FR
35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), or 5-2007 (72 FR
31159), as applicable. Subpart D is also issued under 29 CFR part
1911.

Subpart D--Walking-Working Surfaces

Sec. 1910.21 Scope, application and definitions.

(a) Scope and application. This subpart applies to all general
industry workplaces. It covers all walking-working surfaces unless
specifically excluded by individual sections of this subpart.
(b) Definitions.
Alternating tread-type stair means a series of steps (treads)
usually attached to a center support in an alternating manner so that a
user of the stair normally does not have both feet on the same level.
Authorized describes an employee who is approved or assigned by the
employer to perform a specific type of duty or an employee who is
permitted by the employer to be at a specific location.
Cage means a barrier mounted on the side rail of a fixed ladder or
fastened to the structure behind the fixed ladder and which is designed
to enclose the climbing space of the ladder to safeguard the employee
while climbing the ladder. A cage may also be called a "cage guard"
or "basket guard."
Carrier means a track of a ladder safety system consisting of a
flexible cable or rigid rail which is secured to the ladder or
structure by mountings.
Combination ladder means a portable ladder that can be used as a
stepladder, single extension ladder, trestle ladder, or stairwell
ladder. Its components may be used as a single ladder.
Designated area means a distinct portion of a walking-working
surface delineated by a perimeter warning line in which temporary work
may be performed without additional fall protection.
Dockboard (bridge plate) means a portable or fixed device for
spanning the gap or compensating for the difference in level between
loading platforms and carriers.
Equivalent means alternate designs, materials, or methods that the
employer can demonstrate will provide an equal or greater degree of
safety for employees compared to the method or item specified in this
subpart.
Extension ladder means a non-self-supporting portable ladder
adjustable in length.
Failure means a load refusal, breakage, or separation of component
parts. Load refusal is the point where the ultimate strength is
exceeded.
Fall hazard means any condition on a walking-working surface that
exposes an employee to injury from a fall on the same level or to a
lower level.
Fall protection means any equipment, device, or system that
prevents an employee from experiencing a fall from elevation or that
mitigates the effect of such a fall.
Fixed ladder means a ladder, including an individual rung ladder,
which is permanently attached to a structure, building, or equipment.
It does not include ship stairs or manhole steps.
Grab bars means individual handholds placed adjacent to or as an
extension of ladder side rails for the purpose of providing access
beyond the limits of the ladder.
Guardrail system means a barrier erected to prevent employees from
falling to lower levels.
Handrail means a rail used to provide employees a handhold for
support.
Hoist area means any elevated access opening to a walking-working
surface where hoisted equipment or materials are loaded or received.
Hole means a gap or void 2 inches (5 cm) or more in its least
dimension, in a floor, roof, or other walking-working surface.
Individual rung ladder means a ladder consisting of rungs
individually attached to a structure, building, or piece of equipment.
It does not include manhole steps.
Ladder means a device with rungs, steps, or cleats typically used
to gain access to a different elevation.
Ladder safety system means a device, other than a cage or well,
designed to eliminate or reduce the possibility of falls from ladders.
A ladder safety system usually consists of a carrier (the track of
flexible cable or rigid rail), safety sleeve (moving component which
travels on the carrier), lanyard, connectors, and body belt or harness.
Ladder stand (see "Mobile ladder stand").
Lower level means an area to which an employee could fall. Such
areas include ground levels, floors, roofs, ramps, runways,
excavations, pits, tanks, materials, water, equipment, and similar
surfaces.
Manhole steps means steps individually attached or set into the
walls of a manhole structure.
Maximum intended load (designed working load) means the total load
of all employees, equipment, tools, materials, transmitted loads, and
other loads reasonably anticipated to be applied to a walking-working
surface.
Mobile means manually propelled and/or movable.
Mobile ladder stand (ladder stand) means a mobile, fixed-size,
self-supporting ladder consisting of flat treads in the form of steps
accessing a top step. The assembly may include handrails and is
intended for use by one employee.
Mobile ladder stand platform means a mobile, fixed-height, self-
supporting unit having one or more standing levels, provided with means
of access or egress to the platform or platforms.
Open riser means the gap between the treads of stairways without
upright members (risers).
Opening means a gap or void 30 inches (76 cm) or more high and 18
inches (46 cm) or more wide in any wall or partition through which
employees can fall to a lower level.
Platform means a walking-working surface elevated above the
surrounding area.
Portable ladder means a ladder that can readily be moved or carried
and usually consists of side rails joined at intervals by steps, rungs,
cleats, or rear braces.
Qualified describes a person who, by possession of a recognized
degree, certificate, or professional standing, or who by extensive
knowledge, training, and experience has successfully
demonstrated the ability to solve or resolve problems relating to the
subject matter, the work, or the project.
Qualified climber means an employee engaged in outdoor advertising
who, by virtue of physical capabilities, training, work experience, and
job assignment, is authorized by the employer to climb fixed ladders
without using fall protection.
Ramp means an inclined surface between different elevations that is
used for the passage of employees, vehicles, or both.
Riser means the upright member of a step situated at the back of a
lower tread and near the leading edge of the next higher tread.
Rope descent system means a suspension device that supports one
employee in a chair (seat board) and allows the user to descend in a
controlled manner and to stop at any time at a desired level of
descent. A rope descent system is a variation of the single-point
adjustable suspension scaffold. Also known as a controlled descent
device, controlled descent equipment, or controlled descent apparatus.
Rung, step, or cleat means, when used on a ladder, a cross-piece on
which a person may step to ascend or descend.
Runway means a passageway for persons, elevated above the
surrounding floor or ground level, such as a catwalk, a foot walk along
shafting, or a walkway between buildings.
Safety factor means the ratio of the design load and the ultimate
strength of the material.
Scaffold means any temporary elevated or suspended platform, and
its supporting structure, including points of anchorage, used to
support employees or materials or both. The term "scaffold" does not
include crane or derrick suspended personnel platforms.
Ship stairs (ship ladders) means a stairway that is equipped with
treads and stair rails, has a slope between 50 and 70 degrees from the
horizontal, and has open risers.
Side-step ladder means a ladder from which an employee getting off
at the top must step sideways from the ladder to reach the landing.
Single-point adjustable suspension scaffold means a suspension
scaffold consisting of a platform suspended by a single rope from an
overhead support and equipped with means to permit the movement of the
platform to desired work levels.
Spiral stairway means a stairway having a helical (spiral)
structure attached to a supporting pole.
Stair rail or stair rail system means a vertical barrier (such as
rails, decorative panels, and mesh) erected along open sides of
stairways to prevent employees from falling to lower levels. The top
surface of a stair rail system may also be a handrail.
Standard stairs means a permanently installed stairway. Ship
stairs, spiral stairs, and alternating tread-type stairs are not
standard stairs.
Stepladder means a self-supporting portable ladder, non-adjustable
in length, with flat steps and a hinged back.
Step-bolt (pole step) means a bolt or rung attached at intervals
along a structural member and used for foot placement during climbing
or standing.
Stepstool means a self-supporting, foldable, portable ladder,
nonadjustable in length, 32 inches (81 cm) or less in overall size,
with flat steps and without a pail shelf, designed so that the ladder
top cap, as well as all steps, can be climbed on. The side rails may
continue above the top cap.
Through ladder means a type of fixed ladder designed to allow a
person to get off at the top by stepping through the ladder to reach a
landing.
Tieback means an attachment from an anchorage (e.g., structural
member) to a supporting device.
Toeboard means a low protective barrier that is designed to prevent
the fall of materials and equipment to lower levels and provide
protection from falls for employees.
Tread means the horizontal member of a step.
Unprotected sides and edges means any side or edge of a walking-
working surface (except at entrances to points of access) where there
is no wall or guardrail system at least 39 inches (99 cm) high.
Walking-working surface means any surface horizontal or vertical,
on or through which an employee walks, works, or gains access to a
workplace location. Walking-working surfaces include, but are not
limited to, floors, stairs, steps, roofs, ladders, ramps, runways,
aisles, and step bolts.
Well means a permanent, complete enclosure around a fixed ladder.
Proper clearances for a well provide the person climbing the ladder the
same protection as a cage.

Sec. 1910.22 General requirements.

(a) Surface conditions. (1) All places of employment, passageways,
storerooms, and service rooms shall be kept clean and orderly, and in a
sanitary condition.
(2) The floor of every workroom shall be maintained in a clean and,
so far as possible, a dry condition. Where wet processes are used,
drainage shall be maintained and false floors, platforms, mats, or
other dry standing places shall be provided where practicable.
(3) Employers must ensure that all surfaces are designed,
constructed, and maintained free of recognized hazards that can result
in injury or death to employees.
(b) Application of loads. Employers must ensure that walking-
working surfaces are:
(1) Designed, constructed, and maintained to support their maximum
intended load; and
(2) Not loaded beyond their maximum intended load.
(c) Access and egress. The employer must ensure employees are
provided with and use a safe means of access to and egress from one
walking-working surface to another.
(d) Maintenance and repair. (1) The employer must ensure through
regular and periodic inspection and maintenance that walking-working
surfaces are in a safe condition for employee use.
(2) The employer must ensure that all hazardous conditions are
promptly corrected or repaired. If the repair can not be made
immediately, the hazard must be guarded to prevent employee use.
(3) Where hazardous conditions may affect the structural integrity
of the walking-working surface, a qualified person must perform or
supervise the maintenance or repair of that surface.

Sec. 1910.23 Ladders.

(a) Application. This section covers all ladders, except those used
only for firefighting or rescue operations and ladders that are
designed into (an integral part of) a machine or piece of equipment.
(b) General requirements for all ladders. (1) Ladder rungs and
steps must be parallel, level, and uniformly spaced when the ladder is
in position for use.
(2) Rungs, cleats, and steps of ladders must be spaced not less
than 10 inches (25 cm) nor more than 14 inches (36 cm) apart, as
measured between the center lines of the rungs, cleats, and steps,
except that:
(i) Rungs and steps on ladders in elevator shafts must be spaced no
less than 6 inches (15 cm) apart, nor more than 16.5 inches (42 cm)
apart, as measured along the ladder side rails; and
(ii) Rungs and steps on fixed ladders on telecommunication towers
must be installed no more than 18 inches (46 cm) apart.
(3) Rungs, cleats, and steps of stepstools must be not less than 8
inches
(20 cm) apart, nor more than 12 inches (30 cm) apart, as measured
between the center lines of the rungs, cleats, and steps.
(4) Except as provided below, ladder rungs and steps must have a
minimum clear width of 11.5 inches (29 cm) for portable ladders and 16
inches (41 cm) for individual rung and fixed ladders.
(i) Narrow rungs that are not designed to be stepped on, such as
those located on the tapered end of fruit pickers' ladders and similar
ladders, are exempt from the minimum rung width requirement.
(ii) Manhole entry ladders that are supported by manhole openings
must have rungs or steps that have a clear width of at least 9 inches
(23 cm).
(iii) Rolling ladders used in telecommunication centers must have a
clear width of at least 8 inches (20 cm).

Note to paragraph (b)(4) of this section: When ladder safety
systems meeting the requirements of Sec. 1910.29 are used on fixed
or individual-rung ladders, the clear width is measured before the
installation of the ladder safety system.

(5) Wooden ladders must not be coated or covered with any material
that may obscure structural defects.
(6) Metal ladders must be protected against corrosion.
(7) Ladder surfaces must be free of puncture or laceration hazards.
(8) Ladders must be used only for the purposes for which they were
designed.
(9) Ladders must be inspected before use to identify any visible
defects that could cause employee injury.
(10) Ladders with structural or other defects must immediately be
tagged "Do Not Use" or with similar language in accordance with Sec.
1910.145 and must be removed from service until repaired in accordance
with Sec. 1910.22(d), or replaced.
(11) Employers shall ensure that, when ascending or descending a
ladder, employees face the ladder.
(12) Employers shall ensure that employees use at least one hand to
grasp the ladder when progressing up and down the ladder.
(13) Employers shall ensure that employees do not carry any object
or load that could cause employees to lose balance and fall.
(c) Portable ladders. (1) Rungs and steps of portable metal ladders
must be corrugated, knurled, dimpled, coated with skid-resistant
material, or otherwise treated to minimize the possibility of slipping.
(2) Each stepladder or any combination ladder that is used in a
stepladder mode must be designed with a metal spreader or locking
device to hold the front and back sections securely in an open position
while in use.
(3) Ladders must not be loaded beyond the maximum intended load for
which they were designed and tested, or beyond the manufacturer's rated
capacity. The maximum intended load, as defined in Sec. 1910.21(b),
includes the worker and all tools and supplies carried.
(4) Ladders must be used only on stable and level surfaces unless
secured or stabilized to prevent accidental displacement.
(5) The use of portable single rail ladders is prohibited.
(6) Ladders must not be moved, shifted, or extended while occupied
by an employee.
(7) Ladders placed in any location where they can be displaced by
other activities or by traffic, such as ladders used in passageways,
doorways, or driveways, must be secured to prevent accidental
displacement unless a temporary barricade, such as a row of traffic
cones, is used to keep the activities or traffic away from the ladder.
(8) The top of a stepladder must not be used as a step.
(9) A non-self-supporting ladder must not be used on slippery
surfaces unless it is secured and stabilized.
(10) The top of a non-self-supporting ladder must be placed with
the two rails supported unless it is equipped with a single support
attachment.
(11) When portable ladders are used to gain access to an upper
landing surface, the ladder siderails must extend at least 3 feet (0.9
m) above that upper landing surface. (See Figure D-1.)
(12) When work is performed on or near electrical circuits, the
requirements of Sec. 1910.333(c) apply.
(13) Ladders and ladder sections must not be tied or fastened
together to provide longer length unless they are specifically designed
for such use.
(14) The reach of ladders and ladder sections must not be increased
by any means unless the equipment is specifically designed for the
application.

(d) Fixed ladders. (1) Fixed ladders must be capable of supporting
their maximum intended load.
(2) Fixed ladders installed on or after (date 90 days after the
effective date of the final rule) must be designed, constructed, and
maintained as follows:
(i) Fixed ladders must be capable of supporting two live loads of
at least 250 pounds (113 kg) each, concentrated between any two
consecutive attachments, plus anticipated loads caused by ice buildup,
winds, rigging, and impact loads resulting from the use of ladder
safety systems. The number and position of additional concentrated live
loads of 250 pounds (113 kg) each, determined from anticipated usage of
the ladder, must also be included in determining the capabilities of
fixed ladders.
(ii) Each step or rung must be capable of supporting at least a
single concentrated load of 250 pounds (113 kg) applied in the middle
of the step or rung.
(3) The minimum perpendicular clearance from the centerline of the
steps and rungs, or grab bars, or both, to the nearest permanent object
in back of the ladder must be 7 inches (18 cm), except in the case of
an elevator pit ladder, for which a minimum perpendicular clearance of
4.5 inches (11 cm) is required. Grab bars must not protrude on the
climbing side beyond the rungs of the ladder which they serve.
(4) The side rails of through or side-step ladders must extend 42
inches (1.1 m) above the top of the access level or landing platform
served by the ladder. For a parapet ladder, the access level must be
the roof if the parapet is cut to permit passage through the parapet;
if the parapet is continuous, the access level must be the top of the
parapet.
(5) For through ladder extensions, the steps or rungs must be
omitted from the extension and the extension of the side rails must be
flared to provide not less than 24 inches (61 cm) nor more than 30
inches (76 cm) clearance between side rails. Where ladder safety
systems are provided, the maximum clearance between side rails of the
extensions must not exceed 36 inches (91 cm).
(6) For side-step ladders, the side rails and the steps or rungs
must be continuous in the extension. (See Figure D-2.)
(7) Grab bars must extend 42 inches (1.1 m) above the access and
egress levels or landing platforms served by the ladder.
(8) The minimum size (cross-section) of the grab bars must be the
same as the rungs of the ladder.
(9) Where a fixed ladder terminates at a hatch (see Figure D-3),
the hatch cover must:
(i) Open with sufficient clearance for the employee to permit easy
access to or egress from the ladder; and
(ii) Open at least 70 degrees from the horizontal, if
counterbalanced.
(10) Fixed individual rung ladders must be constructed to prevent
the employee's feet from sliding off the end. (See Figure D-4.)
(11) The use of fixed ladders having a pitch greater than 90
degrees from the horizontal is prohibited.
(12) The step-across distance from the centerline of the steps or
rungs of a fixed ladder must:
(i) Not be less than 7 inches (18 cm) nor more than 12 inches (30
cm) to the nearest edge of the structure, building, or equipment
accessed from through ladders.
(ii) Not be less than 15 inches (38 cm) nor more than 20 inches (51
cm) to the access and egress points of the platform edge for side-step
ladders.
(13) Fixed ladders without cages or wells must have:
(i) A clear width of at least 15 inches (38 cm) to the nearest
permanent object on each side of the centerline of the ladder. (See
Figure D-2.)
(ii) A minimum perpendicular distance of 30 inches (76 cm) from the
center line of the steps and rungs to the nearest object on the
climbing side except when unavoidable obstructions are encountered,
then the minimum clearance may be reduced to 24 inches (61 cm) provided
deflector plates are installed. (See Figure D-5.)

Note to paragraph (d) of this section: The duty to provide fall
protection for employees working on fixed ladders is found at Sec.
1910.28 and the criteria for such fall protection systems is found
at Sec. 1910.29.

BILLING CODE 4510-29-P

Figure D-2 Thru D-5
Ladder Clearences

BILLING CODE 4510-29-C

(e) Mobile ladder stands and mobile ladder stand platforms (Mobile
ladder stands and platforms)--(1) General design requirements. (i)
Mobile ladder stands and platforms must have a step width of at least
16 inches (41 cm).
(ii) The steps, standing levels, and platforms of mobile ladder
stands and platforms must be provided with a slip resistant surface.
This surface may be an integral part of the surface or be provided by a
secondary process or operation, e.g., dimpling, knurling, shotblasting,
coating, metal spraying, or slip resistant tapes that must be durable
in nature.
(iii) Wheels or casters, when under load, must be designed to
support their proportional share of four times the rated load, plus the
proportional share of the unit's weight.
(iv) Mobile ladder stands and platforms that use wheels or casters,
rigid and swivel, must be equipped with a system to impede horizontal
movement.
(v) The maximum work surface heights of mobile ladder stands and
platforms must not exceed four times the least base dimension without
additional support. When greater heights are needed, outriggers,
counterweights, or comparable means must be used to maintain this
minimum base ratio.
(vi) Mobile ladder stands and platforms must be capable of
supporting at least four times their intended load.
(vii) Occupied mobile ladder stands and platforms must not be
moved.
(2) Design requirements for mobile ladder stands. (i) Steps must be
uniformly spaced and arranged with a rise of not more than 10 inches
(25 cm), and a depth of not less than 7 inches (18 cm). The slope of
the step stringer (inclined side support) to which the steps are
attached must not be more than 60 degrees measured from the horizontal.
(ii) All ladder stands with a top step height of 4 to 10 feet (1.2
m to 3 m) must be provided with handrails having a vertical height of
29.5 inches (75 cm) to 37 inches (94 cm) measured from the front edge
of a step. The use of removable gates or non-rigid members such as
chains may be permitted for special use applications.
(iii) All ladder stands with a top step over 10 feet high (3 m)
must have the top step protected on three sides by a handrail with a
vertical height of at least 36 inches (91 cm). The use of removable
gates or non-rigid members such as chains may be permitted for special
use applications. Top steps that are 20 inches (51 cm) or more, front
to back, must be provided with a midrail and toeboard.
(iv) The standing areas of mobile ladder stands must be within the
base frame.
(3) Design requirements for mobile ladder stand platforms. (i)
Steps of a ladder stand platform must conform to paragraph (e)(2)(i) of
this section. However, when the employer demonstrates that compliance
with paragraph (e)(3)(i) is not practicable, steeper slopes or vertical
rung ladders may be used, provided the units are stabilized to prevent
overturning.
(ii) All ladder stand platforms with a platform height of 4 to 10
feet (1.2 m to 3 m) must be provided with handrails having a vertical
height of 29.5 inches (75 cm) to 37 inches (94 cm) measured from the
front edge of a step. Handrails in the platform area above the flat
surface must have a vertical height of at least 36 inches (91 cm) and
include a midrail. The use of removable gates or non-rigid members such
as chains may be permitted for special use applications.
(iii) All ladder stand platforms with a platform height of over 10
feet (3 m) high must have guardrails and toeboards meeting the
requirements of Sec. 1910.29 on the exposed sides and ends of the
platform. The use of removable gates or non-rigid members such as
chains may be permitted for special use applications.

Sec. 1910.24 Step bolts and manhole steps.

(a) Step bolts. (1) All step bolts installed on or after (date 90
days after the effective date of the final rule) that are used in
corrosive environments must be constructed of, or coated with, a
material that will retard corrosion of the step bolt.
(2) Step bolts must be designed to prevent the employee's foot from
slipping or sliding off the end of the step bolt.
(3) Step bolts must be spaced uniformly, 12 inches (30 cm) minimum
center to center, alternately spaced, 18 inches (46 cm) maximum. (See
Figure D-6.) The spacing from the entry and exit surface to the first
step bolt may be different from the spacing between the other step
bolts.
(4) The minimum clear width of each step bolt must be 4.5 inches
(11 cm).
(5) The minimum perpendicular distance between the centerline of
the step bolt to the nearest permanent object in back of the bolt must
be at least 7 inches (18 cm). Where obstructions cannot be avoided, toe
clearances may be reduced to 4.5 inches (11 cm).
(6) Step bolts installed before (date 90 days after the effective
date of the final rule) must be capable of supporting their maximum intended load.
(7) Each step bolt installed on or after (date 90 days after the
effective date of the final rule) must be capable of supporting,
without failure, at least four times its maximum intended load.
(8) Step bolts must be visually inspected before each use and be
maintained in accordance with Sec. 1910.22.
(9) Step bolts that are bent more than 15 degrees from the
perpendicular (regardless of direction) must be removed and replaced
with bolts that meet the requirements of this section.

(b) Manhole steps. (1) Manhole steps installed before (date 90 days
after the effective date of the final rule) must be capable of
supporting their maximum intended load.
(2) The employer must ensure that manhole steps installed on or
after (date 90 days after the effective date of the final rule):
(i) Are provided with slip-resistant surfaces such as, corrugated,
knurled, or dimpled surfaces;
(ii) Are constructed of, or coated with, a material that will
retard corrosion of the step if used in corrosive environments;
(iii) Have a minimum clear step width of 10 inches (25 cm);
(iv) Are spaced uniformly, not more than 16 inches (41 cm) apart;
Exception to paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this section: The spacing from
the entry and exit surface to the first manhole step may be different
from the spacing between the other steps.
(v) Have a minimum perpendicular distance between the centerline of
the manhole step to the nearest permanent object in back of the step of
at least 4.5 inches (11 cm); and
(vi) Are designed to prevent the employee's foot from slipping or
sliding off the end of the manhole step.
(3) Manhole steps must be visually inspected before each use and be
maintained in accordance with Sec. 1910.22.

Sec. 1910.25 Stairways.

(a) General requirements. (1) This section covers all stairs
including standard stairs, spiral stairs, ship stairs, and alternating
tread-type stairs. This section does not cover: Stairs serving floating
roof tanks; stairs on scaffolds; stairs designed into a machine or
piece of equipment; or stairs on self-propelled motorized mobile
equipment.
(2) Handrails and stair rail systems must be provided as required
in Sec. 1910.28.

Note to paragraph (a)(2) of this section: The top rail of a
stair rail system may also serve as a handrail when installed in
accordance with Sec. 1910.29(f).

(3) Except as required in paragraph (c)(3) of this section,
vertical clearance above any stair tread to an overhead obstruction
must be at least 6 feet, 8 inches (2.1 m) measured from the leading
edge of the tread.
(4) Stairs must be installed with uniform riser heights and tread
depths between landings.
(5) Stairway landings and platforms must be no less than the width
of the stair and not less than 30 inches (76 cm) in length as measured
in the direction of travel.
(6) When a door or a gate opens directly on a stairway, a platform
must be provided, and the swing of the door or gate must not reduce the
effective usable depth to less than 20 inches (51 cm) for platforms
installed before (date 90 days after the effective date of the final
rule) and 22 inches (56 cm) for platforms installed on or after (date
90 days after the effective date of the final rule). (See Figure D-7.)
(7) Stairs must be designed and constructed to carry five times the
normal anticipated live load, but never less than a concentrated load
of 1,000 pounds (454 kg) applied at any point.
(8) Standard stairs must be provided for access from one walking-
working surface to another where operations necessitate regular and
routine travel between levels and for access to operating platforms for
equipment. However, winding stairways may be installed on tanks and
similar round structures when the diameter of the structure is five (5)
feet (1.5 m) or more.
(9) Spiral stairs, ship stairs, or alternating tread-type stairs
are not permitted except for special limited usage and secondary access
situations when the employer can demonstrate it is not practical to
provide a standard stairway.

Figure D-7 and D-8
Door or Gate Openening to Stairway, Dimensions of Standard Stairs

(b) Standard stairs. In addition to paragraph (a) of this section,
standard stairs must:
(1) Be installed at angles between 30 and 50 degrees from the
horizontal;
(2) Have a maximum riser height of 9.5 inches (24 cm);
(3) Have a minimum tread depth of 9.5 inches (24 cm), except when
open risers are used; and
(4) Have a minimum width of 22 inches (56 cm) between vertical
barriers.

(c) Spiral stairways. In addition to paragraph (a) of this section,
spiral stairways must have:
(1) A clear width not less than 26 inches (66 cm);
(2) Risers with a maximum height of 9.5 inches (24 cm);
(3) A minimum headroom above the spiral stairway of 6 feet, 6
inches (2 m) measured vertically from the center of the leading edge of
the tread;
(4) Treads with a minimum depth of 7.5 inches (19 cm) at a point 12
inches (30 cm) from the narrowest edge; and
(5) Uniform size treads.
(d) Ship stairs. In addition to paragraph (a) of this section, ship
stairs must:
(1) Be installed at a slope of 50 to 70 degrees from the
horizontal;
(2) Have open risers; and
(3) Have treads with a minimum depth of 4 inches (10 cm), a minimum
width of 18 inches (46 cm), and a vertical rise between tread surfaces
in the range of 6.5 to 12 inches (17 to 30 cm).

(e) Alternating tread-type stairs. In addition to paragraph (a) of
this section, alternating tread-type stairs must have:
(1) A series of steps installed at a slope between 50 and 70
degrees from the horizontal;
(2) A distance of 20 to 24 inches (51 to 61 cm) between the
handrails;
(3) Treads with a minimum depth of 8.5 inches (22 cm);
(4) Open risers if the depth is less than 9.5 (24 cm) inches; and
(5) Treads that are a minimum of 7 inches (18 cm) wide at the
nosing (i.e., leading edge of a tread).

Sec. 1910.26 Dockboards (bridge plates).

(a) Portable and powered dockboards must be capable of supporting
their maximum intended load.
(b) Dockboards put into service on or after (date 90 days after the
effective date of the final rule) must be designed, constructed, and
maintained to prevent equipment from running off the edge.
(c) Portable dockboards must be secured in position by anchoring or
equipping them with devices which will prevent their slipping. Where
this is infeasible, the employer must ensure there is substantial
contact between the portable dockboard and the unattached surface or
surfaces.
(d) Vehicles onto which a dockboard has been placed must be
prevented from moving (e.g., using wheel chocks or sand shoes) while
the dockboard is being used by employees.
(e) Portable dockboards must be equipped with handholds or other
means to permit safe handling.

Sec. 1910.27 Scaffolds (including rope descent systems).

(a) Scaffolds. Scaffolds, other than rope descent systems, used in
general industry must meet the requirements for scaffolds in part 1926
(Safety and Health Regulations for Construction) of this chapter.
(b) Rope descent systems. (1) The use of a rope descent system is
prohibited for heights greater than 300 feet (91 m) above grade unless
the employer can demonstrate that access cannot otherwise be attained
safely and practicably.
(2) When rope descent systems are used, employers must:
(i) Use equipment in accordance with the instructions, warnings,
and design limitations set by manufacturers and distributors.
(ii) Train employees in accordance with Sec. 1910.30;
(iii) Inspect all equipment used in rope descent systems each day
before use and remove damaged equipment from service;
(iv) Use proper rigging, including sound anchorages and tiebacks,
with particular emphasis on providing tiebacks when counterweights,
cornice hooks, or similar non-permanent anchorages are used;
(v) Use a separate, independent personal fall arrest system meeting
the requirements of subpart I of this part;
(vi) Ensure that all lines are capable of sustaining a minimum
tensile load of 5,000 pounds (2,268 kg);
(vii) Provide for prompt rescue of employees in the event of a
fall;
(viii) Ensure ropes are effectively padded where they contact edges
of the building, anchorage, obstructions, or other surfaces which might
cut or weaken the rope;
(ix) Provide for stabilization at the specific work location when
descents are greater than 130 feet (39.6 m);
(x) Secure equipment, such as tools, squeegees, or buckets by a
tool lanyard or similar method to prevent equipment from falling; and,
(xi) Protect suspension ropes from exposure to open flames, hot
work, corrosive chemicals, or other destructive conditions.

Sec. 1910.28 Duty to have fall protection.

(a) General. (1) This section sets requirements for employers to
provide fall protection. All fall protection required by this section
must conform to the criteria set forth in Sec. 1910.29, except that
personal fall protection systems (for example, personal fall arrest
systems, restraint systems, and positioning device systems) must
conform to the criteria set forth in subpart I of this part. This
section does not apply to: Fall hazards presented by the exposed
perimeters of entertainment stages or rail station platforms.
Additionally, this section does not apply to powered platforms covered
by Sec. 1910.66(j), aerial lifts covered by Sec. 1910.67(c)(2)(v),
the portion of telecommunications work covered by Sec. 1910.268(n)(7)
and (n)(8), or the portion of electric power generation, transmission,
and distribution work covered by Sec. 1910.269(g)(2)(v).
(2) The employer must ensure that the walking-working surfaces used
by its employees have the strength and structural integrity to support
them safely, before allowing employees to work on those surfaces.
(b) Protection from fall hazards--(1) Unprotected sides and edges.
The employer shall ensure that each employee on a walking-working
surface (horizontal and vertical) with an unprotected side or edge
which is 4 feet (1.2 m) or more above a lower level is protected from
falling by the use of one or more of the following:
(i) Guardrail systems meeting the requirements of Sec. 1910.29 of
this subpart;
(ii) Designated area meeting the requirements of Sec. 1910.29 of
this subpart;
(iii) Safety net systems meeting the requirements part 1926 of this
chapter;
(iv) Travel restraint systems meeting the requirements of subpart I
of this part; or,
(v) Personal fall arrest systems meeting the requirements of
subpart I of this part.
(vi) When the employer demonstrates that use of guardrails on the
"working side" of platforms used in slaughtering facilities, or at
loading racks, loading docks, or teeming platforms, is infeasible, the
work may be done without guardrails provided:
(A) The work operation for which guardrails are infeasible is in
process;
(B) Access to the platform is limited to authorized employees; and,
(C) The authorized employees have been trained in accordance with
Sec. 1910.30.
(2) Hoist areas. (i) Each employee in a hoist area must be
protected from falling 4 feet (1.2 m) or more to lower levels by a
guardrail system meeting the requirements of Sec. 1910.29 of this
subpart; or a personal fall arrest system or a travel restraint system
meeting the requirements of subpart I of this part.
(ii) If guardrail systems, chains, gates, or portions thereof, are
removed to facilitate the hoisting operation (e.g., during landing of
materials), and an employee must lean through the access opening or out
over the edge of the access opening (for example, to receive or guide
equipment and materials), that employee must be protected from fall
hazards by a personal fall arrest system meeting the requirements of
subpart I of this part. In addition, a grab handle must be provided on
each side of the opening.
(3) Holes. (i) Each employee on walking-working surfaces must be
protected from falling through holes (including skylights) more than 4
feet (1.2 m) above lower levels by:
(A) Covers meeting the requirements of Sec. 1910.29 of this
subpart;
(B) A guardrail system meeting the requirements of Sec. 1910.29 of
this subpart;
(C) A travel restraint system meeting the requirements of subpart I
of this part; or,
(D) A personal fall arrest system meeting the requirements of
subpart I of this part.
(ii) Each employee on a walking-working surface must be protected
from tripping in or stepping into or through holes by covers meeting
the requirements of Sec. 1910.29 of this subpart.
(iii) Each employee on a walking-working surface must be protected
from objects falling through overhead holes by covers meeting the
requirements of Sec. 1910.29 of this subpart.
(4) Dockboards (bridge plates). (i) Each employee on a dockboard
must be protected from falling 4 feet (1.2 m) or more to lower levels
by a guardrail or handrail system, except as provided by (b)(4)(ii) of
this section.
(ii) Fall protection (guardrail or handrail systems) is not
required when:
(A) Dockboards are being used solely for materials handling
operations with motorized equipment;
(B) Employees engaged in those operations are exposed to fall
hazards of 10 feet (3 m) or less; and
(C) Those employees have been trained, in accordance with Sec.
1910.30, to recognize and avoid the hazards associated with this work.
Training must include instruction in the proper placement and securing
of dockboards, securing of vehicles, and the proper use of materials
handling equipment.
(5) Runways and similar walkways. (i) Each employee on a runway or
similar walkway must be protected from falling 4 feet (1.2 m) or more
to lower levels by a guardrail system. Wherever tools, machine parts or
objects are likely to be used on the runway, a toeboard must also be
provided along each exposed side.
(ii) Runways used exclusively for special purposes may have the
railing on one side omitted when the employer demonstrates that
operating conditions necessitate such an omission, provided the
employer minimizes the fall hazard by providing a runway that is at
least 18 inches (46 cm) wide, and providing employees with, and
ensuring the proper use of, personal fall arrest systems or travel
restraint systems meeting the requirements of subpart I of this part.
(6) Dangerous equipment. (i) Each employee less than 4 feet (1.2 m)
above dangerous equipment must be protected from falling into or onto
the dangerous equipment by a guardrail or a travel restraint system
unless the equipment is covered or guarded to eliminate the hazard.
(ii) Each employee 4 feet (1.2 m) or more above dangerous equipment
must be protected from fall hazards by:
(A) A guardrail system meeting the requirements of Sec. 1910.29 of
this subpart;
(B) A safety net system meeting the requirements part 1926 of this
chapter;
(C) A travel restraint system meeting the requirements of subpart I
of this part; or
(D) A personal fall arrest system meeting the requirements of
subpart I of this part.
(7) Wall openings. Each employee working on, at, above, or near
wall openings (including those with chutes attached) where the outside
bottom edge of the wall opening is 4 feet (1.2 m) or more above lower
levels and the inside bottom edge of the wall opening is less than 39
inches (99 cm) above the walking-working surface, must be protected
from falling by the use of:
(i) A guardrail system meeting the requirements of Sec. 1910.29 of
this subpart;
(ii) A designated area meeting the requirements of Sec. 1910.29 of
this subpart;
(iii) A safety net system meeting the requirements of part 1926 of
this chapter;
(iv) A travel restraint system meeting the requirements of subpart
I of this part; or,
(v) A personal fall arrest systems meeting the requirements of
subpart I of this part.
(8) Repair, service, and assembly pits (pits) less than 10 feet in
depth. Repair, service, and assembly pits less than 10 feet (3 m) deep
need not be protected by a fall protection system provided that the
following requirements are met:
(i) Access to any area within 6 feet (1.8 m) of the edge of the pit
is limited to trained, authorized employees;
(ii) Floor markings in colors contrasting to that of the
surrounding area are applied, or rope, wire, or chain with support
stanchions meeting the requirements of Sec. 1910.29(d), or a
combination of these are placed at a distance of at least 6 feet (1.8
m) from the edge of the pit; and,
(iii) Caution signs stating, "Caution--Open Floor," or a similar
legend, are posted so that they are readily visible to employees
entering the pit area.

Note to paragraph (b)(8)(iii) of this section: Caution signs
must meet the requirements of Sec. 1910.145.

(9) Fixed ladders. The following requirements apply to all fixed
ladders except those used in outdoor advertising. Requirements for
fixed ladders used in outdoor advertising are found in Sec.
1910.28(b)(10).
(i) Fixed ladders must be provided with cages, wells, ladder safety
systems, or personal fall protection systems when the length of the
climb is less than 24 feet (7.3 m), but the top of the ladder is at a
distance greater than 24 feet (7.3 m) above lower levels.
(ii) Where the total length of a climb equals or exceeds 24 feet
(7.3 m), fixed ladders must be equipped with one of the following:
(A) Ladder safety system meeting the requirements of Sec. 1910.29
of this subpart;
(B) Personal fall protection system meeting the requirements of
subpart I of this part, and rest platforms at intervals not to exceed
150 ft (45.7 m); or
(C) A cage or well, and multiple ladder sections, with each ladder
section not to exceed 50 feet (15.2 m) in length. Ladder sections must
be offset from adjacent sections, and landing platforms must be
provided at maximum intervals of 50 feet (15.2 m).

Note to paragraph (b)(9) of this section: Total length of climb
is the total vertical distance that an employee could climb when
traveling between the start of a climb to the finished height of the
climb. This total distance includes all ladder segments of a climb,
as well as any vertical distance in between ladder segments.

(10) Outdoor advertising (billboards). The employer must ensure
that: (i) For climbs on the fixed ladder of up to 50 feet (15.2 m), or
heights of up to 65 feet (19.8 m) from grade, each employee who climbs
a combination of a portable and a fixed ladder wears a body belt or
body harness equipped with an appropriate 18 inch (46 cm) rest lanyard
as a means to tie off to the fixed ladder as required by subpart I of
this part.
(ii) Each employee who climbs a combination of a portable and a
fixed ladder where the length of the fixed ladder climb exceeds 50 feet
(15.2 m), or where the ladder ascends to heights exceeding 65 feet
(19.8 m) from grade is protected through the installation of an
appropriate ladder safety system for the entire length of the fixed
ladder climb.
(iii) Each employee who climbs fixed ladders equipped with ladder
safety systems uses the systems properly, and follows appropriate
procedures for inspection and maintenance of the systems.
(iv) All ladder safety systems installed on fixed ladders are
properly maintained and used.
(v) Each employee who routinely climbs fixed ladders undergoes
training and demonstrates the physical capability to perform the
necessary climbs safely. Each employee must satisfy the criteria for
qualified climber found in Sec. 1910.29(h).
(vi) Each employee keeps both hands free of tools or material when
ascending or descending a ladder.
(vii) Each employee is protected by an appropriate fall protection
system upon reaching his or her work position.
(11) Stairways. (i) Each employee exposed to a fall of 4 feet (1.2
m) or more to lower levels from an unprotected side or edge of a
stairway landing must be protected by a guardrail or stair rail system.
(ii) Every flight of stairs having 3 treads and 4 or more risers
must be equipped with stair railing systems and hand rails as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With earth built
Stair width Enclosed One open side Two open sides up on both sides
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 44 inches (1.1 m)... At least one One stair rail system One stair rail system
handrail. with handrail on with handrail on
open side. each open side.
44 inches (1.1 m) through 88 One handrail on One stair rail system One stair rail system
inches (2.2 m). each enclosed with handrail on with handrail on
side. open side. each open side.
Greater than 88 inches (2.2 m) One handrail on One stair rail system One stair rail system
each enclosed with handrail on with handrail on
side and one open side and one each open side and
intermediate intermediate one intermediate
handrail handrail located in handrail located in
located in the the middle of the the middle of the
middle of the stair. stair.
stair.
Exterior stairs less than 44 ................ ..................... ..................... One handrail on
inches (1.1 m). at least one
side.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note to table: The width of the stair must be clear of all obstructions except handrails.

(iii) Notwithstanding the table above, where ship stairs or
alternating tread type stairs are installed, they must be equipped with
handrails on both sides.
(12) Scaffolds (inlcuding rope descent systems). (i) Each employee
on a scaffold must be protected from falls in accordance with part 1926
of this chapter.
(ii) Each employee using a rope descent system must be protected
from falling 4 feet (1.2 m) or more to lower levels by a personal fall
arrest system meeting the requirements of subpart I of this part.
(13) Walking-working surfaces not otherwise addressed. Except as
provided in this section or by fall protection provisions of other
subparts of part 1910, each employee on a walking-working surface 4
feet (1.2 m) or more above lower levels must be protected from falling
by:
(i) A guardrail system meeting the requirements of Sec. 1910.29 of
this subpart;
(ii) A designated area meeting the requirements of Sec. 1910.29 of
this subpart;
(iii) A safety net system meeting the requirements of part 1926 of
this chapter;
(iv) A travel restraint system meeting the requirements of subpart
I of this part; or,
(v) A personal fall arrest system meeting the requirements of
subpart I of this part.
(14) Protection for floor holes. (i) Every stairway floor hole
shall be guarded by a guardrail system constructed in accordance with
paragraph Sec. 1910.29(b) of this subpart. The guardrail system shall
be provided on all exposed sides (except at the entrance to the
stairway). For infrequently used stairways where traffic across the
opening prevents the use of a fixed guardrail system (as when located
in aisle spaces), employers have the option of using a guard that
consists of a hinged floor-opening cover of standard strength and
construction, and a removable guardrail system on all exposed sides
(except at the entrance to stairway).
Note to paragraph Sec. 1910.28(b)(14)(i): For the purpose of
this provision, the term "infrequently" means use of the stairway
on less than a daily basis.

(ii) Every ladderway floor hole or platform shall be guarded by a
guardrail system with toeboards on all exposed sides (except at
entrance to the hole), with the passage through the guardrail system
provided by a swinging gate or offset such that an employee cannot walk
directly into the ladderway floor hole.
(iii) Every hatchway and chute-floor hole shall be guarded by one
of the following:
(A) A hinged floor-hole cover of standard strength and construction
equipped with a guardrail system permanently attached so as to leave
only one exposed side. When the hole is not in use, the cover shall be
closed or the exposed side shall be guarded by a removable guardrail
system with top and mid rails;
(B) A removable guardrail system with toeboard on not more than two
sides of the hole and fixed guardrail system with toeboards on all
other exposed sides. The removable guardrail system shall remain in
place when the hole is not in use; or
(C) When operating conditions require feeding material through a
hatchway or chute hole, each employee shall be protected from falling
through the hole by a guardrail system or a travel-restraint system.
(c) Protection from falling objects. When an employee is exposed to
falling objects, the employer must ensure that each employee wear head
protection meeting the requirements of subpart I of this part, and must
implement one or more of the following measures:
(1) Erect toeboards, screens, or guardrail systems to prevent
objects from falling from higher levels;
(2) Erect a canopy structure and keep potential falling objects far
enough from the edge of the higher level so that those objects would
not go over the edge if they were accidentally displaced; or
(3) Barricade the area to which objects could fall, prohibit
employees from entering the barricaded area, and keep objects far
enough from the edge so those objects do not go over the edge.

Sec. 1910.29 Fall protection systems criteria and practices.

(a) General. (1) Fall protection systems required by this part must
comply with the applicable provisions of this section except that
personal fall protection systems, including all body belts and body
harnesses, must meet the applicable requirements of subpart I of this
part.
(2) Employers must provide and install all fall protection systems
required by this subpart and must comply with all other pertinent
requirements (including training) of this subpart before any employee
begins work that necessitates fall protection.
(b) Guardrail systems. Except as provided in paragraph (b)(16) of
this section, guardrail systems, and their use must comply with the
following provisions:
(1) Top edge height of top rails, or equivalent guardrail system
members, must be 42 inches (107 cm) plus or minus 3 inches (8 cm) above
the walking-working level. When conditions warrant, the height of the
top edge may exceed the 45-inch (114 cm) height, provided the guardrail
system meets all other criteria of paragraph (b) of this section.
(2) Midrails, screens, mesh, intermediate vertical members, or
equivalent intermediate structural members must be installed between
the top edge of the guardrail system and the walking-working surface
when there is no wall or parapet wall at least 21 inches (53 cm) high.
(i) Midrails, when used, must be installed at a height midway
between the top edge of the guardrail system and the walking-working
level.
(ii) Screens and mesh, when used, must extend from the top rail to
the walking-working level and along the entire opening between top rail
supports.
(iii) Intermediate members (such as balusters), when used between
posts, must be not more than 19 inches (48 cm) apart.
(iv) Other structural members (such as additional midrails and
architectural panels) must be installed such that there are no openings
in the guardrail system that are more than 19 inches (48 cm) wide.
(3) Guardrail systems must be capable of withstanding, without
failure, a force of at least 200 pounds (890 N) applied within 2 inches
(5 cm) of the top edge, in any outward or downward direction, at any
point along the top edge.
(4) When the 200-pound (890-N) test load specified in paragraph
(b)(3) of this section is applied in a downward direction, the top edge
of the guardrail must not deflect to a height less than 39 inches (99
cm) above the walking-working level.
(5) Midrails, screens, mesh, intermediate vertical members, solid
panels, and equivalent structural members must be capable of
withstanding, without failure, a force of at least 150 pounds (667 N)
applied in any downward or outward direction at any point along the
midrail or other member.
(6) Guardrail systems must be surfaced to prevent injury to an
employee from punctures or lacerations, and to prevent snagging of
clothing.
(7) The ends of all top rails and midrails must not overhang the
terminal posts, except where such overhang does not constitute a
projection hazard.
(8) Steel banding and plastic banding must not be used as top rails
or midrails.
(9) Top rails and midrails must be at least 0.25-inches (0.6 cm) in
diameter or thickness.
(10) When guardrail systems are used at hoisting areas, a chain
gate or removable guardrail section must be placed across the access
opening between guardrail sections when hoisting operations are not
taking place.
(11) When guardrail systems are used at holes, they must be erected
on all unprotected sides or edges of the hole.
(12) When guardrail systems are used around holes used for the
passage of materials, the hole must have not more than two sides
provided with removable guardrail sections to allow the passage of
materials. When the hole is not in use, it must either be closed over
with a cover or a guardrail system must be provided along all
unprotected sides or edges.
(13) When guardrail systems are used around holes used as points of
access (such as ladderways), they must either be provided with a gate,
or be so offset that a person cannot walk directly into the hole.
(14) Guardrail systems used on ramps and runways must be erected
along each unprotected side or edge.
(15) Manila, plastic, or synthetic rope being used for top rails or
midrails must be inspected as frequently as necessary to ensure that it
continues to meet the strength requirements of paragraph (b)(3) of this
section.
(16) Criteria for guardrail systems on scaffolds must meet the
applicable requirements set forth in part 1926 of this chapter.

(c) Safety net systems. Criteria for safety net systems must meet
the applicable requirements set forth in part 1926 of this chapter.
(d) Designated areas. (1) Where designated areas are permitted by
Sec. 1910.28 (see Sec. 1910.28(b)(1)), the employer must ensure that:
(i) Employees remain within the designated area while work
operations are underway;
(ii) The work be of a temporary nature, such as maintenance on
roof-top equipment;
(iii) Designated areas be established only on surfaces that have a
slope from the horizontal of 10 degrees or less (or slope of 4 in 12 or
less); and
(iv) The perimeter of the designated area be delineated with a line
consisting of a rope, wire, or chain in accordance with the criteria in
paragraphs (d)(2) through (d)(4) of this section.
(2) After being erected with the line (such as rope, wire, or
chain) attached:
(i) Stanchions must be capable of resisting, without tipping over,
a force of at least 16 pounds (71 N) applied horizontally against the
stanchion. The force must be applied 30 inches (76 cm) above the work
surface and perpendicular to the designated area perimeter, and in the
direction of the unprotected side or edge;
(ii) The line must have a minimum breaking or tensile strength of
500 pounds (2.2 kN). After being attached to the stanchions, the line
must be capable of supporting, without breaking, the loads applied to
the stanchions as prescribed in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section;
(iii) The line must be attached at each stanchion in such a way
that pulling on one section of the line between stanchions will not
result in slack being taken up in adjacent sections before the
stanchion tips over;
(iv) The line must be installed in such a manner that its lowest
point (including sag) is no less than 34 inches (86 cm) or more than 39
inches (99 cm) from the walking-working surface; and
(v) The line forming the designated area must be clearly visible
from any unobstructed location within the designated area up to 25 feet
(7.6 m) away, or at the maximum distance a worker may be positioned
away from the line, whichever is less.
(3)(i) Stanchions must be erected as close to the work area as is
permitted by the task.
(ii) The perimeter of the designated area must be erected at least
6 feet (1.8 m) from the unprotected side or edge.
(iii) When mobile mechanical equipment is being used, the line must
be erected not less than 6 feet (1.8 m) from the unprotected side or
edge which is parallel to the direction of mechanical equipment
operation, and not less than 10 feet (3 m) from the unprotected side or
edge which is perpendicular to the direction of mechanical equipment
operation.
(4) Access to the designated area must be by a clear path, formed
by two lines, attached to stanchions that meet the strength, height,
and visibility requirements of this paragraph.
(e) Covers. Covers for holes in floors, roofs, and other walking-
working surfaces must meet the following requirements:
(1) Covers located in roadways and vehicular aisles must be capable
of supporting, without failure, at least twice the maximum axle load of
the largest vehicle expected to cross over the cover.
(2) All other covers must be capable of supporting, without
failure, at least twice the weight of employees, equipment, and
materials that may be imposed on the cover at any one time.
(3) All covers must be secured when installed so as to prevent
accidental displacement, e.g., displacement by wind, equipment, or
employees.
(4) All covers must be color-coded or marked with the word "HOLE"
or "COVER" to provide warning of the hazard.
(5) The requirement of paragraph (e)(4) does not apply to cast iron
manhole covers or steel grates, such as those used on streets or
roadways.
(f) Handrail and stair rail systems. (1) Height criteria. (i)
Handrails may not be less than 30 inches (76 cm) or more than 37 inches
(94 cm) from the upper surface of the tread.
(ii) The height of stair rail systems installed before (date 90
days after the effective date of the final rule) must not be less than
30 inches (76 cm) from the upper surface of the tread. The height of
stair rail systems installed on or after (date 90 days after the
effective date of the final rule) must be not less than 36 inches (91
cm).

Note to paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(ii) of this section:
The height of a handrail or a stair rail system must be measured
from the upper surface of the top rail to the surface of the tread
in line with the face of the riser at the forward edge of the tread.

(iii) A stair rail may serve as a handrail when the height of the
top edge is not more than 37 inches (94 cm) nor less than 36 inches (91
cm) when measured at the forward edge of the tread surface.
(2) Finger clearance. The minimum clearance between handrails,
including the top edge of stair rail systems serving as handrails, and
any obstructions must be 3 inches (8 cm).
(3) Surfaces. Handrail and stair rail systems must be surfaced to
prevent injury to employees from punctures or lacerations, and to prevent
snagging of clothing.
(4) Openings in stair rails. Openings in a stair rail system must
be a maximum of 19 inches (48 cm) in their least dimension.
(5) Handhold. Handrails must have the shape and dimension necessary
to provide a firm handhold for employees.
(6) Projection hazards. Ends of stair rail systems and handrails
must not present a projection hazard.
(7) Strength criteria. Handrails and the top rails of stair rail
systems must be capable of withstanding, without permanent deformation
or a loss of support, a force in any downward or outward direction at
any point along the top edge, of at least 200 pounds (890 N) applied
within 2 inches (5 cm) of the top edge of the rail.

(g) Cages, wells, and platforms used with fixed ladders. (1) Cages
and wells installed on fixed ladders must be designed to permit easy
access to or egress from the ladder that they enclose. The cages and
wells must be continuous throughout the length of the fixed ladder
except for access, egress, and other transfer points. Cages and wells
must be designed and constructed to contain employees in the event of a
fall and to direct them to a lower landing.
(2) Platforms used with fixed ladders must provide a horizontal
surface of at least 24 inches by 30 inches (61 cm by 76 cm).

(h) Qualified Climbers. This option is available only to employees
engaged in outdoor advertising operations, as established by Sec.
1910.28(b)(10).
(1) A qualified climber must be physically capable, as demonstrated
through observations of actual climbing activities or by a physical
examination, of performing the duties that may be assigned.
(2) A qualified climber must have successfully completed a training
or apprenticeship program that included hands-on training for the safe
climbing of ladders and must be retrained as necessary to ensure the
necessary skills are maintained.
(3) The employer must ensure through performance observations and
formal classroom or on-the-job training that the qualified climber has
the skill to safely perform the climb.
(4) A qualified climber must perform climbing duties as a routine
work activity.
(i) Ladder safety systems. (1) Design criteria for systems
components. Ladder safety systems must permit the employee using the
system to ascend or descend without continually having to hold, push,
or pull any part of the system, leaving both hands free for climbing.
(2) The connection between the carrier or lifeline and the point of
attachment to the body belt or harness must not exceed 9 inches (23 cm)
in length.
(3) Mountings for rigid carriers must be attached at each end of
the carrier, with intermediate mountings, as necessary, spaced along
the entire length of the carrier to provide strength necessary to stop
employee falls.
(4) Mountings for flexible carriers must be attached at each end of
the carrier. Cable guides utilized with a flexible carrier must be
installed at a minimum spacing of 25 feet (7.6 m) and a maximum spacing
of 40 feet (12.2 m) along the entire length of the carrier.
(5) The design and installation of mountings and cable guides must
not reduce the design strength of the ladder.
(6) Ladder safety systems and their support systems must be capable
of withstanding without failure a drop test consisting of an 18-inch
(41-cm) drop of a 500-pound (227-kg) weight.
(j) Personal fall protection systems. Body belts, harnesses, and
other components used in personal fall arrest systems, work positioning
systems, and travel restraint systems must meet the applicable
requirements of subpart I of this part.
(k) Protection from falling objects. Toeboards, guardrails, and
canopies, when used as falling object protection, must comply with the
following provisions:
(1) Toeboards must be erected along the edge of the overhead
walking-working surface for a distance sufficient to protect employees
below.
(2) Toeboards must be: (i) A minimum of 3.5 inches (9 cm) in
vertical height from their top edge to the level of the walking-working
surface. They must have not more than a 0.25-inch (0.5-cm) clearance
above the walking-working surface. They must be solid or have openings
not over 1 inch (3 cm) in the greatest dimension;
(ii) At least 2.5 inches (6 cm) high where toeboards are used
around repair, service, and assembly pits, except that toeboards may be
omitted at sections around the pits where the toeboard would prevent
access to vehicles over pits.
(3) Where tools, equipment, or materials are piled higher than the
top edge of a toeboard, paneling or screening must be erected from the
walking-working surface or toeboard to the top of a guardrail system's
top rail or midrail for a distance sufficient to protect employees.
(4) Toeboards must be capable of withstanding, without failure, a
force of at least 50 pounds (222 N) applied in any downward or outward
direction at any point along the toeboard.
(5) All openings on guardrail systems must be small enough to
prevent passage of potential falling objects.
(6) Canopies must be strong enough to prevent collapse and to
prevent penetration by any falling objects.
(l) Grab handles. Each grab handle must be no less than 12 inches
(30 cm) in length, be mounted to give at least 3 inches (8 cm) of
clearance from the framing or opening, and be capable of withstanding a
maximum horizontal pull-out force equal to two times the intended load
or 200 pounds (890 N), whichever is greater.

Sec. 1910.30 Training requirements.

(a) Fall Hazards. (1) The employer must provide training for each
employee who uses personal fall protection equipment and those required
to be trained as indicated elsewhere in this subpart. The training must
enable each employee to recognize the hazards of falling and the
procedures to be followed to minimize these hazards.
(2) The employer must ensure that each employee is trained by a
qualified person. The employee must be trained in the following areas:
(i) The nature of fall hazards in the work area;
(ii) The correct procedures for erecting, maintaining,
disassembling, and inspecting the fall protection systems to be used;
(iii) The use and operation of guardrail systems, safety net
systems, warning lines used in designated areas, and other protection;
and
(iv) The use, operation, and limitations of personal fall
protection systems including proper hook-up, anchoring and tie-off
techniques, methods of use, and proper methods of equipment inspection
and storage as recommended by the manufacturer.
(b) Equipment hazards. (1) The employer must ensure that each
employee is trained in the proper care, use, and inspection of
equipment covered by this subpart before they use the equipment.
(2) The employer must ensure that each employee is instructed in
the proper placing and securing of dockboards to prevent unintentional
movement.
(3) The employer must ensure that each employee who uses rope
descent systems is trained and retrained as necessary in the proper
rigging and safe use of the equipment in accordance with Sec. 1910.27.
(c) Retraining. When the employer has reason to believe that any
employee who has already been trained does not have the understanding
and skill required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the
employer must retrain that employee. Situations where retraining is
required include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Changes in the workplace render previous training invalid;
(2) Changes in the types of fall protection systems or equipment to
be used render previous training invalid; or
(3) Inadequacies in an affected employee's knowledge or use of fall
protection systems or equipment indicate that the employee has not
retained the requisite understanding or skill.
(d) Training must be understandable. The employer must provide
information and training to each employee in a manner that is
understandable to that employee.
2. Revise the authority citation for subpart F of part 1910 to read
as follows:

Subpart F--Powered Platforms, Manlifts, and Vehicle-Mounted Work
Platforms

3-4. In Sec. 1910.66:
A. Revise paragraphs (f)(5)(ii)(L) and (M), (f)(5)(iii)(B), and
(j);
B. Remove and reserve Appendix C; and
C. Amend Appendix D by revising paragraph (c)(4) to read as
follows:

Sec. 1910.66 Powered platforms for building maintenance.

* * * * *
(f) * * *
(5) * * *
(ii) * * *
(L) The platform shall be provided with a secondary wire rope
suspension system if the platform contains overhead structures which
restrict the emergency egress of employees. A horizontal lifeline or a
direct connection anchorage shall be provided, as part of a personal
fall arrest system which meets the requirements of subpart I of this
part, for each employee on such a platform.
(M) A vertical lifeline shall be provided as part of a personal
fall arrest system which meets the requirements of subpart I of this
part, for each employee on a working platform suspended by two or more
wire ropes, if the failure of one wire rope or suspension attachment
will cause the platform to upset. If a secondary wire rope suspension
is used, vertical lifelines are not required for the personal fall
arrest system, provided that each employee is attached to a horizontal
lifeline anchored to the platform.
(iii) * * *
(B) Each single point suspended working platform shall be provided
with a secondary wire rope suspension system which will prevent the
working platform from falling should there be a failure of the primary
means of support, or if the platform contains overhead structures which
restrict the egress of the employees. A horizontal lifeline or a direct
connection anchorage shall be provided, as part of a personal fall
arrest system which meets the requirements of subpart I of this part,
for each employee on the platform.
* * * * *
(j) Personal fall protection. Employees on working platforms shall
be protected by a personal fall arrest system meeting the requirements
of subpart I of this part and as otherwise provided by this standard.
* * * * *

Appendix C to Sec. 1910.66 [Reserved]

Appendix D to Sec. 1910.66--Existing Installations (Mandatory)

* * * * *
(c) * * *
(4) Access to the roof car. Safe access to the roof car and from
the roof car to the working platform shall be provided. If the
access to the roof car at any point of its travel is not over the
roof area or where otherwise necessary for safety, then self-
closing, self-locking gates shall be provided. Applicable provisions
of subpart D, Walking-Working Surfaces, apply.
* * * * *
5. In Sec. 1910.67, revise paragraph (c)(2)(v) to read as follows:

Sec. 1910.67 Vehicle-mounted elevating and platforms.

* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) A positioning system or a personal fall arrest system which
complies with subpart I of this part shall be worn and attached to the
boom or basket when working from an aerial lift.
* * * * *

6. In Sec. 1910.68, revise paragraphs (b)(8)(ii) and (b)(12) to
read as follows:

Sec. 1910.68 Manlifts.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(8) * * *
(ii) Construction. The rails shall be standard guardrails with
toeboards meeting the provisions in subpart D of this part.
* * * * *
(12) Emergency exit ladder. A fixed metal ladder accessible from
both the "up" and "down" run of the manlift shall be provided for
the entire travel of the manlift. Such escape ladders shall comply with
subpart D of this part.
* * * * *

Subpart I--[Amended]

7. The authority citation for subpart I is revised to read as
follows:

Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR
35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), or 5-2007 (72 FR
31159) as applicable, and 29 CFR part 1911.
Sections 29 CFR 1910.133, 1910.135, and 1910.136 also issued
under 5 U.S.C. 553.

8. Paragraph (g) of Sec. 1910.132 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 1910.132 General requirements.

* * * * *
(g) Paragraphs (d) and (f) of this section apply only to Sec. Sec.
1910.133, 1910.135, 1910.136, 1910.138, and 1910.140. Paragraphs (d)
and (f) of this section do not apply to Sec. Sec. 1910.134 and
1910.137.

Sec. 1910.139 [Reserved]

9. Section 1910.139 is reserved.
10. Add new Sec. 1910.140 to read as follows:

Sec. 1910.140 Personal fall protection systems.

(a) Scope and application. Personal fall protection systems
required by part 1910 must comply with the applicable provisions of
this section. This section establishes performance, care, and use
criteria for all personal fall protection systems covered by this
section. Additional requirements for specific types of personal fall
protection systems are contained in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this
section.
(b) Definitions.
Anchorage means a secure point of attachment for lifelines,
lanyards, or deceleration devices.
Belt terminal means an end attachment of a window cleaner's
positioning system used for securing the belt or harness to a window
cleaner's belt anchor.
Body belt means a strap with means both for securing about the
waist and for attaching to other components such as a lanyard or
lifeline, used with positioning systems, travel restraint systems, or
ladder safety systems.
Body harness means straps which may be secured about the employee
in a manner to distribute the fall arrest forces over at least the
thighs, pelvis, waist, chest, and shoulders with means for attaching it
to other components of a personal fall arrest system.
Buckle means any device for holding the body belt or body harness
closed around the employee's body.
Carrier means the track of a ladder safety system consisting of a
flexible cable or rigid rail which is secured to the ladder or
structure by mountings.
Competent person means a person who is capable of identifying
hazardous or dangerous conditions in any personal fall protection
system or any component thereof, as well as in their application and
uses with related equipment.
Connector means a device that is used to couple (connect) parts of
the fall protection system together.
D-ring means a connector used integrally in a harness as an
attachment element or fall arrest attachment; in a lanyard, energy
absorber, lifeline, or anchorage connector as an integral connector; or
in a positioning or travel restraint system as an attachment element.
Deceleration device means any mechanism that serves to dissipate
energy during a fall.
Deceleration distance means the vertical distance a falling
employee travels before stopping, from the point at which the
deceleration device begins to operate, excluding lifeline elongation
and free fall distance. It is measured as the distance between the
location of an employee's body harness attachment point at the moment
of activation (at the onset of fall arrest forces) of the deceleration
device during a fall, and location of that attachment point after the
employee comes to a full stop.
Equivalent means alternative designs, materials or methods to
protect against a hazard, which the employer can demonstrate will
provide an equal or greater degree of safety for employees compared to
the methods, materials, or designs specified in the standard.
Free fall means the act of falling before the personal fall arrest
system begins to apply force to arrest the fall.
Free fall distance means the vertical displacement of the fall
arrest attachment point on the employee's body belt or body harness
between onset of the fall and just before the system begins to apply
force to arrest the fall. This distance excludes deceleration distance,
lifeline and lanyard elongation, but includes any deceleration device
slide distance or self-retracting lifeline/lanyard extension before the
devices operate and fall arrest forces occur.
Lanyard means a flexible line of rope, wire rope, or strap which
generally has a connector at each end for connecting the body belt or
body harness to a deceleration device, lifeline, or anchorage.
Lifeline means a component consisting of a flexible line for
connection to an anchorage at one end to hang vertically (vertical
lifeline) or for connection to anchorages at both ends to stretch
horizontally (horizontal lifeline), and which serves as a means for
connecting other components of a personal fall protection system to the
anchorage.
Personal fall arrest system means a system used to arrest an
employee in a fall from a working level. It consists of an anchorage,
connector, and a body harness and may include a lanyard, deceleration
device, lifeline, or suitable combinations of these.
Personal fall protection system means a system used to protect an
employee from falling, or to safely arrest an employee's fall, should a
fall occur. Examples include: A personal fall arrest system, a
positioning system, or a travel restraint system.
Positioning system (sometimes called a work positioning system)
means a system of equipment and connectors which, when used with its
body belt or body harness, allows an employee to be supported on an
elevated vertical surface, such as a wall or windowsill, and work with
both hands free.
Qualified means a person who, by possession of a recognized degree,
certificate, or professional standing, or who by extensive knowledge,
training, and experience has successfully demonstrated the ability to
solve or resolve problems relating to the subject matter, the work, or
the project.
Rope grab means a deceleration device that travels on a lifeline
and automatically, by friction, engages the lifeline and locks so as to
arrest the fall of an employee. A rope grab usually employs the
principle of inertial locking, cam/lever locking, or both.
Self-retracting lifeline/lanyard means a deceleration device
containing a drum-wound line which can be slowly extracted from, or
retracted onto, the drum under slight tension during normal movement by
the employee, and after onset of a fall, automatically locks the drum
and arrests the fall.
Snaphook means a connector comprised of a hook-shaped body with a
normally closed gate or similar arrangement that may be manually opened
to permit the hook to receive an object and when released,
automatically closes and locks to retain the object. Opening requires
two separate actions. Snaphooks are generally one of two types, namely:
(1) Automatic-locking type (permitted) with a self-closing and
self-locking gate which remains closed and locked until intentionally
unlocked and opened for connection or disconnection; and
(2) Non-locking type (prohibited) with a self-closing gate which
remains closed, but not locked, until intentionally opened for
connection or disconnection.
Travel restraint (tether) line means a rope or wire rope used to
transfer forces from a body support to an anchorage or anchorage
connector in a travel restraint system.
Travel restraint system means a combination of an anchorage,
anchorage connector, lanyard (or other means of connection), and body
support intended to be used by an employee to limit travel to prevent
exposure to a fall hazard. A travel restraint system is used such that
it does not support any portion of the employee's weight; otherwise the
system would be a positioning system or a personal fall arrest system.
Window cleaner's belt means a belt that consists of a waist-belt,
an integral terminal runner or strap, and belt terminals.
Window cleaner's belt anchor (window anchor) means specifically
designed fall-preventing attachment points, permanently affixed to a
window frame or to a building part immediately adjacent to the window
frame, for direct attachment of the terminal portion of a window
cleaner's belt.
Window cleaner's positioning system means a system which consists
of a window cleaner's belt secured to window anchors.
Work positioning system (see "Positioning system" above).
(c) General requirements. The following requirements apply to all
personal fall protection systems.
(1) Connectors must be drop forged, pressed or formed steel, or
made of equivalent materials.
(2) Connectors must have a corrosion-resistant finish, and all
surfaces and edges must be smooth to prevent damage to interfacing
parts of the system.
(3) When vertical lifelines are used, each employee must be
attached to a separate lifeline.
(4) Lanyards and vertical lifelines must have a minimum breaking
strength of 5,000 pounds (22.2 kN).

Note to paragraph (c)(4) of this section: The use of knots in
lanyards and vertical lifelines may significantly reduce the
breaking strength.

(5) Self-retracting lifelines and lanyards that automatically limit
free fall distance to 2 feet (0.61 m) or less must have components
capable of sustaining a minimum tensile load of 3,000 pounds (13.3 kN)
applied to the device with the lifeline or lanyard in the fully
extended position.
(6) Self-retracting lifelines and lanyards that do not limit free
fall distance to 2 feet (0.61 m) or less, ripstitch lanyards, and
tearing and deforming lanyards must be capable of sustaining a minimum
tensile load of 5,000 pounds (22.2 kN) applied to the device with the
lifeline or lanyard in the fully extended position.
(7) D-rings and snaphooks must be capable of sustaining a minimum
tensile load of 5,000 pounds (22.2 kN).
(8) D-rings and snaphooks must be proof tested to a minimum tensile
load of 3,600 pounds (16 kN) without cracking, breaking, or incurring
permanent deformation.
(9) Snaphooks must be the locking type, which require two separate,
consecutive movements to open.
(10) Unless designed for the following connections, snaphooks must
not be connected:
(i) Directly to webbing, rope, or wire rope;
(ii) To each other;
(iii) To a D-ring to which another snaphook or connector is
attached;
(iv) To a horizontal life line; or
(v) To any object that is incompatibly shaped or dimensioned in
relation to the snaphook such that unintentional disengagement could
occur when the connected object depresses the snaphook gate, allowing
the components to separate.
(11) Horizontal lifelines:
(i) Must be designed, installed, and used under the supervision of
a qualified person; and
(ii) Must be part of a complete personal fall arrest system that
maintains a safety factor of at least two.
(12) Anchorages used for attachment to personal fall protection
equipment must be independent of any anchorage being used to support or
suspend platforms on which employees work.
(13) Except for window cleaner's belt anchors, which are covered
under paragraph (e) of this section, anchorages must be capable of
supporting at least 5,000 pounds (22.2 kN) for each employee attached,
or must be designed, installed, and used under the supervision of
qualified person as part of a complete personal fall protection system
that maintains a safety factor of at least two.
(14) Travel restraint lines must be capable of sustaining a tensile
load of at least 5,000 pounds (22.2 kN).
(15) Lifelines and carriers must not be made of natural fiber rope.
When polypropylene ropes are used, they must contain an ultraviolet
(UV) light inhibitor.
(16) Personal fall protection systems and their components must be
used exclusively for employee fall protection and not for any other
purpose, such as hoisting equipment or materials.
(17) A personal fall protection system or its components subjected
to impact loading must be immediately removed from service and must not
be used again for employee protection until a competent person inspects
it and determines that it is undamaged and suitable for re-use.
(18) Personal fall protection systems must be inspected before each
use for mildew, wear, damage, and other deterioration, and defective
components must be removed from service.
(19) Ropes, belts, lanyards, and harnesses used for personal fall
protection must be compatible with all connectors used.
(20) Ropes, belts, lanyards, lifelines, and harnesses used for
personal fall protection must be protected from being cut, abraded,
melted, or otherwise damaged.
(21) The employer must provide for prompt rescue of employees in
the event of a fall.
(22) Personal fall protection systems must be worn with the
attachment point of the body harness located in the center of the
wearer's back near shoulder level, or above the wearer's head, except
that the attachment point may be located in the pre-sternal position if
the free fall distance is limited to 2 feet (0.6 m) or less and the
maximum arresting forces are limited to 900 lbs (4 kN).
(d) Personal fall arrest systems--(1) System performance criteria.
In addition to the general requirements in paragraph (c) of this
section, personal fall arrest systems must, when stopping a fall:
(i) Limit maximum arresting force on an employee to 1,800 pounds (8
kN);
(ii) Bring an employee to a complete stop and limit the maximum
deceleration distance an employee travels to 3.5 feet (1.1 m); and
(iii) Have sufficient strength to withstand twice the potential
impact energy of an employee free falling a distance of 6 feet (1.8 m),
or the free fall distance permitted by the system, whichever is less.

Note to paragraph (d)(1) of this section: If the personal fall
arrest system meets the criteria and protocols contained in Appendix
D to Sec. 1910.140, and if the system is being used by an employee
having a combined tool and body weight of less than 310 pounds (140
kg), the system will be considered to be in compliance with the
provisions of paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (d)(1)(iii) of this
section. If the system is used by an employee having a combined tool
and body weight of 310 pounds (140 kg) or more, then the employer
must appropriately modify the criteria and protocols of the appendix
to provide proper protection for such heavier weights, or the system
will not be deemed to be in compliance with the requirements of
paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (d)(1)(iii) of this section.

(2) System use criteria.
(i) On suspended scaffolds or similar work platforms with
horizontal lifelines that may become vertical lifelines, the devices
used to connect to the horizontal lifeline must be capable of locking
in both directions on the lifeline.
(ii) Personal fall arrest systems must be rigged in such a manner
that an employee can neither free fall more than 6 feet (1.8 m) nor
contact any lower level.
(3) Body belts. Body belts are prohibited as part of a personal
fall arrest system.
(e) Positioning systems. In addition to the general requirements in
paragraph (c) of this section, positioning systems must meet the
following requirements.
(1) System performance requirements. (i) General. All positioning
systems, except window cleaner's positioning systems, must be capable
of withstanding, without failure, a drop test consisting of a 4-foot
(1.2-m) drop of a 250-pound (113-kg) weight.

Note to paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section: Positioning
systems meeting the tests contained in Appendix D to 1910.140 are
considered to be in compliance with these paragraphs.

(ii) Window cleaner's positioning systems. All window cleaner's
positioning systems must:
(A) Be capable of withstanding without failure a drop test
consisting of a 6-foot (1.8-m) drop of a 250-pound (113-kg) weight;
and,
(B) Limit the initial arresting force to not more than 2,000 pounds
(8.9 kN), with a duration not to exceed 2 milliseconds, and must limit
any subsequent arresting forces imposed on the falling employee to not
more than 1,000 pounds (4.5 kN).

Note to paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section: Positioning
systems meeting the tests contained in Appendix D to 1910.140 are
considered to be in compliance with these paragraphs.

(iii) Lineman's body belt and pole strap systems. The following
additional test provisions apply to lineman's body belt and pole strap
systems:
(A) A dielectric test of 819.7 volts, AC, per centimeter (25,000
volts per foot) for 3 minutes without visible deterioration;

Note to paragraph (e)(1)(iii)(A) of this section: Positioning
straps that pass direct current tests at equivalent voltages are
considered as meeting this requirement.

(B) A leakage test of 98.4 volts, AC, per centimeter (3,000 volts
per foot) with a leakage current of no more than 1 mA;

Note to paragraph (e)(1)(iii)(B) of this section: Positioning
straps that pass direct current tests at equivalent voltages are
considered as meeting this requirement.

(2) System use criteria for window cleaners positions systems.
(i) Window cleaner's belts must be designed and constructed so
that:
(A) Belt terminals will not pass through their fastenings on the
belt or harness should one terminal become loosened from its window
anchor; and
(B) The length of the runner from terminal tip to terminal tip is 8
feet (2.44 m) or less.
(ii) The anchors on a building to which the belt is to be fastened
must be installed in the side frames of the window or in the mullions
at a point not less than 42 inches (106.7 cm) or more than 51 inches
(129.5 cm) above the window sill.
(iii) Each anchor, and the structure to which it is attached, must
be capable of supporting a minimum load of 6,000 pounds (26.5 kN).
(iv) Rope that has sustained wear or deterioration materially
affecting its strength must not be used.
(v) An anchor whose fastenings or supports are damaged or
deteriorated must be removed or rendered unusable by detachment of its
anchor head.
(vi) The use of an installed window cleaner's belt anchor for any
purpose other than attachment of a window cleaner's belt is prohibited.
(vii) Both belt terminals must be attached to separate window
cleaner's belt anchors during the cleaning operation.
(viii) Cleaning work is not permitted on a sill or ledge on which
there is snow, ice, or any other slippery condition, or on a weakened
or rotted sill or ledge.
(ix) A window cleaner may work from a windowsill only if a minimum
standing room in relation to slope is provided as follows:
(A) When the sill width is at least 4 inches (10.1 cm), work is
permitted with a slope of the sill from horizontal up to 15 degrees;
(B) For slopes between 15 and 30 degrees from horizontal, but in no
case greater than 30, the minimum acceptable sill width is four inches
(10.1 cm), plus 0.4 inches (1.0 cm) for every degree of slope greater
than 15 degrees.
(x) The employer must ensure that the window cleaner attach at
least one belt terminal to a window anchor before climbing through the
window opening. The belt must not be completely disconnected from both
anchors until the employee is back inside the window opening.
(xi)(A) The employer must ensure the window cleaner does not pass
from one window to another while outside the building, but must return
inside and repeat the belt terminal attachment procedure for each
window as described in paragraph (e)(13) of this section.
(B) Traveling on the outside of the building is permitted if at
least one window cleaner's belt terminal is attached at all times and
the distance between anchors does not exceed 4 feet (1.2 m)
horizontally, unless the sill or ledge is at least 1 foot (0.31 m) wide
and the slope is less than 5 degrees, in which case the distance
between anchors may be as much as 6 feet (1.8 m). However, this method
of traveling shall not be permitted if the sill or ledge is not
continuous with at least 6 inches (0.15 m) in front of the mullions or
if each window unit is not readily accessible.
11. Add new Appendices C and D to subpart I of part 1910 to read as
follows:

Appendix C to Subpart I of Part 1910--Personal Fall Protection Systems
Non-Mandatory Guidelines

The following information generally applies to all personal fall
protection systems and is intended to assist employers and employees
comply with the requirements of Sec. 1910.140 for personal fall
protection systems.
(a) Planning considerations. It is important for employers to
plan prior to using personal fall protection systems. Probably the
most overlooked component of planning is locating suitable anchorage
points. Such planning should ideally be done before the structure or
building is constructed so that anchorage points can be used later
for window cleaning or other building maintenance.
(b) Selection and use considerations. (1) The kind of personal
fall protection system selected should be appropriate for the
employee's specific work situation. Free fall distances should
always be kept to a minimum. Many systems are designed for
particular work applications, such as climbing ladders and poles;
maintaining and servicing equipment; and window cleaning.
Consideration should be given to the environment in which the work
will be performed. For example, the presence of acids, dirt,
moisture, oil, grease, or other substances, and their potential
effects on the system selected, should be evaluated. Hot or cold
environments may also affect fall protection systems. Wire rope
should not be used where electrical hazards are anticipated. As
required by Sec. 1910.140(c)(21), the employer must provide a means
for promptly rescuing an employee should a fall occur.
(2) Where lanyards, connectors, and lifelines are subject to
damage by work operations, such as welding, chemical cleaning, and
sandblasting, the component should be protected, or other securing
systems should be used. Unless designed for use in a personal fall
protection system, equipment such as linemen's pole straps should
not be used as lanyards because such equipment may not meet the
strength and performance criteria necessary for a personal fall
arrest system. The employer should fully evaluate the work
conditions and environment (including seasonal weather changes)
before selecting the appropriate personal fall protection system.
Once in use, the system's effectiveness should be monitored. A
program for cleaning and maintaining the system may be necessary.
(c) Testing considerations. Before purchasing a personal fall
protection system, an employer should insist that the supplier
provide information about its test performance (using recognized
test methods) so the employer will know that the system meets the
criteria in Sec. 1910.140. Otherwise, the employer should test the
equipment to ensure that it is in compliance. Appendix D to this
subpart contains test methods which are recommended for evaluating
the performance of any system. There are some circumstances in which
an employer can evaluate a system based on data and calculations
derived from the testing of similar systems. Enough information must
be available for the employer to demonstrate that its system and the
tested system(s) are similar in both function and design.
(d) Component compatibility considerations. Ideally, a personal
fall protection system is designed, tested, and supplied as a
complete system. However, it is common practice for lanyards,
connectors, lifelines, deceleration devices, body belts, and body
harnesses to be interchanged since some components wear out before
others. Employers and employees should realize that not all
components are interchangeable. For instance, a lanyard should not
be connected between a body harness and a deceleration device of the
self-retracting type (unless specifically allowed by the
manufacturer) since this can result in additional free fall for
which the system was not designed. In addition, positioning
components, such as pole straps, ladder hooks and rebar hooks,
should not be used in personal fall arrest systems unless they meet
the appropriate requirements of part 1910 (e.g., Sec. Sec.
1910.140, .268 and .269). Any substitution or change to a personal
fall protection system should be fully evaluated or tested by a
competent person to determine that it meets applicable OSHA
standards before the modified system is put in use.
(e) Employee training considerations. As required by Sec.
1910.30, before an employee uses a fall protection system, the
employer must ensure that he or she is trained in the proper use of
the system. This may include the following: The limits of the
system; proper anchoring and tie-off techniques; estimating freefall
distance, including determining elongation and deceleration
distance; methods of use; and inspection and storage. Careless or
improper use of fall protection equipment can result in serious
injury or death. Employers and employees should become familiar with
the material in this standard and appendix, as well as
manufacturers' recommendations, before a system is used. It is
important for employees to be aware that certain tie-offs (such as
using knots and tying around sharp edges) can reduce the overall
strength of a system. Employees also need to know the maximum
permitted free fall distance. Training should stress the importance
of inspections prior to use, the limitations of the equipment to be
used, and unique conditions at the worksite that may be important.
Also, OSHA suggests that rope be used according to manufacturer's
recommendations, especially if polypropylene rope is used.
(f) Instruction considerations. Employers should obtain
comprehensive instructions from the supplier or a qualified person
as to the system's proper use and application, including, where
applicable:
1. The force measured during the sample force test;
2. The maximum elongation measured for lanyards during the force
test;
3. The deceleration distance measured for deceleration devices
during the force test;
4. Caution statements on critical use limitations;
5. Limits of the system;
6. Proper hook-up, anchoring and tie-off techniques, including
the proper D-ring or other attachment point to use on the body
harness;
7. Proper climbing techniques;
8. Methods of inspection, use, cleaning, and storage; and
9. Specific lifelines that may be used.
(g) Inspection considerations. Personal fall protection systems
must be regularly inspected before each use. Any component with a
significant defect, such as a cut, tear, abrasion, mold, or evidence
of undue stretching, an alteration or addition that might affect its
efficiency, damage due to deterioration, fire, acid, or other
corrosive damage, distorted hooks or faulty hook springs, tongues
that are unfitted to the shoulder of buckles, loose or damaged
mountings, non-functioning parts, or wear, or internal deterioration
must be removed from service immediately, and should be tagged or
marked as unusable, or destroyed.
(h) Rescue considerations. As required by Sec. 1910.140(c)(21),
when personal fall arrest systems are used, special consideration
must be given to rescuing an employee should a fall occur. The
availability of rescue personnel, ladders or other rescue equipment
should be evaluated. In some situations, equipment allowing
employees to rescue themselves after the fall has been arrested may
be desirable, such as devices that have descent capability.
(i) Tie-off considerations. Employers and employees should at
all times be aware that the strength of a personal fall arrest
system is based on its being attached to an anchoring system that
does not significantly reduce the strength of the system (such as an
eye-bolt/snaphook anchorage). Therefore, if a means of attachment is
used that will reduce the strength of the system, that component
should be replaced by a stronger one that will also maintain the
appropriate maximum deceleration characteristics. The following is a
listing of some situations in which employers and employees should
be especially cautious.
1. Tie-off using a knot in the lanyard or lifeline (at any
location). The strength of the line can be reduced by 50 percent or
more if a knot is used. Therefore, a stronger lanyard or lifeline
should be used to compensate for the knot, or the lanyard length
should be reduced (or the tie-off location raised) to minimize free
fall distance, or the lanyard or lifeline should be replaced by one
which has an appropriately incorporated connector to eliminate the
need for a knot.
2. Tie-off around rough or sharp (e.g. "H" or "I" beams)
surfaces. This practice reduces strength drastically. Such tie-offs
should be avoided whenever possible. An alternate means should be
used such as a snaphook/D-ring connection, a tie-off apparatus
(steel cable tie-off), an effective padding of the surfaces, or an
abrasion-resistant strap around the supporting member. If these
alternative means of tie-off are not available, the employer should
try to minimize the potential free fall distance.
3. Knots. Sliding hitch knots should not be used except in
emergency situations. The one-and-one sliding hitch knot should
never be used because it is unreliable in stopping a fall. The two-
and-two, or three-and-three knots (preferable) may be used in
emergency situations; however, care should be taken to limit free
fall distances because of reduced lifeline/lanyard strength. OSHA
recommends that a competent or qualified person oversee the use of
knots.
(j) Horizontal lifelines. Horizontal lifelines, depending on
their geometry and angle of sag, may be subjected to greater loads
than the impact load imposed by an attached component. When the
angle of horizontal lifeline sag is less than 30 degrees, the impact
force imparted to the lifeline by an attached lanyard is greatly
amplified. For example, with a sag angle of 15 degrees the force
amplification is about 2:1, and at 5 degrees sag it is about 6:1.
Depending on the angle of sag, and the line's elasticity, the
strength of the horizontal lifeline, and the anchorages to which it
is attached should be increased a number of times over that of the
lanyard.
Extreme care should be taken in considering a horizontal lifeline
for multiple tie-offs. If there are multiple tie-offs to a
horizontal lifeline, and one employee falls, the movement of the
falling employee and the horizontal lifeline during arrest of the
fall may cause other employees to fall. Horizontal lifeline and
anchorage strength should be increased for each additional employee
to be tied-off. For these and other reasons, the systems using
horizontal lifelines must be designed only by qualified persons.
OSHA recommends testing installed lifelines and anchors prior to
use.
(k) Eye-bolts. It must be recognized that the strength of an
eye-bolt is rated along the axis of the bolt, and that its strength
is greatly reduced if the force is applied at right angles to this
axis (in the direction of its shear strength). Care should also be
exercised in selecting the proper diameter of the eye to avoid
creating a roll-out hazard (accidental disengagement of the snaphook
from the eye-bolt).
(l) Vertical lifeline considerations. As required by Sec.
1910.140(c)(3), each employee must have a separate lifeline when the
lifeline is vertical. If multiple tie-offs to a single lifeline are
used, and one employee falls, the movement of the lifeline during
the arrest of the fall may pull other employees' lanyards, causing
them to fall as well.
(m) Snaphook considerations. As required by Sec.
1910.140(c)(10), the following connections must be avoided unless
the locking snaphook has been designed for them because they are
conditions that can result in rollout:
(1) Direct connection of a snaphook to a horizontal lifeline;
(2) Two (or more) snaphooks connected to one D-ring;
(3) Two snaphooks connected to each other;
(4) Snaphooks connected directly to webbing, rope, or wire rope;
and
(5) Improper dimensions of the D-ring, rebar, or other
connection point in relation to the snaphook dimensions which would
allow the snaphook gate to be depressed by a turning motion of the
snaphook.
(n) Free fall considerations. Employers and employees should
always be aware that a system's maximum arresting force is evaluated
under normal use conditions established by the manufacturer, and in
no case using free fall distance in excess of 6 feet (1.8 m). Even a
few additional feet of free fall can significantly increase the
arresting force on the employee, possibly to the point of causing
injury and possibly exceeding the strength of the system. Because of
this, the free fall distance should be kept to a minimum, and, as
required by Sec. 1910.140(d)(2), must never be greater than 6 feet
(1.8 m). To assure this, the tie-off attachment point to the
lifeline or anchor should be located at or above the connection
point of the fall arrest equipment to the harness. (Otherwise,
additional free fall distance is added to the length of the
connecting means (i.e., lanyard)). Tying off to the walking-working
surface will often result in a free fall greater than 6 feet (1.8
m). For instance, if a 6-foot (1.8-m) lanyard is used, the total
free fall distance will be the distance from the walking-working
level to the harness connection plus the 6 feet (1.8 m) of lanyard.
(o) Elongation and deceleration distance considerations. During
fall arrest, a lanyard will stretch or elongate, whereas activation
of a deceleration device will result in a certain stopping distance.
These distances should be available with the lanyard or device's
instructions and must be added to the free fall distance to arrive
at the total fall distance before an employee is fully stopped. The
additional stopping distance may be significant if the lanyard or
deceleration device is attached near or at the end of a long
lifeline, which may itself add considerable distance due to its own
elongation. As required by Sec. 1910.140(d)(2), sufficient distance
to allow for all of these factors must also be maintained between
the employee and obstructions below, to prevent an injury due to
impact before the system fully arrests the fall. In addition, a
minimum of 12 feet (3.7 m) of lifeline should be allowed below the
securing point of a rope-grab-type deceleration device, and the end
terminated to prevent the device from sliding off the lifeline.
Alternatively, the lifeline should extend to the ground or the next
working level below. These measures are suggested to prevent the
employee from inadvertently moving past the end of the lifeline and
having the rope grab become disengaged from the lifeline.
(p) Obstruction considerations. In selecting a location for tie-
off, employers and employees should consider obstructions in the
potential fall path of the employee. Tie-offs that minimize the
possibilities of exaggerated swinging should be considered.

Appendix D to Subpart I--Test Methods and Procedures for Personal Fall
Protection Systems Non-Mandatory Guidelines

This appendix contains test methods for personal fall protection
systems which may be used to determine if they meet the system
performance criteria specified in paragraphs (d) and (e) of Sec.
1910.140.

Test Methods for Personal Fall Arrest Systems (Paragraph (d))

(a) General. The following sets forth test procedures for
personal fall arrest systems as defined in paragraph (d) of Sec.
1910.140.
(b) General test conditions.
(1) Lifelines, lanyards and deceleration devices should be
attached to an anchorage and connected to the body harness in the
same manner as they would be when used to protect employees.
(2) The fixed anchorage should be rigid, and should not have a
deflection greater than 0.04 inches (1 mm) when a force of 2,250
pounds (10 kN) is applied.
(3) The frequency response of the load measuring instrumentation
should be 120 Hz.
(4) The test weight used in the strength and force tests should
be a rigid, metal cylindrical or torso-shaped object with a girth of
38 inches plus or minus 4 inches (96 cm plus or minus 10 cm).
(5) The lanyard or lifeline used to create the free fall
distance should be supplied with the system, or in its absence, the
least elastic lanyard or lifeline available should be used with the
system.
(6) The test weight for each test should be hoisted to the
required level and should be quickly released without having any
appreciable motion imparted to it.
(7) The system's performance should be evaluated, taking into
account the range of environmental conditions for which it is
designed to be used.
(8) Following the test, the system need not be capable of
further operation.
(c) Strength test.
(1) During the testing of all systems, a test weight of 300
pounds plus or minus 3 pounds (136.4 kg plus or minus 1.4 kg) should
be used. (See item number 4 of paragraph (b)of this appendix.)
(2) The test consists of dropping the test weight once. A new
unused system should be used for each test.
(3) For lanyard systems, the lanyard length should be 6 feet
plus or minus 2 inches (1.83 plus or minus 5 cm) as measured from
the fixed anchorage to the attachment on the body harness.
(4) For rope-grab-type deceleration systems, the length of the
lifeline above the centerline of the grabbing mechanism to the
lifeline's anchorage point should not exceed 2 feet (0.61 m).
(5) For lanyard systems, for systems with deceleration devices
which do not automatically limit free fall distance to 2 feet (0.61
m) or less, and for systems with deceleration devices which have a
connection distance in excess of 1 foot (0.3 m) (measured between
the centerline of the lifeline and the attachment point to the body
harness), the test weight should be rigged to free fall a distance
of 7.5 feet (2.3 m) from a point that is 1.5 feet (46 cm) above the
anchorage point, to its hanging location (6 feet below the
anchorage). The test weight should fall without interference,
obstruction, or hitting the floor or ground during the test. In some
cases a non-elastic wire lanyard of sufficient length may need to be
added to the system (for test purposes) to create the necessary free
fall distance.
(6) For deceleration device systems with integral lifelines or
lanyards that automatically limit free fall distance to 2 feet (0.61
m) or less, the test weight should be rigged to free fall a distance
of 4 feet (1.22 m).
(7) Any weight that detaches from the harness should constitute
failure for the strength test.
(d) Force test--(1) General. The test consists of dropping the
respective test weight specified in (d)(2)(i) or (d)(3)(i) once. A
new, unused system should be used for each test.
(2) For lanyard systems. (i) A test weight of 220 pounds plus or
minus three pounds (100 kg plus or minus 1.6 kg) should be used.
(See item number 4 of paragraph (b) above.)
(ii) Lanyard length should be 6 feet plus or minus 2 inches
(1.83 m plus or minus 5 cm) as measured from the fixed anchorage to
the attachment on the body harness.
(iii) The test weight should fall free from the anchorage level
to its hanging location (a total of 6 feet (1.83 m) free fall
distance) without interference, obstruction, or hitting the floor or
ground during the test.
(3) For all other systems. (i) A test weight of 220 pounds plus
or minus 2 pounds (100 kg plus or minus 1.0 kg) should be used. (See
item number 4 of paragraph (b) of this appendix.)
(ii) The free fall distance to be used in the test should be the
maximum fall distance physically permitted by the system during
normal use conditions, up to a maximum free fall distance for the
test weight of 6 feet (1.83 m), except as follows:
(A) For deceleration systems having a connection link or
lanyard, the test weight should free fall a distance equal to the
connection distance (measured between the centerline of the lifeline
and the attachment point to the body harness).
(B) For deceleration device systems with integral lifelines or
lanyards that automatically limit free fall distance to 2 feet (0.61
m) or less, the test weight should free fall a distance equal to
that permitted by the system in normal use. (For example, to test a
system with a self-retracting lifeline or lanyard, the test weight
should be supported and the system allowed to retract the lifeline
or lanyard as it would in normal use. The test weight would then be
released and the force and deceleration distance measured).
(4) Failure. A system fails the force test when the recorded
maximum arresting force exceeds 2,520 pounds (11.2 kN) when using a
body harness.
(5) Distances. The maximum elongation and deceleration distance
should be recorded during the force test.
(e) Deceleration device tests--(1) General. The device should be
evaluated or tested under the environmental conditions (such as
rain, ice, grease, dirt, and type of lifeline) for which the device
is designed.
(2) Rope-grab-type deceleration devices. (i) Devices should be
moved on a lifeline 1,000 times over the same length of line a
distance of not less than 1 foot (30.5 cm), and the mechanism should
lock each time.
(ii) Unless the device is permanently marked to indicate the
type of lifelines that must be used, several types (different
diameters and different materials), of lifelines should be used to
test the device.
(3) Other self-activating-type deceleration devices. The locking
mechanisms of other self-activating-type deceleration devices
designed for more than one arrest should lock each of 1,000 times as
they would in normal service.

Test Methods for Positioning Systems (Paragraph (e))

(a) General. The following sets forth test procedures for
positioning systems as defined in paragraph (e) of Sec. 1910.140.
The requirements in this appendix for personal fall arrest systems
set forth procedures that may be used, along with the procedures
listed below, to determine compliance with the requirements for
positioning systems.
(b) Test conditions.
(1) The fixed anchorage should be rigid and should not have a
deflection greater than 0.04 inches (1 mm) when a force of 2,250
pounds (10 kN) is applied.
(2) For window cleaner's belts, the complete belt should
withstand a drop test consisting of a 250 pound (113 kg) weight
falling free for a distance of 6 feet (1.83 m). The weight should be
a rigid object with a girth of 38 inches plus or minus 4 inches (96
cm plus or minus 10 cm). The weight should be placed in the
waistband with the belt buckle drawn firmly against the weight, as
when the belt is worn by a window cleaner. One belt terminal should
be attached to a rigid anchor and the other terminal should hang
free. The terminals should be adjusted to their maximum span. The
weight fastened in the freely suspended belt should then be lifted
exactly 6 feet (1.83 m) above its "at rest" position and released
so as to permit a free fall of 6 feet (1.83 m) vertically below the
point of attachment of the terminal anchor. The belt system should
be equipped with devices and instrumentation capable of measuring
the duration and magnitude of the arrest forces. Failure of the test
should consist of any breakage or slippage sufficient to permit the
weight to fall free of the system. In addition, the initial and
subsequent arresting forces should be measured and should not exceed
2,000 pounds (8.5 kN) for more than 2 milliseconds for the initial
impact, or exceed 1,000 pounds (4.5 kN) for the remainder of the
arrest time.
3. All other positioning systems (except for restraint line
systems) should withstand a drop test consisting of a 250 pound (113
kg) weight free falling a distance of 4 feet (1.2 m). The weight
shall be a rigid object with a girth of 38 inches plus or minus 4
inches (96 cm plus or minus 10 cm). The body belt or harness should
be affixed to the test weight as it would be to an employee. The
system should be connected to the rigid anchor in the manner that
the system would be connected in normal use. The weight should be
lifted exactly 4 feet (1.2 m) above its "at rest" position and
released so as to permit a vertical free fall of 4 feet (1.2 m).
Failure of the system should be indicated by any breakage or
slippage sufficient to permit the weight to fall free to the ground.

Subpart N--[Amended]

12. Revise the authority citation for subpart N of part 1910 to
read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71
(36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059) 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR
9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008),
or 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), as applicable.
Section 1910.178 also amended under section 4 of the
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 653).
Sections 1910.176, 1910.177, 1910.178, 1910.179, 1910.180,
1910.181, and 1910.184 also issued under 29 CFR part 1911.

13. In Sec. 1910.178, revise paragraph (j) to read as follows:

Sec. 1910.178 Powered industrial trucks.

* * * * *
(j) Dockboards (bridge plates). See subpart D of this part.
14. In Sec. 1910.179, revise paragraphs (c)(2), (d)(3), and
(d)(4)(iii) to read as follows:

Sec. 1910.179 Overhead and gantry cranes.

* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) Access to crane. Access to the car and/or bridge walkway shall
be by a conveniently placed fixed ladder, stairs, or platform requiring
no step over any gap exceeding 12 inches (30 cm). Fixed ladders shall
be in conformance with subpart D of this part.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(3) Toeboards and handrails for footwalks. Toeboards and handrails
shall be in compliance with subpart D of this part.
(4) * * *
(iii) Ladders shall be permanently and securely fastened in place
and shall be constructed in compliance with subpart D of this part.
* * * * *
15. Revise the authority citation for subpart R of part 1910 to
read as follows:

16. In Sec. 1910.261, revise paragraphs (c)(15)(ii), (e)(4),
(g)(2)(ii), (g)(13)(i), (h)(1), (j)(4)(iii), (j)(5)(i), (k)(6),
(k)(13)(i) and (k)(15) to read as follows:

Sec. 1910.261 Pulp, paper and paperboard mills.

* * * * *
(c) * * *
(15) * * *
(ii) Where conveyors cross passageways or roadways, a horizontal
platform shall be provided under the conveyor, extended out from the
sides of the conveyor a distance equal to 1\1/2\ times the length of
the wood handled. The platform shall extend the width of the road plus
2 feet (61 cm) on each side, and shall be kept free of wood and
rubbish. The edges of the platform shall be provided with toeboards or
other protection to prevent wood from falling, in accordance with
subpart D of this part.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(4) Runway to the jack ladder. The runway from the pond or
unloading dock to the table shall be protected with standard handrails
and toeboards. Inclined portions shall have cleats or equivalent
nonslip surfacing in
accordance with subpart D of this part. Protective equipment shall be
provided for persons working over water.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) The worker shall be provided with eye protection, a supplied
air respirator and a personal fall protection system meeting the
requirements of subpart I of this part during inspection, repairs or
maintenance of acid towers. The line shall be extended to an attendant
stationed outside the tower opening.
* * * * *
(13) * * *
(i) Blow-pit openings preferably shall be on the side of the pit
instead of on the top. Openings shall be as small as possible when
located on top, and shall be protected in accordance with subpart D of
this part.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(1) Bleaching engines. Bleaching engines, except the Bellmer type,
shall be completely covered on the top, with the exception of one small
opening large enough to allow filling, but too small to admit an
employee. Platforms leading from one engine to another shall have
standard guardrails in accordance with subpart D of this part.
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(4) * * *
(iii) When beaters are fed from the floor above, the chute opening,
if less than 42 inches (1.06 m) from the floor, shall be provided with
a guardrail system meeting the requirements of subpart D of this part,
or other equivalent enclosures. Openings for manual feeding shall be
sufficient only for entry of stock, and shall be provided with at least
two permanently secured crossrails or other fall protection system that
meet the requirements of subpart D of this part.
* * * * *
(5) * * *
(i) All pulpers having the top or any other opening of a vessel
less than 42 inches (107 cm) from the floor or work platform shall have
such openings guarded by guardrail systems meeting the requirements of
subpart D of this part, or other equivalent enclosures. For manual
changing, openings shall be sufficient only to permit the entry of
stock, and shall be provided with at least two permanently secured
crossrails, or other fall protection systems meeting the requirements
of subpart D of this part.
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(6) Steps. Steps of uniform rise and tread with nonslip surfaces
conforming to subpart D of this part shall be provided at each press.
* * * * *
(13) * * *
(i) A guardrail complying with subpart D of this part shall be
provided at broke holes.
(15) Steps. Steps or ladders complying with subpart D of this part
and tread with nonslip surfaces shall be provided at each calendar
stack. Handrails and hand grips complying with subpart D of this part
shall be provided at each calendar stack.
* * * * *

Sec. 1910.262 [Amended]

17. In paragraph (r) of Sec. 1910.262 remove the term "Sec.
1910.23" and replace it with the term "subpart D to this part".

Sec. 1910.265 [Amended]

18. In paragraph (c)(5)(i) of Sec. 1910.265, remove the term
"Sec. 1910.24" and replace it with the term "subpart D to this
part".
19. Revise paragraphs (c)(4)(v) and (f)(6) of Sec. 1910.265 to
read as follows:

Sec. 1910.265 Sawmills.

* * * * *
(c) * * *
(4) * * *
(v) Elevated platforms. Where elevated platforms are used routinely
on a daily basis, they shall be equipped with stairways or fixed
ladders, conforming to subpart D of this part.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(6) Ladders. A fixed ladder complying with the requirements of
subpart D of this part, or other adequate means, shall be provided to
permit access to the roof. Where controls and machinery are mounted on
the roof, a permanent stairway with standard handrail shall be
installed in accordance with the requirements of subpart D of this
part.
* * * * *
20. In Sec. 1910.268:
A. Revise paragraphs (g)(1);
B. Remove paragraph (g)(2);
C. Redesignate (g)(3) as (g)(2); and
D. Revise paragraph (h).

Sec. 1910.268 Telecommunications.

* * * * *
(g) Personal climbing equipment--(1) General. A positioning system
or a personal fall arrest system shall be provided and the employer
shall ensure their use when work is performed at positions more than 4
feet (1.2 m) above the ground, on poles, and on towers, except as
provided in paragraph (n)(7) and (n)(8) of this section. These systems
shall meet the applicable requirements set forth in subpart I of this
part. The employer shall ensure that all climbing equipment is
inspected before each day's use to determine that it is in safe working
condition.
* * * * *
(h) Ladders. Ladders, step bolts, and manhole steps shall meet the
applicable requirements of subpart D of this part.
* * * * *
21. In Sec. 1910.269, revise paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) to read
as follows:

Sec. 1910.269 Electric power generation, transmission, and
distribution.

* * * * *
(g) Personal protective equipment (1) Personal fall arrest
equipment, work positioning equipment, or travel restricting equipment
shall be used by employees working at elevated locations more than 4
feet (1.2 m) above the ground on poles, towers, or similar structures
if other fall protection has not been provided. Fall protection
equipment is not required to be used by a qualified employee climbing
or changing location on poles, towers, or similar structures, unless
conditions, such as, but not limited to, ice, high winds, the design of
the structure (for example, no provision for holding on with hands), or
the presence of contaminants on the structure, could cause the employee
to lose his or her grip or footing.

Note 1 to paragraph (g)(1) of this section: This paragraph
applies to structures that support overhead electric power
generation, transmission, and distribution lines and equipment. It
does not apply to portions of buildings, such as loading docks, to
electric equipment, such as transformers and capacitors, nor to
aerial lifts. Requirements for fall protection associated with
walking and working surfaces are contained in subpart D of this
part; requirements for fall protection associated with aerial lifts
are contained in 1910.67 of this part.

Note 2 to paragraph (g)(1) of this section: Employees undergoing
training are not considered "qualified employees" for the purposes
of this provision. Unqualified employees (including trainees) are
required to use fall protection any time they are more than 4 feet
(1.2 m) above the ground.

(2) Personal protective equipment shall meet the requirements of
subpart I of this part.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-10418 Filed 5-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-29-P