Walking-Working Surfaces and Personal Protective Equipment (Fall Protection Systems), 28862-29153 [2010-10418]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
• Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 99 (Monday, May 24, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28862-29153]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10418]



[[Page 28861]]

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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 99 / Monday, May 24, 2010 / Proposed 
Rules

[[Page 28862]]


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

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 https://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 https://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 https://www.regulations.gov or to the OSHA Docket Office 
at the address above. Documents in the docket are listed in the https://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 (https://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 https://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

[[Page 28863]]

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 provide

[[Page 28864]]

the 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Annualized Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   1910.22 General Requirements..  $15.7 million.
Sec.   1910.23 Ladders...............  $9.7 million.
Sec.   1910.24 Step Bolts and Manhole  $3.7 million.
 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 Requirements.  $44.1 million.
Sec.   1910.140 Fall Protection......  $18.5 million.
                                      ----------------------------------
    Total Annual Costs...............  $173.2 million.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 28865]]

 
                             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.

[[Page 28866]]



                                                   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-

[[Page 28867]]

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?

[[Page 28868]]

    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

[[Page 28869]]

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

[[Page 28870]]

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