feasible or presents a greater hazard to the employees (Sec. Sec.
1910.269(g)(2)(iv)(C)(3) and 1926.954(b)(3)(iii)(C))(79 FR 20315 (4/11/
2014)). As originally adopted, Sec.  1910.269 (adopted by OSHA in 1994)
did not require that qualified employees use fall protection when
climbing poles, towers, and similar structures unless conditions (e.g.,
ice, high winds, presence of contaminants) could cause workers to lose
their grip or footing. However, because of the incidence of fall
fatalities and ready availability of personal fall protection systems
(e.g., personal fall arrest systems, pole straps), OSHA added a
provision to Sec.  1910.269 specifically requiring that qualified
employees use fall protection (Sec.  1910.269(g)(2)(iv)(C)(3))(79 FR
20399-20401). OSHA believes the rationale for eliminating the qualified
employee exception from Sec.  1910.269 also is applicable to outdoor
advertising.
    OSHA is requiring that outdoor advertising employers provide fall
protection on fixed ladders because it is clear that, like the utility
industry, there are technologically feasible means of fall protection
available that are currently in use to protect workers in outdoor
advertising. Indeed, since 1993 the outdoor advertising directive has
required that employers install ladder safety systems, and ensure that
workers use them, when climbs on fixed ladders exceed 50 feet or when
the fixed ladder ascends to a height of more than 65 feet above grade.
During the period since OSHA issued the directive, manufacturers
developed new types of personal fall protection systems, specifically
personal fall arrest systems, for climbing fixed ladders, and these
systems are readily available, effective, and easy to use (e.g., Exs.
127; 185; 198). OSHA included these systems in the construction fall
protection standard issued in 1994, and their use is commonplace today.
As mentioned, OSHA also required the use of fall protection systems,
such as personal fall arrest systems, in the 2014 revisions to Sec.
1910.269 and Sec.  1926.954. OSHA also notes that, in the current
rulemaking, several stakeholders submitted information to the record
about fall protection systems that are readily available and effective
in protecting workers climbing fixed ladders (Exs. 127; 155; 185; 198;
205).
    The record also shows that it is economically feasible for the
outdoor advertising industry to comply with the final requirement to
ensure that employers provide and ensure their workers use fall
protection systems while climbing fixed ladders in outdoor advertising.
Many, if not most, fixed ladders manufactured today have ladder safety
systems or personal fall arrest systems (i.e., self-retracting line or
cable) that meet the requirements of final paragraph (b)(9) of this
section and final Sec.  1910.29. The FEA and the record for this
rulemaking indicate that these systems are reasonably priced and
economically feasible. In the FEA, OSHA estimates that the cost of
purchasing and installing a ladder safety system or personal fall
arrest system is about $1,050. In their post-hearing comments, CCO's
cost estimates for installing ladder safety or personal fall arrest
systems are lower than OSHA's cost estimates, suggesting that OSHA's
estimate is conservative (Ex. 369).
    OSHA also believes the fall protection requirement is economically
feasible because the FEA estimates that employers will need to equip
only a small percentage of existing outdoor advertising structures with
fall protection. OAAA estimates there are approximately 450,000
existing structures (Exs. 260; 359; 369). Employers in outdoor
advertising will not have to install fall protection on fixed ladders
that do not extend more than 24 feet above a lower level (final
paragraph (b)(9)(i)(A)) or that already are equipped with fall
protection. As such, in the FEA, OSHA estimates that employers will
need to equip only about 21,000 existing outdoor advertising structures
with a fall protection system by November 19, 2018. In the Preliminary
Economic Analysis (PEA) of the proposed rule, OSHA included a similar
estimate (i.e., 20,490 outdoor advertising structures extend more than
20 feet above a lower level); OAAA provided this estimate to OSHA based
on their member comments and a survey (Ex. OSHA-2007-0072-0046, p. A-
9). Neither OAAA nor any other employer in the outdoor advertising
industry challenged OSHA's estimate. In fact, OAAA's and CCO's comments
generally support OSHA's conclusion that employers will need to equip
only

a small percentage of existing outdoor advertising structures with fall
protection systems (Exs. 260; 359; 369).
    The framework of the final rule, when read in the context of final
paragraph (b)(9)(i) of this section, provides employers with
substantial control flexibility, which further ensures the final rule
is economically feasible. Specifically, the final rule allows outdoor
advertising employers to equip existing ladders (that have no fall
protection) with a cage, well, ladder safety system, or personal fall
arrest system (final paragraph (b)(9)(i)(A)), while the existing rule,
absent the outdoor advertising directive, would require outdoor
advertising employers to equip the fixed ladders with cages or wells
(existing Sec.  1910.27(d)(1)(ii)). As mentioned earlier in this
preamble, this flexibility allows employers to equip fixed ladders with
the least costly fall protection system, which the record indicates are
ladder safety or personal fall arrest systems (Ex. 369; see also FEA).
OSHA notes that CCO, one of the largest outdoor advertising companies,
said it would cost approximately $12 million to install cages or wells
on 8,000 existing fixed ladders, but only $2.2 million to install
ladder safety systems or personal fall arrest systems (i.e., ``vertical
fall protection'') on those fixed ladders (Ex. 369).
    In addition, giving employers in outdoor advertising two years to
install a fall protection system on fixed ladders lessens the economic
impact of the final rule and further shows the requirement is economic
feasible. For example, it gives employers time to identify and evaluate
various types of fall protection systems, negotiate with manufacturers
and vendors to select the most cost-effective system that best
satisfies their needs, and train workers in the use of that equipment.
Moreover, OSHA notes that the final rule gives outdoor advertising
employers two years to comply with the requirement that their workers
use fall protection while climbing fixed ladders while revised Sec.
1926.954 gave employers only one year to comply with the fall
protection requirement.
    Gradually phasing in over 20 years the requirement that fixed
ladders be equipped with ladder safety systems or personal fall arrest
systems also significantly lessens the economic impact on employers,
including those in outdoor advertising. To illustrate, if outdoor
advertising employers currently use fixed ladders equipped only with
cages or wells, the final rule gives these employers 20 years to
install ladder safety or personal fall arrest systems. This extended
phase-in period allows employers to install fall protection systems as
part of their normal replacement or business cycles rather than
retrofitting fixed ladders immediately. In sum, OSHA believes the
combination of flexibility to use controls that are less expensive than
those the existing rule required, extended compliance time, and gradual
phase-in of ladder safety systems and personal fall arrest systems
ensures the final rule is economically feasible and will not threaten
the industry's ``long-term profitability'' or substantially alter its
competitive structure. (Forging Indus. Ass'n v. Secretary of Labor, 773
F.2d 1436, 1453 (4th Cir. 1985) (en banc) (Noise)).
    Finally, OSHA believes requiring employers in outdoor advertising
to provide and ensure that workers use fall protection when climbing
fixed ladders is reasonable and appropriate because, as a number of
commenters said, the outdoor advertising industry and the fixed ladders
it uses are not unique with regard to fall protection (Exs. 155; 185;
198). Therefore, OSHA believes that it is no longer necessary or
warranted for it to except the outdoor advertising industry from the
requirements to use fall protection while climbing fixed ladders.
Stakeholders in the outdoor advertising industry did not argue that the
elevated heights encountered in outdoor advertising are not dangerous,
or that fall hazards or work conditions in outdoor advertising are
unique compared to other industries. Moreover, they did not argue that
the fall protection systems used by workers in other industries when
climbing fixed ladders will not work, or are not a feasible means of
worker protection, in the outdoor advertising industry.
    Regarding comments recommending that OSHA not list specific fall
protection systems in the final rule because such a list would soon
become outdated, OSHA notes that the Agency has dealt with issues like
this in the past. If an employer has information about a new method of
fall protection that will provide worker protection equivalent to the
protection afforded to workers by the final rule, it can approach the
Agency and seek permission to use it through a request for
interpretation or a variance.
    Stairways. Final paragraph (b)(11), which generally is consistent
with existing Sec. Sec.  1910.23(d)(1) and 1910.24(h) and proposed
paragraph (b)(11), requires that employers protect workers from falling
off stairway landings and the exposed sides of all stairways.
Stairways, as defined in the final rule in Sec.  1910.21(b)), include
standard stairs, ship stairs, spiral stairs, and alternating tread-type
stairs.
    Final paragraph (b)(11)(i), like the proposal, requires that
employers ensure each worker exposed to an unprotected side or edge of
a stairway landing that is four feet or more above a lower level is
protected by a guardrail \57\ or stair rail system.\58\ The final
requirement is consistent with the requirements for stairway landings
specified by the existing general industry standard in Sec.  1910.24(h)
and the construction standard in Sec.  1926.1052(c)(12). The final
provision is also consistent with A1264.1-2007 (Section 7.1), the
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Life Safety Code--NFPA 101-
2012 (Section 7.1.8), and the International Code Council International
Building Code (IBC)--IBC-2012 (Section 1013.2). OSHA notes that NFPA
and IBC require guards on open-sided walking surfaces located more than
30 inches above the floor or grade below. Unlike final paragraph
(b)(1), which allows employers to protect workers using one of several
fall protection options, final paragraph (b)(11)(i) requires that
employers provide guardrails or stair rails on unprotected sides and
edges of stairway landings and stairways. OSHA believes that limiting
the fall protection options to stair rails or guardrails is necessary,
because the other fall protection options in final paragraph (b)(1)
(i.e., safety net, travel restraint, and personal fall arrest systems)
are not appropriate or practical to use on stairways, which workers use
regularly and routinely to access workplace areas. Using the other
options could prevent, or significantly encumber or impede, workers
from using the stairways and freely moving around the worksite. By
contrast, guardrail and stair rail systems provide continuous
protection while allowing workers to freely access stairs and
worksites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ The final rule defines guardrail system as a barrier
erected along an unprotected side, edge or other walking-working
surface to prevent workers from falling to a lower level (final
Sec.  1910.21(b)).
    \58\ The final rule defines stair rail or stair rail system as a
barrier erected along the exposed or open side of stairways to
prevent workers from falling to a lower level (final Sec.
1910.21(b)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Final paragraph (b)(11)(ii), consistent with existing Sec.
1910.23(d)(1) and proposed paragraph (b)(11)(ii), requires that
employers ensure each flight of stairs having at least three treads and
at least four risers is equipped with a stair rail system and handrails
as specified in Table D-2. Table D-2 specifies the type and number of
stair rails and handrails employers must provide based on the width and
configuration of the stairs.

    NFPA commented on the proposed table, saying that it was
potentially misleading (Ex. 97). In particular, NFPA said the third
column (``One open side'') did not clearly specify that, in addition to
providing a handrail on the ``one open side,'' employers also must
provide a handrail on the ``enclosed side'' (Ex. 97). NFPA noted that
OSHA should not expect employers to know that they must meet the
requirements for both the ``enclosed side'' and for ``one open side''
to be in compliance with the final rule. NPFA, therefore, made the
following two recommendations to revise the third column of the
proposed table: (1) For stairways that are 44-88 inches wide, NFPA
recommended, ``One stair rail system with handrail on open side and one
handrail on enclosed side''; and (2) for stairways that are greater
than 88 inches, NFPA recommended, ``One stair rail system with handrail
on open side, one handrail on enclosed side, and one intermediate
handrail located in the middle of the stair.'' OSHA agrees that NFPA's
recommendations clarify the information provided in the proposed table,
and incorporates them in final Table D-2.
    Final paragraph (b)(11)(iii), like the proposal, requires that
employers ensure ship stairs and alternating tread-type stairs are
equipped with handrails on both sides. Both of those types of stairs
have slopes that are 50 to 70 degrees from the horizontal, and OSHA
believes that workers need handrails on both sides to safely climb
those stairs. This requirement is consistent with IBC-2012 (Section
1009.13 and .14) and NFPA 101-2012 (Section 7.2.11). OSHA did not
receive any comments on the proposed provision and adopts paragraph
(b)(11) with only minor changes for clarity.
    Scaffolds and rope descent systems. Final paragraph (b)(12), like
the proposal, requires that employers protect workers from falls who
are working on scaffolds and who are using rope descent systems. The
final rule defines a scaffold in part as a temporary elevated or
suspended platform and its supporting structure, including anchorage
points, that support workers, equipment, materials, and other items
(final Sec.  1910.21(b)). As defined in the final rule, a rope descent
system, also known as controlled descent equipment or apparatus, is a
suspension device that allows the worker to descend in a controlled
manner, usually in a chair (seatboard) (final Sec.  1910.21(b)).
    Final paragraph (b)(12)(i), like the proposal, makes the general
industry standard consistent with the construction standard by
requiring the employer to ensure that workers on scaffolds are
protected from falling in accordance with 29 CFR part 1926, subpart L.
The final rule deletes the existing general industry scaffold
provisions and, instead, requires that employers comply with the
requirements in the construction scaffold standards. The requirements
in the construction scaffold standard are more comprehensive and up to
date than the existing rule, which OSHA adopted in 1971. OSHA notes the
existing rule, like the construction standard, requires that employers
provide fall protection when workers on scaffolds are 10 feet or more
above a lower level (see e.g., existing Sec.  1910.28(b)(15), (c)(14),
(d)(7), (f)(15), (g)(5), (h)(8), (k)(5), (m)(7), (o)(2), (p)(7); Sec.
1926.451(g)(1)).
    Final paragraph (b)(12)(ii), like the proposal, requires that
employers ensure workers using rope descent systems four feet or more
above lower levels are protected from falling by a personal fall arrest
system. OSHA reminds employers that if they use vertical lifelines to
protect workers using RDS, the lifeline must be attached to a separate
anchorage (see final Sec.  1910.140(c)(12)). The construction fall
protection standard includes a similar requirement (Sec.
1926.502(d)(15)). OSHA did not receive any comments on the proposed
provision and finalizes it with only minor editorial change.
    Work on low-slope roofs. Final paragraph (b)(13) is a new provision
that establishes fall protection requirements when employees perform
work on low-slope roofs. OSHA is adding this provision to make the
general industry standard more consistent with the construction fall
protection standard, which includes a provision addressing roofing work
performed on low-slope roofs (Sec.  1926.501(b)(10)). Many stakeholders
urged OSHA to incorporate the construction provision in the final rule
(see e.g., Exs. 121; 124; 164; 171; 180; 189; 192; 207; 226; 251).
    The final rule defines low-slope roof as ``a roof having a slope
less than or equal to 4 in 12 (vertical to horizontal)'' (Sec.
1910.21(b); see also Sec.  1926.500(b)). A ``4 in 12'' slope means, for
example, the slope does not exceed a 4-foot vertical rise for every 12
feet in the horizontal length of the roof.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ In the preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA mistakenly
indicated that a ``4 in 12'' slope is a slope that is 10 degrees or
less. NIOSH noted correctly in its comments that ``[a] slope of 10
degrees or less from the horizontal requires a slope of 2 in 12 (9.5
degrees)'' (Ex. 164). Therefore, for the purposes of this final
rule, a low-slope roof has a slope of 4 in 12 or less, which is a
slope of less than 20 degrees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under paragraph (b)(13), the type of fall protection measures
employers must use on low-slope roofs depends upon the distance they
work from the roof edge.\60\ The final rule divides work on low-slope
roofs into three zones:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ OSHA notes that final paragraph (b)(13) only applies to
unprotected ``edges'' of low-slope roofs. As such, employers must
protect workers from holes on roofs, including skylights, in
accordance with final paragraph (b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Work performed less than 6 feet from the roof edge;
     Work performed 6 feet to less than 15 feet from the roof
edge; and
     Work performed 15 feet or more from the roof edge.
    Work performed less than 6 feet from the roof edge--Final paragraph
(b)(13)(i), like the construction standard (Sec. Sec.  1926.501(b)(10)
and 1926.502(f)) requires that employers use conventional fall
protection systems (i.e., guardrail systems, safety net systems,
personal fall protection systems) when they work less than 6 feet from
the edge of a low-slope roof. OSHA believes that using a conventional
fall protection system is necessary to protect workers from falling
when they work that close to the roof edge, including the edge of low-
slope roofs. Without conventional fall protection, an inadvertent slip
or trip this close to the edge could propel the worker off the roof.
    Work performed 6 feet to less than 15 feet from the roof edge--
Final paragraph (b)(13)(ii), which applies when employees work at least
6 feet but less than 15 feet from the roof edge, requires that
employers protect workers from falling by using:
     A conventional fall protection system; or
     A designated area, but only when the employer is
performing work ``that is both infrequent and temporary.''
    The final rule defines ``designated area'' as ``a distinct portion
of a walking-working surface delineated by a warning line in which
employees may perform work without additional fall protection'' (final
Sec.  1910.21(b)). The definition of designated area is similar to the
construction standard's ``warning line system,'' defined as a barrier
erected on a roof to warn employees that they are approaching an
unprotected roof side or edge, and which designates an area in which
roofing work may take place without the use of guardrail, body belt, or
safety net systems to protect employees in that area (Sec.
1926.500(b)).
    In the preamble to the construction fall protection standard, OSHA
explained how warning line systems work:

    [A] warning line ``serves to warn and remind employees that they
are approaching or working near a fall hazard by providing direct
physical contact with the employee. The contact attracts the
employee's attention, enabling the employee to stop in time to avoid
falling off the roof'' (59 FR 40672, 40689 (8/9/1994)).

OSHA intends the use of designated areas and warning lines in the final
rule to work in the same way.
    The use of designated areas in the final rule is very limited.
Final paragraph (b)(13)(ii), like the construction standard, only
allows employers to use designated areas for work performed at least
six feet from the roof edge. When work that is at least 6 feet from the
edge of a low-slope roof, OSHA believes the use of fall protection
alternatives is appropriate in certain situations. As far back as the
1990 proposed rule, OSHA said that working a ``six foot (1.8m) distance
[from the edge of a low-slope roof] is sufficient to allow an employee
to stop moving toward the fall hazard after realizing the perimeter has
been contacted'' (55 FR 13360, 13376 (4/10/1990)).
    That said, working as close as 6 feet from the edge of a roof, even
a low-slope roof, may pose some risk of falling. To address that risk,
the final rule further limits the use of designated areas at that
distance to work that is ``both infrequent and temporary'' (final Sec.
1910.28(b)(13)(ii)). The proposed rule limited designated areas to work
``of a temporary nature'' (proposed Sec.  1910.29(d)(1)(ii)). In the
preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA said, ``Designated areas may only
be used for temporary, relatively infrequent work'' (75 FR 28895). OSHA
believes the language in the final rule more clearly expresses OSHA's
proposed intent.
    For purposes of the final rule, ``temporary'' means that the
duration of the task the worker performs is brief or short. Temporary
and brief or short tasks generally include those that a worker is able
to perform in less time than it takes to install or set up conventional
fall protection. When the duration of a task is this short and the work
is performed at least 6 feet from the edge of a low-slope roof, OSHA
believes worker exposure to fall hazards is very limited. OSHA agrees
with stakeholders who said that requiring employers to install
conventional fall protection in these instances could increase worker
exposure substantially (e.g., Exs. 165). Conversely, when it takes more
time to complete a job than it takes to install or set up conventional
fall protection (e.g., personal fall protection system), OSHA believes
that the use of conventional fall protection is necessary because the
duration of and potential for exposure to fall hazards is more
significant; such exposure is extensive and prolonged.
    Temporary tasks also include those that workers are able to
complete at one time rather than repeatedly climbing up or returning to
the roof or requiring more than one workshift to complete. When jobs
take that long to complete or involve repeated exposure, OSHA believes
the risk of falls increases significantly. For purposes of the final
rule, OSHA intends that ``temporary'' tasks generally are limited to
``simple'' tasks and ``short-term . . . scheduled maintenance or minor
repair activities'' (Ex. 165). OSHA agrees with SMACNA's comment that
temporary and simple tasks are those that do not require ``significant
equipment, personnel, and other resources'' or a level of exposure that
``long-term'' or ``complicated'' maintenance and repair work does (Ex.
165).
    Although the final rule does not place a specific time limit on
what constitutes a temporary task, OSHA agrees with SMACNA that short
duration tasks generally are those that take less than ``1-2 hours'' to
complete (Ex. 165; see also Exs. 124; 171; 236). Examples of temporary
tasks include changing a filter in a roof-top HVAC system, replacing a
part on a satellite dish, caulking or resealing the flashing around a
skylight, or sweeping a chimney.
    The term ``infrequent,'' for purposes of the final rule, means that
the task or job is performed only on occasion, when needed (e.g.,
equipment breakdown), on an occasional basis, or at sporadic or
irregular intervals. Infrequent tasks include work activities such as
annual maintenance or servicing of equipment, monthly or quarterly
replacement of batteries or HVAC filters, and responding to equipment
outage or breakdown. In these instances, the frequency of exposure to
fall hazards is very limited.
    By contrast, tasks performed or repeated on a daily, routine or
regular basis are not infrequent activities within the meaning of the
final rule. Infrequent jobs also do not include those that workers
perform as a primary or routine part of their job or repeatedly at
various locations during a workshift. A task may be considered
infrequent when it is performed once a month, once a year, or when
needed.
    The designated area provision in final paragraph (b)(13)(ii)
generally is modelled on the construction fall protection standard,
which allows employers to use ``warning line systems'' when they
perform roofing work at least six feet from the edge of a low-slope
roof (Sec.  1926.501(b)(10)). However, the final rule also differs from
the construction standard in several respects. The construction
provision is limited to ``roofing work,'' which that standard defines
as ``the hoisting, storage, application, and removal of roofing
equipment and materials, including related insulation, sheet metal and
vapor barrier work, but not the construction of roof decks''
(Sec. Sec.  1926.500(b)). Roofing jobs typically take a significant
amount of time to complete (hours or days). As a result, workers have
prolonged exposure to fall hazards. Therefore, the construction
standard requires that employers performing roofing work as close as 6
feet from the roof edge must use conventional fall protection systems,
warning line systems used in combination with conventional fall
protection, or warning line systems in combination with safety
monitoring systems. The construction standard included alternative fall
protection options for roofing work because the ``Agency recognized
[conventional fall protection] systems could pose feasibility problems
during roofing work; therefore, the rule allows other choices of fall
protection methods'' (Letter to Mr. Anthony O'Dea (12/15/2003); 59 FR
40688-89).\61\ Some stakeholders said the same feasibility issues are
present in general industry (Exs. 192; 226; 236). Southern Company, for
instance, said there are no suitable anchorage points for securing
personal fall protection systems on some roofs (Ex. 192).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ OSHA letter to Mr. O'Dea available at: http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24682.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA is including the designated area provision in final paragraph
(b)(13)(ii) for work that is both temporary and infrequent primarily
for other reasons. First, as mentioned, adding the designated area
provision for work on low-slope roofs makes the final rule more
consistent with the construction fall protection standard, which is one
of the main goals of this rulemaking. In addition, making the general
industry and construction standards more consistent will make
compliance easier for employers who perform both general industry and
construction activities. Many stakeholders supported including the
designated area provision for this reason (e.g., Exs. 121; 124; 164;
165; 171; 180; 189; 192; 195; 207; 226; 236; 251; 254).
    Second, when the slope of the roof is low, workers are at least 6
feet from the

roof edge, and their time in the area is both brief and infrequent,
OSHA believes there is very limited exposure to fall hazards. As far
back as the 1990 proposed rule, OSHA said ``it would be unreasonable to
require employers to install guardrail systems in a designated area''
(55 FR 13375).
    Third, when the duration of the task is very short, OSHA believes
the physical reminder that warning lines provide can effectively alert
and remind workers that they are approaching the roof edge and must not
get any closer. Fourth, OSHA agrees with stakeholders that requiring
employers to spend the time installing conventional fall protection in
instances when the task is brief and infrequent may pose a greater risk
of falling than the task itself (Exs. 124; 165; 171).
    Fifth, allowing employers to use designated areas instead of
conventional fall protection when they perform tasks that require less
time to complete than installing conventional fall protection
significantly limits the duration of the job, thereby increasing
efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Allowing employers to use designated
areas reduces the cost of the job and also makes it easier for them to
assign one-person jobs, which a number of stakeholders do (e.g., Exs.
150; 165).
    Finally, the final rule allows the use of designated areas only in
very limited situations. The proposed rule would have allowed greater
use of designated areas. OSHA believes that the limitations
incorporated in final paragraph (b)(13)(ii) (i.e., work that is
performed on low-slope roofs, that is performed at least 6 feet from
the edge and that is both temporary and infrequent) ensures that
designated areas are used only where the duration and frequency of
exposure is extremely limited. In these situations, OSHA believes that
the use of designated areas provides adequate protection and does not
compromise worker safety.
    OSHA believes the designated area provision in the final rule also
is more protective than the construction standard. As mentioned, the
construction standard allows employers to use warning line systems in
combination with a safety monitoring system when performing roofing
work (i.e., work that involves prolonged exposure to fall hazards) 6
feet or more from the roof edge (Sec.  1926.501(b)(10)). The
construction standard does not limit the use of warning line systems to
work that is both temporary and infrequent. It also does not require
employers to demonstrate that all conventional fall protection systems
are infeasible in order to use a safety monitoring system. By contrast,
the final rule does not permit employers to use safety monitoring
systems unless the employer first demonstrates that all conventional
fall protection systems are infeasible.
    OSHA notes that some commenters (Exs. 124; 165; 171) opposed
requiring employers to establish designated areas (i.e., erect warning
lines) for short duration jobs performed within 15 feet from the roof
edge could (Ex. 171). Some stakeholders supported excepting work that
is both temporary and infrequent from the requirement to use warning
lines for work performed 6 feet to less than 15 feet from the roof edge
(Exs. 165; 207). For example, SMACNA said:

    Where is the hazard if the HVAC work does not require the worker
to be within 15 feet of the roof edge . . . and the worker is only
on the roof for a specific purpose (repair or maintain equipment)
and for a short time . . . ? (Ex. 165).

    OSHA disagrees with SMACNA. When employers perform any work,
including work that is both temporary and infrequent in nature, as
close as 6 feet from the edge of a low-slope roof, the Agency believes
that some protection is necessary because there is or may be some risk
of falling.
    SBA Office of Advocacy said requiring employers to erect warning
lines for short duration tasks could ``present an independent hazard''
(Ex. 124). They reported, ``[Small business representatives] expressed
concern about situations where employees are working on rooftops during
simple, short-duration projects and would be required to construct
physical barriers as `Designated Areas' that may actually increase the
risk of falls and introduce other safety hazards'' (Ex. 124; see also
Ex. 171).
    OSHA's experience with warning line systems in the construction
industry does not support SBA Office of Advocacy's claim that using
designated areas for brief tasks poses a greater hazard and the
commenter did not provide any evidence to support their claim.
Moreover, SBA Office of Advocacy recommended that OSHA make the final
rule consistent with the construction fall protection standard, which,
as mentioned, does not exempt ``short duration projects'' from
providing any fall protection (conventional or designated areas) at
this distance from the edge of low-slope roofs the requirements to
provide fall protection. That said, OSHA believes the allowances that
final paragraphs (b)(13)(ii) and (iii) include for employers who
perform work that is both infrequent and temporary, provides
substantial flexibility and should not pose any significant compliance
difficulties.
    Work performed 15 feet or more from the roof edge--Final paragraph
(b)(13)(iii), which applies to work performed 15 feet or more from the
edge of a low-slope roof, requires that employers protect workers from
falling by:
     Using a conventional fall protection system or a
designated area. If, however, the work is both infrequent and
temporary, employers do not have to provide any fall protection (final
paragraph (b)(13)(iii)(A)); and
     Implementing and enforcing a work rule prohibiting
employees from going within 15 feet of the roof edge without using fall
protection in accordance with final paragraphs (b)(13)(i) and (ii)
(final paragraph (b)(13)(iii)(B)).
    Final paragraph (b)(13)(iii) generally is consistent with OSHA's
longstanding enforcement policy regarding construction work performed
at least 15 feet from the edge of low-slope roofs (see e.g., letter to
Mr. Anthony O'Dea (12/15/2003); \62\ letter to Mr. Keith Harkins (11/
15/2002); \63\ letter to Mr. Barry Cole (5/12/2000) \64\). OSHA set
forth its policy in the letter to Mr. Barry Cole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ OSHA letter to Mr. O'Dea available at: http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24682.
    \63\ OSHA letter to Mr. Harkins available at: https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24552.
    \64\ OSHA letter to Mr. Cole available at: https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24802.

    At 15 feet from the edge [of a roof] . . . , a warning line,
combined with effective work rules, can be expected to prevent
workers from going past the line and approaching the edge. Also, at
that distance, the failure of a barrier to restrain a worker from
unintentionally crossing it would not place the worker in immediate
risk of falling off the edge. Therefore, we will apply a de minimus
policy for non-conforming guardrails 15 or more feet from the edge
under certain circumstances. Specifically, we will consider the use
of certain barriers that fail to meet the criteria falling-object a
guardrail a de minimus violation of the guardrail criteria in Sec.
1926.502(b) where all of the following are met:
    1. A warning line is used 15 feet or more from the edge;
    2. The warning line meets or exceeds the requirements in Sec.
1926.502(f)(2);
    3. No work or work-related activity is to take place in the area
between the warning line and . . . the edge;
    4. The employer effectively implements a work rule prohibiting
the employees from going past the warning line.

    In one respect, final paragraph (b)(13)(iii) differs from and
provides more flexibility than the construction enforcement policy.
When employers perform work that is both temporary and infrequent at
least 15 feet from the roof edge, the final rule does not require them
to provide any fall protection (using conventional fall protection or
warning lines). OSHA believes this limited exception eases compliance
for employers without compromising worker safety.
    Comments in the record support an exception for work that is
temporary and infrequent and performed at least 15 feet from the roof
edge (Exs. 165; 207). For example, SMACNA said:

[A] work procedure such as a simple filter change or belt adjustment
to an HVAC system, especially if the unit is in the middle of a
large roof does not warrant placement of a physical warning line
(Ex. 165).

    EEI noted, ``Some flat roofs in general industry settings could be
the size of several football fields'' (Ex. 207). OSHA agrees that
requiring employers to erect a warning line in that situation could
take more time than simply performing a very brief task.
    Many stakeholders supported the use of the use of designated areas
``where work is performed away from the immediate fall hazard, such as
in the center of the rooftop'' (Ex. 180; see also Exs. 171; 207; 226).
Verallia concurred, noting that less is needed to protect or warn
workers the further the work area is from the roof edge (Ex. 171). EEI
also said conventional fall protection was not necessary when workers
are not near the roof edge, ``OSHA should not require protection from
fall hazards on large flat roofs when the hazard can be controlled by
keeping all workers a specified distance away from the roof edge'' (Ex.
207). AFSCME agreed, saying that air-handling systems and other
equipment often are located in the middle of the roof (Ex. 226).
    Other stakeholders, however, said OSHA should not require any fall
protection, including a warning line, for any task performed ``a safe
distance'' from the edge of a low-slope roof (Exs. 165; 207; 236; 254).
For example, MCAA, whose member companies construct, install, and
service mechanical systems (e.g., HVAC systems), said:

    Most of the time, [HVAC] units are a safe distance from the edge
of the roof and/or skylights, and can be accessed and serviced
safely without the use of a ``designated area'' or other fall
protection/prevention systems. Under this proposed rule . . . HVAC
technicians would have to erect a temporary, designated area
perimeter line to comply with the standard. MCAA believes that this
requirement would create unintended hazards, which would be much
more likely to cause injury or death to workers (Ex. 236).

    MCAA's argument is not persuasive. MCAA did not provide any data or
other information to support its claim that requiring employers to
erect a warning would be more likely to cause injury or death than
working without any protection. Moreover, MCAA recommended that OSHA
make the final rule consistent with the low-slope roof provision in the
construction standard. That provision requires employers to use
designated area perimeter lines for all roofing work if the employer
does not use conventional fall protection.
    In conclusion, OSHA believes that the limitations on the use of
designated areas in final paragraphs (b)(13)(i), (ii) and (iii), taken
together, provide appropriate protection from fall hazards while
affording employers greater control flexibility.
    Slaughtering facility platforms. Final paragraph (b)(14) specifies
new requirements OSHA added to the final rule addressing fall
protection for work performed on the unprotected working side of
platforms in slaughtering facilities. As mentioned in the discussion of
final paragraph (b)(1)(ii) earlier in this preamble, the working side
is the side of the platform where workers are in the process of
performing a work operation.
    Final paragraph (b)(14)(i) requires that employers protect workers
from falling off the unprotected working side of slaughtering facility
platforms that are four feet or more above a lower level. Employers
must protect those workers by providing:
     A guardrail system (final paragraph (b)(14)(i)(A)); or
     A travel restraint system (final paragraph (b)(14)(i)(B)).
    The proposed rule in Sec.  1910.28 addressed slaughtering facility
platforms, as well as the working sides of loading racks, loading
docks, and teeming platforms, in paragraph (b)(1). Proposed paragraph
(b)(1)(vi) required that employers provide guardrail systems on the
working side of slaughtering house platforms unless they could
demonstrate that providing guardrail systems was infeasible. If an
employer could demonstrate infeasibility, workers could work on the
working side of these platforms without guardrails or any other fall
protection when: the work operation on the working side is in progress
(see proposed paragraph (b)(1)(vi)(A)); the employer restricts access
to the platform to authorized workers (proposed paragraph
(b)(1)(vi)(B)); and the employer trained the authorized workers in
accordance with proposed Sec.  1910.30(b)(1)(vi)(C).
    OSHA proposed the exception for the working sides of these
platforms because information available to the Agency at the time
indicated that there may be technological feasibility issues with using
guardrail systems while workers are working on certain platforms. OSHA
requested comment on this issue, including whether there are other
feasible means to protect workers working on the unprotected side of
platforms (see 75 FR 28889).
    Commenters said employers often use travel restraint systems on the
working side of slaughtering facility platforms, and, therefore, OSHA
should not provide an exception. For example, Damon, Inc., said, ``I
have worked with several packing houses that have successfully
implemented restraint systems'' (Ex. 251). Likewise, the representative
of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW) commented:

    My gravest concern is with 1910.28(b)(vi), specifically OSHA's
proposed exception to the requirement for guardrails or other fall
protection on the working side of platforms in slaughtering
facilities. This exception is inappropriate and not protective of
the thousands of workers who would be affected. Work platforms in
the meatpacking industry are becoming increasingly common and are
built to greater heights. Many employers, including Cargill Meat
Solutions in Dodge City, KS have successfully implemented travel
restraint systems for use on these platforms. Just as there is no
question about the feasibility of these systems, there should be no
question about the compelling need for them. There is a compelling
need in meatpacking plants. Falls from platforms in slaughtering
facilities are especially dangerous because of the universal use of
knives and other sharp instruments (Ex. 159).

    These comments and other information in the record convince OSHA
that using fall protection on the working side of slaughtering facility
platforms is feasible. Therefore, to eliminate any confusion, OSHA
decided to specify fall protection requirements for slaughtering
facility platforms in a separate provision in the final rule.
    Final paragraph (b)(14)(ii) specifies that when the employer can
demonstrate it is infeasible to use guardrail or travel restraint
systems, they can perform the work on slaughtering facility platforms
without a guardrail or travel restraint system, provided:
     The work operation for which fall protection is infeasible
is in process (final paragraph (b)(14)(ii)(A));
     The employer restricts access to the platform to
authorized workers (final paragraph (b)(14)(ii)(B)); and

     The employer ensures authorized workers receive training
in accordance with final Sec.  1910.30 (final paragraph
(b)(14)(ii)(C)).
    The language in final paragraph (b)(14)(ii) is the same as the
language in the exception for working sides of loading rack, loading
dock, and teeming platforms (final paragraph (b)(1)(ii)).
    Walking-working surfaces not otherwise addressed. Final paragraph
(b)(15), like proposed paragraph (b)(13), applies to walking-working
surfaces that other paragraphs in final Sec.  1910.28(b) do not address
specifically, such as ramps. Final paragraph (b)(15), like final
paragraph (b)(1)), requires that employers must protect each worker on
a walking-working surface not addressed elsewhere in final paragraph
(b) or other subparts in 29 CFR part 1910 from falling four feet or
more to a lower level using:
     Guardrail systems (final paragraph (b)(15)(i));
     Safety net systems (final paragraph (b)(15)(ii)); or
     Personal fall protection systems, such as personal fall
arrest systems, travel restraint systems, and positioning systems
(final paragraph (b)(15)(iii)).
    Final paragraph (b)(15) does not retain the proposed fall
protection measure of designated areas (proposed paragraph
(b)(13)(ii)). However, final paragraph (b)(15) still gives employers
the same level of control flexibility that proposed and final paragraph
(b)(1)(i) provides for all unprotected sides and edges. The final rule
also is consistent with the construction fall protection standard
(Sec.  1926.501(b)(15)).
    OSHA included this provision in the final rule to protect workers
from all fall hazards in general industry regardless of whether final
paragraph (b) in this section specifically mentions the particular
walking-working surface or fall hazard. Therefore, this provision
ensures that general industry employers will protect their workers from
falling whenever and wherever a fall hazard is present in their
workplaces. OSHA did not receive any comments on the proposed
provisions and adopts it as discussed.
Paragraph (c)--Protection From Falling Objects
    Final paragraph (c), like the proposed rule, requires that
employers protect workers from being struck by falling objects, such as
objects falling through holes or off the sides or edges of walking-
working surfaces onto workers below. When workers are at risk of being
struck by falling objects, the final rule requires that employers
ensure that workers wear head protection meeting the requirements of 29
CFR part 1910, subpart I. In addition, final paragraph (c) requires
that employers protect workers using one or more of the following:
     Erecting toeboards, screens, or guardrail systems to
prevent objects from falling to a lower level (final paragraph (c)(1));
     Erecting canopy structures and keeping potential falling
objects far enough from an edge, hole, or opening to prevent them from
falling to a lower level (final paragraph (c)(2)); or
     Barricading the area into which objects could fall,
prohibiting workers from entering the barricaded area, and keeping
objects far enough from the edge or opening to prevent them from
falling to the lower level (final paragraph (c)(3)).
    Final paragraph (c) simplifies the rule by consolidating into a
single paragraph all of the provisions that address falling objects in
the existing standard (Sec.  1910.23(b)(5) and (c)(1)) and the proposed
rule (paragraphs (b)(3)(iii), (b)(5)(i), (b)(14)(ii)). The final rule
is consistent with the proposal and patterned on the construction
standard (Sec.  1926.501(c)). OSHA did not receive any comments on the
proposed protection from falling object requirements and adopts final
paragraph (c) as discussed.
Section 1910.29--Fall Protection Systems and Falling Object
Protection--Criteria and Practices
    Final Sec.  1910.29, like the proposed rule, establishes system
criteria and work-practice requirements for fall protection systems and
falling object protection specified by final Sec.  1910.28, Duty to
have fall protection systems and falling object protection,\65\ and
Sec.  1910.140, Personal fall protection equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ The final rule revised the title for Sec.  1910.29 to state
that it establishes criteria and practices for both fall protection
systems and falling object protection. Although the proposed title
only listed fall protection systems, it also included criteria and
systems for protecting workers from falling objects. OSHA believes
stakeholders understood the proposed rule covered both fall
protection systems and falling object protection, the final rule
makes it clear and explicit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed earlier in this preamble, final Sec. Sec.  1910.28,
1910.29, 1910.30, and 1910.140 establish new provisions that provide a
comprehensive approach to fall and falling object protection in general
industry. Final Sec.  1910.28 specifies that employers must provide
fall and falling object protection for workers exposed to fall and
falling object hazards, and select a system that the final rule allows
them to use in particular situations or operations.
    Final Sec.  1910.29 requires that employers ensure the fall
protection system and falling object protection they select meet the
specified criteria and practice provisions. Finally, Sec.  1910.30
requires that employers ensure workers exposed to fall and falling
object hazards and who must use fall protection systems and falling
object protection receive training on those hazards and how to use the
required protection properly. OSHA notes that the final rule adds a
requirement that employers provide training for personal fall
protection systems to existing Sec.  1910.132.
    In general, OSHA patterned the system criteria and work practice
requirements in final Sec.  1910.29 to be consistent with its
construction standards (Sec. Sec.  1926.502 and 1926.1053). OSHA
believes that making the general industry fall protection system and
falling object protection criteria requirements consistent with the
construction standards will make the final rule easier to understand
than the existing general industry standard, and make compliance easier
for employers who perform both general industry and construction
activities. In many situations employers should be able to use the same
fall protection systems and falling object protection for both
activities, which helps to minimize compliance costs. As mentioned in
the preamble to final Sec.  1910.28, many commenters supported making
the general industry fall and falling object protection requirements
consistent with those in the construction industry.
    Final Sec.  1910.29, like the proposed rule, reorganizes the
existing rule so that the format of the final rule is consistent with
the format in the construction fall protection standard in Sec.
1926.502. OSHA believes this reorganization will make the final rule
easier to understand and follow because many employers already are
familiar with and follow the construction requirements.
    Final Sec.  1910.29 also draws provisions from, and is consistent
with, national consensus standards addressing personal fall protection
systems and falling object protection, including:
     ANSI/ASC A14.3-2008, American National Standards for
Ladders-Fixed (A14.3-2008) (Ex. 8);
     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 (A1264.1-2007) (Ex. 13);
and
     ANSI/ASSE A10.18-2012, Safety Requirements for Temporary
Roof and Floor Holes, Wall Openings, Stairways, and Other Unprotected
Edges in

Construction and Demolition Operations (A10.18-2012) (Ex. 388); and
     National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 101-2012, Life
Safety Code (NFPA 101-2012) (Ex. 385).
Paragraph (a)--General Requirements
    Final paragraph (a) establishes general requirements that are
applicable to the fall protection systems and falling object protection
covered by final 29 CFR part 1910.
    In final paragraph (a)(1), OSHA specifies that employers ensure all
fall protection systems and falling object protection that 29 CFR part
1910 requires meet the requirements in Sec.  1910.29. Accordingly, the
requirements of Sec.  1910.29 apply to fall protection systems and
falling object protection that other part 1910 standards require if
those standards do not establish specific criteria and work practices.
For example, final paragraph (a)(1) requires that ladder safety systems
on fixed ladders used at sawmills (Sec.  1910.265)) must comply with
requirements in Sec.  1910.29(i) because Sec.  1910.265 does not
specify criteria that ladder safety systems must meet.
    When employers elect to use a personal fall protection system,
final paragraph (a)(1) specifies that employers must ensure those
systems meet the applicable requirements in 29 CFR part 1910, subpart
I, namely final Sec. Sec.  1910.132, General requirements, and
1910.140, Personal fall protection equipment. Final Sec.  1910.140
establishes personal fall protection system criteria and work practice
requirements, while Sec.  1910.132 establishes provisions that apply to
all personal protective equipment (PPE), including personal fall
protection systems. For example, Sec.  1910.132(a) requires that
employers provide, use, and maintain PPE, including personal fall
protection systems, in a reliable condition, and Sec.  1910.132(c)
specifies that employers ensure that the design and construction of PPE
is safe for the work the employee is performing. In addition, Sec.
1910.132(d) requires that employers perform a hazard assessment and
``[s]elect PPE that properly fits each affected employee,'' while Sec.
1910.132(h) requires, with a few exceptions, that employers must
provide PPE, including personal fall protection systems, at no cost to
the worker.
    Final paragraph (a)(1) revises the proposed rule slightly by
deleting the reference to ``body belts and body harnesses,'' because
they are components of personal fall protection systems. OSHA did not
receive any comments on proposed paragraph (a)(1) and adopts the
provision with the change discussed.
    Final paragraph (a)(2) specifies that employers must provide and
install all fall protection systems and falling object protection
required by final subpart D, and comply with all other applicable
requirements of final subpart D, before any worker begins work that
necessitates fall or falling object protection. Final paragraph (a)(2),
requires that employers take a proactive approach to managing fall and
falling object hazards by installing, for example, fall protection
systems or components (e.g., a vertical lifeline), so the systems are
in place and available for use whenever there is potential worker
exposure to fall hazards. OSHA believes that a proactive approach will
encourage employers to anticipate and evaluate whether their workers
may be on walking-working surfaces where a potential fall or falling
object hazard exists and install systems (e.g., guardrail systems,
toeboards) or attachment (tie-off) points (e.g., anchorages, tieback
anchors) so that workers can use such protection readily when needed.
    OSHA believes such proactive planning and action already are part
of the standard operating procedures for many employers. OSHA also
believes that such pre-planning will encourage and guide employers to
use the most effective and protective measures to address fall and
falling object hazards. OSHA did not receive any comments on proposed
paragraph (a)(2) and adopts the provision with the clarification
discussed above.
Paragraph (b)--Guardrail Systems
    Final paragraph (b) contains system requirements employers must
follow to ensure guardrail systems they use will protect workers from
falling to lower levels. In developing final paragraph (b), OSHA
carried forward, with some revision, many of the requirements from the
existing rule (e.g., existing Sec.  1910.23), and also drew the
requirements from the construction fall protection standard in Sec.
1926.502(b).
    The Agency believes that the revised guardrail requirements make
the final rule easier to understand than the existing general industry
rule, reflect current technology and work practices, and ensure
consistency among guardrail requirements throughout general industry.
For example, OSHA reorganized the final rule so the same guardrail
system requirements (final paragraph (b)) apply uniformly to all
walking-working surfaces, in turn making the requirement easier to
understand than the existing general industry rule, which separately
lists the guardrail requirements for floor holes, open-sided floors,
platforms, runways, and stairways. In addition to the explanations
below for each of the guardrail system requirements, OSHA notes that
the preamble to Sec.  1926.502 (59 FR 40733) also provides useful
explanatory material for each of the guardrail system provisions in
Sec.  1926.502(b).
    Final paragraph (b)(1) specifies requirements for the minimum and
maximum height of guardrail systems. Final paragraph (b)(1) carries
forward the existing requirement (existing Sec.  1910.23(e)(1)) that
employers must ensure the top edge of the top rails of guardrail
systems is 42 inches above the walking-working surface, which is
consistent with the proposal and the construction fall protection
standard (Sec.  1926.502(b)(1)). The final rule allows the height of
guardrails to deviate from the 42-inch required height by up to three
inches, plus or minus, which also is consistent with the construction
standard. Final paragraph (b)(1) clarifies in objective terms (``plus
or minus 3 inches'') the language in the existing provision that the
guardrail height may deviate from 42 inches by a ``nominal'' amount.
OSHA believes that a deviation of no more than three inches from the
42-inch guardrail height constitutes a ``nominal'' deviation that will
not compromise worker protection. The Agency believes that continuing
this allowance provides flexibility for employers if they make changes
to walking-working surfaces (e.g., adding carpet, installing grating,
and replacing flooring) that may slightly reduce the effective height
of the guardrail (see 55 FR 13374).
    Final paragraph (b)(1) also is consistent with A10.18-2012 (Section
4.1.2) and A1264.1-2007 (Section 5.4). A1264.1-2007 (Section 5.4)
requires that guardrails have a minimum height of 42 inches, but does
not specify a maximum height. A note to that standard explains that,
generally, ``guardrails are 42 to 45 inches in height'' (Section E5.4).
    Final paragraph (b)(1) also revises the existing rule (existing
Sec.  1910.23(e)(1)) to allow employers to erect guardrail systems that
exceed the 45-inch height limit, provided the employer ensures that the
higher guardrails comply with all other requirements in paragraph (b).
The final rule is consistent with the requirement in the construction
fall protection standard (Sec.  1926.502(b)(1)), which permits an
increase in the top rail height ``when conditions warrant.'' OSHA
believes that such conditions also exist in general industry, and that
exceeding the 42-inch height

requirement will not impact worker safety as long as employers comply
with the other provisions of final paragraph (b). While the proposed
rule allowed higher guardrail systems in these situations ``when
conditions warrant,'' OSHA did not adopt that phrase in the final rule
because the Agency concluded that no other conditions are necessary to
ensure employee safety as long as the employer satisfies the other
provisions of final paragraph (b). OSHA believes that adding this
exception to the final rule will make compliance easier for employers
who perform both general industry and construction activities. Neither
the A10.18-2012 nor the A1264.1-2007 standards include this exception
to the guardrail height limit. Ameren supported ``relaxing the
`maximum' '' height requirement for the reasons OSHA delineated (Ex.
189).
    In the preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA said it was considering
adding a provision that would allow employers to use barriers ``as the
functional equivalent of guardrails'' (75 FR 28894). Such a provision
would permit employers to use barriers as guardrails even if the height
of the barriers is as low as 30 inches provided the total sum of the
height and depth of the barrier is 48 inches. Using this formula, an
employer could use a barrier with a height of 36 inches if the depth of
the barrier were at least 12 inches. OSHA notes that the 1990 proposal,
which the Agency did not adopt, included the provision as an
alternative means of complying with the 42-inch guardrail height
requirement (55 FR 13374). The preamble to the 1990 proposal explained
that the National Bureau of Standards recommended a formula from its
1976 report, ``A Model Performance Standard for Guardrails.''
    OSHA received one comment about the potential provision. Thomas
Kramer, of LJB, Inc., supported incorporating the provision in the
final rule, stating, ``This reference would allow a number of parapets
associated with roof fall hazards to be used as a compliant physical
barrier. It would have the added value of providing the building owner
with a very low cost, if any cost at all, solution to protecting
workers on a roof,'' and further commenting that ``[c]learly, this
proposed revision is technologically feasible'' (Ex. 367).
    For the following reasons, OSHA decided not to add a provision
allowing the use of barriers as functional equivalents of guardrail
systems. First, incorporating the provision would make the final rule
inconsistent with the construction fall protection standard, which is
contrary to a major goal of the rulemaking. Similarly, neither A10.18-
2012 nor the A1264.1-2007 include the provision.
    Second, the formula from the 1976 report ``A Model Performance
Standard for Guardrails,'' which forms the basis for the potential
provision, is almost 40 years old. The documents and codes the report
references are even older. OSHA believes that industry practices over
the last 40 years overwhelmingly complied with the 42-inch guardrail
requirement in the existing rule as well as the construction fall
protection and ANSI standards, eliminating the need for this
alternative.
    Finally, OSHA does not believe the provision will provide fall
protection that is as effective as the final rule. The Agency believes
there is a risk of workers falling over barriers that are one-half foot
or more lower than the required 42-inch guardrail height. In
particular, OSHA does not believe a barrier with a height of 36 inches
provides adequate protection from falls even when the barrier depth is
12 inches. OSHA believes it would be too easy for workers to fall over
barriers that are one-half foot lower than the required height, and
that the 12-inch barrier depth would not provide adequate protection
from going over the barrier. OSHA expressed much the same rationale
when it decided not to propose a provision that would allow existing
guardrails that are 36 inches in height. In the proposed rule OSHA said
that it did not consider 36-inch high guardrails to be as safe as the
required 42-inch high guardrails (75 FR 28894).
    OSHA notes that the 1990 proposed rule would have allowed a 36-inch
minimum height for existing guardrail systems instead of the required
42 inches (55 FR 13360 (4/10/1990)). In particular, the earlier
proposal would have codified the 1981 OSHA directive classifying as a
de minimus violation any existing guardrail having a height of 36
inches (STD 01-01-010). OSHA issued the directive because it recognized
that employers likely erected guardrails under pre-OSHA building codes
(55 FR 13373). As mentioned, however, OSHA did not propose allowing
this alternative in the 2010 proposal because of safety concerns. In
addition, due to those concerns, OSHA also announced that it was going
to rescind the directive and previous interpretations treating 36-inch
height guardrails as de minimus violations (see 75 FR 28894 n.2).
    OSHA received several comments recommending that the Agency not
rescind the directive and instead adopt a provision allowing employers
to continue using existing guardrails that have a height of 36 inches.
Mercer ORC questioned OSHA's statement in the proposal that guardrails
36 inches in height are not as ``equally safe'' as guardrails with a
height of 42 inches (Ex. 254). However, they provided no evidence to
support deviating from the height requirements in the construction fall
protection standard and both A10.18-2012 and A1264.1-2007. Mercer ORC
also said OSHA should estimate the costs associated with replacing the
lower-height guardrails and the number of injuries prevented by having
guardrails that are 39 inches in height (Ex. 254). Mercer ORC stated:

    Clearly, if people have been writing to OSHA to ask about
guardrails that are less than the ``42 inches nominal'' in the
existing rule, there are likely to be significant numbers of
workplaces that have these non-standard guardrails in place. OSHA
should either quantify the benefits and costs of this rule change or
grandfather those guardrail installations that occurred prior to the
effect date of the new rules (Ex. 254).

    The New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP)
commented that requiring 42-inch guardrails would ``impact'' many
NYCDEP facilities (Ex. 191). They said the 42-inch height requirement
``will not provide a benefit to our employees commensurate with the
costs and will encumber funds that could be used for more efficacious
health and safety initiatives.''
    OSHA does not agree with Mercer ORC and NYCDEP that requiring
guardrails to be 42 inches in height will impose significant costs to a
substantial number of workplaces. They did not provide any evidence
showing that a 36-inch guardrail height better effectuates the purposes
of the OSH Act than the proposed 42-inch height. In fact, the
requirement that employers ensure guardrails be 42 inches high (plus or
minus 3 inches) has been in place since OSHA adopted the Walking-
Working Surfaces standards in 1972 from then-existing national
consensus standards (ANSI A12.1-1967, Section 7.1) (38 FR 24300 (9/6/
1973)). Moreover, the guardrail height requirements in those consensus
standards were adopted years before 1972. A1264.1-2007 and A10.18-2012
also require that guardrail heights be at least 42 inches.
    OSHA points out the directive OSHA issued in 1981 allowing
guardrails to have a minimum height of 36 inches instead of 42 inches
only applied to guardrails existing at that time. OSHA believes that
the vast majority of guardrails in use today are 42 inches (plus or
minus 3 inches) in height. Therefore, OSHA does not believe that
employers will experience significant difficulty bringing any remaining

guardrails into compliance with this final standard. Accordingly, the
final rule does not allow existing guardrails that are less than 39
inches in height. Moreover, OSHA hereby rescinds OSHA Directive STD 01-
01-010 and all subsequent letters of interpretation allowing guardrails
to have a minimum height of 36 inches.
    Mr. M. Anderson raised a different point regarding the 42-inch
guardrail height requirement, saying that the requirement will pose a
problem for historic buildings, which often have low guardrails:

    This will present an infeasible-to-fix problem for historic
sites. Many historic balustrades are less than the required 42
[inches]. In order to comply with this height requirement,
balustrades will have to be replaced thereby changing the historic
aesthetic of the building. This seems to go against the Historic
Preservation Act (Ex. 139).

    OSHA did not receive comments from any other stakeholders
concerning historic buildings and historic preservation requirements.
To the extent that any employer encounters such a problem, the employer
may use one of the other means of fall protection authorized by Sec.
1910.28 (e.g., safety net systems or personal fall protection systems).
    Final paragraph (b)(2), like the proposed rule, requires that
employers install intermediate protective members, such as midrails,
screens, mesh, intermediate vertical members, solid panels, or
equivalent intermediate members between the walking-working surface and
the top edge of the guardrail system when there is not a wall or
parapet that is at least 21 inches (53 cm) high. Whatever intermediate
protective member employers use, the final rule requires that employers
install them as follows:
     Install midrails midway between the top edge of the
guardrail system and the walking-working surface. Since the final rule
requires that guardrail systems be 42 inches high (plus or minus three
inches), employers must install midrails approximately 21 inches above
the horizontal walking-working surface (final paragraph (b)(2)(i));
     Install screens, mesh, and solid panels from the walking-
working surface to the top rail and along the entire opening between
top rail supports (final paragraph (b)(2)(ii));
     Install intermediate vertical members, such as balusters,
no more than 19 inches apart (final paragraph (b)(2)(iii)); and
     Install other equivalent intermediate members, such as
additional midrails and architectural panels, so that openings are not
more than 19 inches wide (final paragraph (b)(2)(iv)).
    OSHA drew the requirements in final paragraph (b)(2) from the
construction fall protection standard in Sec.  1926.502(b)(2), which
has almost identical requirements. The existing rule in Sec.
1910.23(e)(1) and (e)(3)(v)(c) only address the installation of
midrails. OSHA believes final paragraph (b)(2) provides more clarity
and flexibility than the existing rule. Final paragraph (b)(2) includes
examples of different types of intermediate members that employers may
use, and identifies the placement/installation criteria for each type.
In addition, the final rule does not require that employers install
intermediate protective members when the guardrail system is on a wall
or parapet that is at least 21 inches high, which is consistent with
the construction fall protection standard. OSHA believes it is not
necessary to install intermediate protective members where a wall or
parapet reaches at least the same height as that required for a
midrail.
    OSHA received one comment on proposed paragraph (b)(2). Ellis Fall
Safety Solutions (Ellis), recommended that guardrails made of wire
cable use at least three wires so the space between cables does not
exceed 19 inches (Ex. 155). OSHA does not believe it is necessary to
add such language to the final rule. The requirements on ``intermediate
members'' and ``other equivalent intermediate members'' include wire
cables; thus, the final rule in paragraphs (b)(2)(iii) and (iv) already
require that wire cable installed in a guardrail system leave no
opening in the system that exceeds 19 inches.
    OSHA added language to final paragraph (b)(2) to clarify that solid
panels are an example of a protective intermediate member. This
addition makes the final provision consistent with final paragraph
(b)(5).
    Final paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) are companion provisions that
establish strength requirements for guardrail systems. Final paragraph
(b)(3), like the proposed rule, requires that employers ensure
guardrail systems are capable of withstanding, without failure, a force
of at least 200 pounds applied in a downward or outward direction
within two (2) inches of the top edge, at any point along the top rail.
Final paragraph (b)(3) generally is consistent with the existing rule
in Sec. Sec.  1910.23(e)(3)(iv) and (e)(3)(v)(b). The final rule is
almost identical to the construction fall protection standard in Sec.
1926.502(b)(3), and consistent with A10.18-2012 (Section 4.1.4).
    The term ``failure,'' as defined in final Sec.  1910.21(b), means a
load refusal (i.e., the point at which the load exceeds the ultimate
strength of a component or object), breakage, or separation of a
component part. Conversely, ``without failure'' means a guardrail
system must have adequate strength to withstand at least 200 pounds
applied downward or outward within two inches of the top edge of top
rail, without a load refusal, breakage, or separation of component
parts. OSHA believes that if the guardrail system can withstand
application of such force, even if the system has some minor
deformation, it will be capable of preventing a worker from falling.
OSHA believes minor deformation that does not affect the structural
integrity or support capabilities of the guardrail system does not
constitute failure as the final rule defines it.
    OSHA also has removed the language in the existing standard that
requires supporting posts to be spaced not more than 8 feet apart. OSHA
believes the performance language of final paragraph (b)(3) is
adequate, and also provides greater flexibility. In some cases an 8-
foot distance between posts may not be adequate to meet the 200-pound
strength requirement, while in other situations and with certain
materials, the guardrail will maintain a 200-pound force with the
supporting posts installed at distances greater than 8 feet apart.
Employers must install supporting posts at whatever distance is
necessary to meet the strength requirement of the final rule, without
failure.
    OSHA received two comments on proposed paragraph (b)(3). Peter
Catlos recommended that the final rule, at a minimum, specify test
methods or requirements for load concentrations and rates when applying
the 200-pound test load (Ex. 203). Without specifying load
concentrations and rates, or test methods, Mr. Catlos said the
referenced 200-pound minimum load requirement ``is not definitive''
(Ex. 203).
    Consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the OSH Act, final paragraphs
(b)(3) and (4) use a performance-based approach that establishes the
strength objective employers must meet when testing a guardrail. The
A10.18-2012 standard (Section 4.1.4) and the A1264.1-2007 standard
(Section 5.6.1) follow a similar approach. As such, OSHA believes the
strength requirement, which also is identical to the requirement in the
construction fall protection standard, is protective, clear, and
functional.
    Final paragraph (b)(3) gives employers flexibility to use whatever
test methods or manufacturer information they want so long as those
methods and

specifications meet the same strength requirement as the final rule.
OSHA notes that A1264.1-2007 and American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) E985-00e1-2006 Standard Specification for Permanent
Metal Railing Systems and Rails for Buildings, provide helpful guidance
for meeting the 200-pound strength requirement.
    The other commenter, Ellis, recommended that OSHA revise the 200-
pound strength requirement to 276 pounds (i.e., the 95th percentile for
men) (Ex. 155). He said that, according to the National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey, the average weight of workers increased
about 1\1/2\ to 2 pounds a year since the 1950s, adding, ``Heavier
workers deserve to be protected and just because ANSI and OSHA have not
updated their standards for effectively 40 years does not mean we
should stay with out of date values'' (Ex. 155). OSHA does not believe
the change Ellis proposes is necessary. The 200-pound strength
requirement in A10.18-2012 (Section 4.1.4) and A1264.1-2007 (Section
5.6.1) is a minimum strength requirement.
    Finally, Ellis said OSHA should prohibit using guardrail systems as
anchorages for personal fall protection systems unless a registered
structural engineer approves, marks, or labels the systems for such
use. OSHA does not believe it is necessary to add Ellis' recommendation
to the final rule because Sec.  1910.140 requires that personal fall
protection system anchorages be capable of supporting 5,000 pounds.
However, final paragraph (b)(3) only requires that guardrail systems be
capable of withstanding a force of at least 200 pounds, which means
that guardrail systems are not capable of serving as anchorages unless
they also meet the requirements anchorages in final rule Sec.
1910.140. OSHA, received no other comments and is adopting in this
final rule paragraph (b)(3) as discussed.
    Final paragraph (b)(4), like the proposed rule, requires that
employers ensure that when the 200-pound test load is applied in a
downward direction, the top rail of the guardrail system does not
deflect to a height of less than 39 inches above the walking-working
surface. Deflection refers to the distance or degree a structure moves
or displaces when a load is applied to the structure. To illustrate,
employers must ensure that application of the required minimum test
load to the top rail of a 42-inch guardrail system does not reduce its
height by more than three inches. If the load or stress placed on a
guardrail system, regardless of its height, reduces the height of the
system to less than 39 inches, it is not likely to be tall enough to
prevent workers from falling over the top rail. Therefore, final
paragraph (b)(4) specifies that employers must ensure the height of
their guardrail systems, deflected or not, is never less than 39 inches
high.
    Final paragraph (b)(4) is almost identical to the construction fall
protection standard in Sec.  1920.502(b)(4). The A10.18-2012 standard
(Section 4.1.4) specifies that guardrails shall not deflect more than 3
inches in any direction. Since that standard does not allow any nominal
deviation in the guardrail height, it means that standard limits the
deflected height to not less than 39 inches high.
    OSHA received comments from Mr. Catlos and Ellis on proposed
paragraph (b)(4). Ellis opposed allowing the guardrail system to
deflect as much as 3 inches, stating, ``[Three inches of] movement
specified in 1926.502 is too great and 1.5 [inches] should be [the
maximum] when over half the male worker [center of gravity] exceeds 39
[inches]'' (Ex. 155). OSHA believes that a guardrail system that has a
height of at least 39 inches, as final paragraph (b)(4) requires (i.e.,
``42 inches, plus or minus 3 inches''), is adequate to protect a worker
from falling over the top rail. OSHA drew final paragraph (b)(4) from
the construction fall protection standard, and the Agency is not aware
of any data indicating workers are falling over guardrail systems that
have a height of at least 39 inches. OSHA also notes the final rule is
consistent with A10.18-2012 (Section 4.1.4), indicating final paragraph
(b)(4) has wide stakeholder acceptance.
    Mr. Catlos raised concerns that the proposed language on deflection
does not include a horizontal deflection allowance or limit (Ex. 203).
He pointed out that proposed paragraph (b)(3) includes both vertical
and horizontal load test requirements, and he said that, for
consistency, final paragraph (b)(4) should include a horizontal load
test and deflection allowance, in addition to the vertical allowance.
OSHA disagrees with the commenter for the following reasons. First, the
final rule focuses on ensuring that guardrail systems maintain a
minimum height, so that if workers fall into or onto the guardrail they
are protected from falling over the top rail.
    Second, Mr. Catlos did not say what would constitute an appropriate
horizontal load test deflection allowance and OSHA believes that
allowing a horizontal deflection in addition to the vertical allowance,
may result in failure of the guardrail system to protect workers from
falling. For example it may break or permanently deform in a way that
affects the structural integrity of the guardrail system. Such
deformation may adversely affect the structural integrity or support
capabilities of the system when workers lean on or fall into the top
rail of a guardrail that is not perpendicular to the horizontal
walking-working surface. In this regard, Mr. Catlos did not provide any
data indicating that horizontal deflection of the guardrail system
would not result in system failure. Additionally, OSHA is concerned
that after repeated horizontal deflection, the guardrail could be
reduced in height to below 39 inches, which is below the minimum height
requirement that final paragraph (b)(1) requires.
    Third, OSHA believes that allowing a horizontal deflection when
vertical deflection already reduces the height of guardrail systems may
put workers at risk of falling over the top rail. This is true
especially when vertical deflection reduces the height of the top edge
of a guardrail system to 39 inches. OSHA does not believe Mr. Catlos
presented a compelling argument to support deviating from the
construction fall protection standard Sec.  1926.502(b)(4) by adding a
horizontal deflection allowance to final paragraph (b)(4). Therefore,
OSHA is adopting in this final rule paragraph (b)(4) as discussed.
    Final paragraph (b)(5), like the proposal, requires that employers
ensure midrails, screens, mesh, intermediate vertical members, solid
panels, and other equivalent members, are capable of withstanding,
without failure, a force of at least 150 pounds applied in any downward
or outward direction at any point along the intermediate member.
    The existing standard does not contain a strength requirement for
midrails and this omission has resulted in confusion. OSHA drew the
proposed requirement from the construction fall protection standard in
Sec.  1926.502(b)(5). In the preamble to that rule, OSHA explained that
a strength test of 150 pounds was adequate for intermediate structures
because they do not serve the same purpose as the top rails of
guardrail systems (59 FR 40672, 40697 (8/9/1994)). Workers often place
forces on top rails (e.g., leaning over the top rail) that they do not
place on intermediate members; if workers fall onto a guardrail, they
most likely will strike the top rail, not the intermediate member.
Therefore, OSHA believes that midrails and other intermediate members
do not need deflection limits.
    The A1264.1-2007 standard (Section 5.6.1) requires that
intermediate

members be capable of withstanding a slightly higher horizontal load
limit (i.e., 160 pounds) applied in a downward (i.e., perpendicular)
direction at the midpoint and mid-height. OSHA notes that A1264.1-2007
(Section 5.6.1) also includes a 3-inch horizontal deflection allowance.
The A10.18-2012 standard does not include a load test for midrails and
other intermediate members. Although the final rule only requires a
150-pound load test, OSHA believes, nonetheless, that the final rule is
more protective than the A1264.1-2007 standard because it does not
permit a 3-inch horizontal deflection allowance. OSHA did not receive
any comments on the proposal and adopts it as discussed above.
    Final paragraph (b)(6), like the proposed rule, requires that
employers ensure guardrail systems are smooth-surfaced to protect
workers from injury, such as punctures or lacerations, and to prevent
catching or snagging of workers' clothing. The final rule is based on
the existing requirement in Sec.  1910.23(e)(1) and (e)(3)(v)(a), and
A1264.1-2007 (Section 5.4). The final rule also is consistent with the
construction fall protection standard in Sec.  1926.502(b)(6), as well
as A10.18-2012 (Section 4.1), which specifies that guardrails be free
of ``sharp edges, splinters, or similar conditions.''
    The Agency believes it is important that guardrail systems have
smooth surfaces to prevent injuries. For example, workers can cut or
puncture their hands or other parts of their bodies, when they grab or
lean against guardrails that have protruding nails. Similarly,
protruding nails can catch workers' clothing which can damage
protective clothing or cause workers to trip or fall. OSHA did not
receive any comments on the proposed rule and adopts it with the
changes discussed above.
    Final paragraph (b)(7), like the proposed rule, requires that
employers ensure the ends of top rails and midrails do not overhang the
terminal posts, except where the overhang does not pose a projection
hazard for workers. Top and midrails that extend past the terminal post
may cause a worker's clothing or tool belt to catch which could result
in a fall. However, the final rule allows top rails and midrails to
overhang the terminal posts provided they do not pose a projection
hazard. For example, employers may shape top rails and midrails so snag
hazards do not exist. The provision is almost identical to the existing
rule in Sec.  1910.23(e)(1) and the construction fall protection
standard in Sec.  1926.502(b)(7). The final rule is consistent with the
A1264.1-2007 standard at Sections 5.4 and 5.6.3. OSHA did not receive
any comments on the proposed provision and OSHA adopts the requirement
as proposed.
    Final paragraph (b)(8), like the proposed and construction fall
protection standards(Sec.  1926.502(b)(8)), prohibits employers from
using steel and plastic banding for top rails or midrails in guardrail
systems. The preamble to the construction fall protection standard
explained that although banding, particularly steel banding, often can
withstand a 200-pound load, it also can tear easily if twisted (59 FR
40698). In addition, workers can cut their hands when they seize steel
or plastic banding, especially in a fall, since banding often has sharp
edges. OSHA notes that, like the construction fall protection standard,
final paragraph (b)(8) does not prohibit the use of steel or synthetic
rope on top rails and midrails because rope does not have sharp edges.
OSHA reminds employers, as discussed in final paragraph (b)(15) and
similar to the construction rule, that manila or synthetic rope used
for top rails must be inspected as necessary to ensure the rope meets
the strength requirements of this section. OSHA did not receive any
comments on the proposed provision and adopts it as discussed above.
    Final paragraph (b)(9), like the proposed rule, requires that
employers ensure top rails and midrails of guardrail systems are at
least one-quarter inch in diameter or thickness. The final rule applies
to all top rails and midrails, regardless of the material employers use
for those rails. The final rule uses both ``diameter'' and
``thickness'' because top rails and midrails may have different shapes
(e.g., cylindrical or rectangular).
    OSHA based final paragraph (b)(9) on the construction fall
protection standard (Sec.  1926.502(b)(9)). The final paragraph ensures
that whatever material an employer uses for top rails or midrails, it
is not so narrow that workers grabbing onto the top rail or midrail may
cut their hands. Such injuries could occur if employers use narrow,
high strength rope or wire for top rails or midrails. To eliminate the
possibility of injury, employers must ensure that all top rails and
midrails are at least one-quarter inch in diameter/thickness. OSHA did
not receive any comments on the proposed provision and adopts it is
discussed above.
    Final paragraph (b)(10) requires that employers using guardrail
systems at hoist areas place a removable guardrail section or, in the
alternative, chains or a gate consisting of a top and midrail, across
the access opening between guardrail sections when workers are not
performing hoisting operations. This requirement ensures workers do not
fall through an opening accidentally when materials are not being
hoisted. It also gives employers flexibility in determining how to
effectively guard access openings at hoist areas.
    OSHA stresses that employers may use chains and gates as an
alternative to removable guardrails, but only when the chains and gates
provide a level of safety that is ``equivalent'' to the level of
protection provided by removable guardrails. As defined in final Sec.
1910.21(b), ``equivalent'' means that the alternative means ``will
provide an equal or greater degree of safety.''
    OSHA clarified final paragraph (b)(10) in response to comments
stakeholders raised on several issues. First, in response to a comment
from Mercer ORC (Ex. 254), the final rule clarifies that employers may
use any of the following three alternatives to guard openings to hoist
areas:
     Removable guardrail sections;
     Chains that provide protection at least at the top and
midrail level; or
     A gate consisting of a top rail and midrail.
    A typographical error (i.e., missing comma) in the proposed rule
made it appear that employers could only use a removable guardrail
section or ``chain gate.'' However, OSHA believes that both chains and
gates that include protection at the top rail and midrail levels
provide protection at hoist areas that is equivalent to removable
guardrail sections.
    Second, on a related issue, Mercer ORC requested clarification
about whether a ``chain gate'' must have one or two chains (Ex. 254).
Final paragraph (b)(10) clarifies that any alternative the employer
uses to guard the access area when workers are not performing hoisting
operations must have a top rail and a midrail to provide workers with
protection that is equivalent to a guardrail system. OSHA does not
believe that a single bar or chain provides protection that is
equivalent to a guardrail system. This clarification is consistent with
OSHA's 1990 proposed rule and letters of interpretation on the use of
gates and chains to protect workers from falling through access
openings in hoist areas when they are not performing hoisting
operations (e.g., Letter to Mr. Stephen Hazelton (5/23/2005 \66\);
letter to Mr. Erich Bredl (1/15/

1993) \67\). In the letter to Mr. Bredl, OSHA said ``employee
protection at access openings [must] be equivalent to that of the
guardrail system.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ OSHA letter to Mr. Stephen Hazelton available at: https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=25100.
    \67\ OSHA letter to Mr. Erich Bredl available at: https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=20991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, Ellis opposed the use of chains to guard access openings
at hoist areas (Ex. 155). He said chains ``cannot meet the sag
requirements of the standard and an overbalance hazard can occur'' (Ex.
155). OSHA does not agree with Ellis' recommendation, noting that
neither the proposed nor final rules establish a sag requirement for
chains used at hoisting areas. In addition, OSHA notes that Ellis does
not explain or provide any information about what constitutes an
``overbalance'' hazard. Nevertheless, OSHA clarified the language in
final paragraph (b)(10) to indicate that chains and gates are
alternatives that employers may use instead of removable guardrail
sections when they provide a level of safety equivalent to guardrails.
However, if chains sag so low that they do not meet the minimum
guardrail height requirements (see final paragraph (b)(1)), or are not
as effective as a removable guardrail section in preventing workers
from falling through access openings, employers would have to use
removable guardrail sections or a gate instead.
    The final rule is almost identical to the proposed rule and
construction fall protection standard in Sec.  1926.502(b)(10), and
OSHA adopts it with the clarifications discussed above.
    Final paragraphs (b)(11) through (13) establish criteria for the
use of guardrail systems to protect employees working near holes. Final
paragraph (b)(11) requires that employers ensure that when guardrail
systems are used around holes, they are installed on all unprotected
sides or edges of the hole. As discussed earlier in this preamble,
final Sec.  1910.21(b) defines ``hole'' as ``a gap or open space in a
floor, roof, horizontal walking-working surface, or similar surface
that is at least 2 inches (5 cm) in its least dimension.''
    The final rule consolidates into one provision the various
requirements in the existing rule that pertain to criteria for
protecting workers from falling through holes. Final paragraph (b)(11)
is almost identical to the proposed rule, and OSHA's construction fall
protection industry standard in Sec.  1926.502(b)(11). OSHA did not
receive any comments on the proposed provision and finalizes it as
discussed.
    Final paragraph (b)(12), like the proposed rule and construction
fall protection standard (Sec.  1926.502(b)(12)), establishes
requirements for guardrail systems erected around holes through which
materials may be passed. The final rule requires:
     When workers are passing materials through a hole,
employers must ensure that not more than two sides of the guardrail
system are removed (final Sec.  1910.29(b)(12)(i)); and
     When workers are not passing materials through the hole,
employers must ensure a guardrail system is installed on all
unprotected sides and edges, or close the hole with a cover (final
Sec.  1910.29(b)(12)(ii)).
    The final rule reorganizes and revises the proposed provision to
make it easier to understand and follow. Final paragraph (b)(12) also
updates the existing rule in Sec.  1910.23(a)(7), which does not
contain a provision addressing guarding holes when workers pass
materials through the holes. The final rule generally is consistent
with A1264.1-2007 (Section 3.5) and A10.18-2012 (Section 7.1). OSHA
notes the A1264.1 standard allows employers to use an attendant if a
hole is uncovered and guardrails are removed. However, OSHA believes
that requiring guardrails on all sides of the hole is more protective
than using an attendant.
    The final rule allows employers to remove guardrail sections on no
more than two sides of a hole when materials are being passed through
the hole (paragraph (b)(12)(i)). In other words, the final rule does
not allow the other guardrail sections to be removed during the time
materials are moving through the hole to protect other workers who may
be in the area. Final paragraph (b)(12)(ii) also protects workers by
requiring guardrails on all unprotected sides of the hole or covering
it when workers are not passing materials through the hole. OSHA did
not receive any comments on the proposed provision and finalizes it as
discussed.
    Final paragraph (b)(13), similar to the proposed rule and
construction fall protection standard (Sec.  1926.502(b)(13)), requires
that employers using guardrail systems around holes that are points of
access, such as ladderway openings, protect workers from walking or
falling into the hole by installing gates at the opening in the
guardrail system (final paragraph (b)(13)(i)), or offsetting the
opening from the hole so workers cannot walk or fall into the hole
(final paragraph (b)(13)(ii)). The final rule also revises the proposed
criteria for such gates by specifying that they:
     Must be self-closing;
     Must either slide or swing away from the hole; and
     Be equipped with top rails and midrails or equivalent
intermediate members that meet the requirements in final paragraph (b)
(final paragraph (b)(13)(i)).
    The final provision is consistent with A1264.1-2007 (Section 3.2
and E3.2). The ANSI/ASSE standard requires that ladderway floor
openings be guarded to prevent workers from falling into the hole and
explicitly notes self-closing gates that swing away from the ladderway
hole and offsets are two methods of guarding those openings.
    OSHA revised the proposed criteria for guardrail opening gates for
two reasons. First, the revisions make final paragraph (b)(13)
consistent with final Sec.  1910.28. As discussed, final Sec.
1910.28(b)(3)(iv) replaced ``swinging gate'' with ``self-closing gate''
to give employers flexibility to use sliding gates at guardrail access
openings. OSHA believes sliding gates that are self-closing are as
effective as swinging gates that self-close and are readily available
and in use today.
    Second, the revisions in the final rule respond to stakeholder
questions and recommendations urging OSHA to identify more clearly the
criteria for access opening gates must meet (Exs. 68; 254; 366). For
example, Eric Bredl, with Intrepid Industries Inc., a safety gate
manufacturer, said the final rule needs to clarify and define ``safety
gate (swinging gate)'' used at openings in guardrail systems used
around points of access holes (e.g., ladderways):

    There have been many interpretations as to what constitutes a
safety gate. It is not well defined, nor has it been well defined
for several years (Ex. 68).

    Mr. Bredl also requested that OSHA clarify whether gates used at
guardrail openings must be equipped with midrails:

    [T]he OSHA wording of this proposal does not clarify that the
space to be protected must conform to the guardrail. Does OSHA want
to allow a single member (chain or single bar) or two bars that are
less than 19'' apart as adequate protection for ladderway openings?
(Ex. 366).

    Similarly, Mercer ORC said OSHA needs to define the ``specific type
of gate'' it intends to require for gates used for guardrail openings
near points of access holes, and answer the following questions about
midrails:

    Must a ``swinging gate'' have both a top rail and midrail, like
a standard railing? Or is a gate with only a top rail adequate to
prevent an employee from walking ``directly into the hole''? The
existing rule is silent on the issue, but OSHA implied in the 1990
proposal and,

in subsequent discussions and letters of interpretation, has stated
that a two-rail configuration is required (Ex. 254).

    Mercer ORC opposed requiring that guardrail opening gates be
equipped with midrails, saying that several companies and a safety gate
manufacturer indicated that OSHA's ``interpretation has not been
accepted by a large number of employers'' (Ex. 254).
    Although Mr. Bredl acknowledged that when OSHA first issued the
1990 proposed rule, which would have required that guardrail opening
gates comply with guardrail requirements (i.e., have tops rails and
midrails), ``this was `foreign' to industry'' (Ex. 366). However, he
added that ``[s]ince then, a majority of protection devices have both a
top rail and a midrail similar to that of the guardrail'' (Ex. 366).
    The purpose of guardrail opening gates used around holes that serve
as points of access (e.g., ladderways) is, when open, to provide a
means of access to holes, and, when closed, to provide guardrail
protection that meets of the guardrail criteria in final paragraph (b).
Accordingly, final paragraph (b) requires, among other things, that
guardrails have both top rails and midrails or equivalent intermediate
members, such as screens, solid panels, or intermediate vertical
members, to ensure that closed access gates provide adequate guardrail
protection.
    OSHA believes that employers should not experience difficulty
complying with the final rule. If an existing gate does not have a
midrail or equivalent intermediate member, OSHA believes it is feasible
for employers to add one. Therefore, OSHA adopts final paragraph
(b)(13) with the revisions and clarification discussed above.
    Final paragraph (b)(14), which is almost identical to the proposal,
and the construction fall protection standard in Sec.  1926.502(b)(14),
requires that employers ensure guardrail systems on ramps and runways
are installed along each unprotected side or edge. The existing rule in
Sec.  1910.23(c)(2) and A1264.1-2007 (Section 5.2) contain similar
requirements for runways, but do not specifically address guarding
ramps. OSHA believes it is appropriate to apply this provision to ramps
as well as runways because both walking-working surfaces can have open
sides. In addition, like runways, ramps can have open sides that are
four feet or more above a lower level, which presents a fall hazard to
workers. OSHA did not receive any comments on the proposal and adopts
it as discussed above.
    Final paragraph (b)(15), similar to the proposed rule, requires
that employers ensure manila and synthetic rope \68\ used for top rails
or midrails of guardrail systems are inspected as frequently as
necessary to ensure that the rope continues to meet the strength
requirements in final paragraphs (b)(3) (top rails) and (b)(5)
(midrails) of this section. OSHA believes inspecting manila and
synthetic rope is important to ensure that it remains in serviceable
condition, and that workers are not at risk of harm due to damage or
deterioration. OSHA drew this requirement from the Agency's
construction fall protection standard in Sec.  1926.502(b)(15). The
existing rule does not include a similar provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ Synthetic rope includes plastic rope, therefore, OSHA does
not carry forward in the final rule the term ``plastic.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA received two comments on the proposed provision. The National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommended that
OSHA incorporate in final paragraph (b)(15) the strength requirements
for midrails (final paragraph (b)(5)) in addition to the strength
requirements for top rails (final paragraph (b)(3)) (Ex. 164). OSHA
agrees and incorporates the midrail strength requirements in final
paragraph (b)(15).
    Peter Catlos opposed allowing employers to use manila, plastic, or
synthetic rope for top rails and midrails. He pointed out, ``Based on
the mechanical characteristics of these materials, such as high
elongation and high elastic recovery, guardrails could be constructed
that meet the requirements of the Sec.  1910.29(b) as written, yet
offer no practical restraint whatsoever, thereby creating an unsafe
condition'' (Ex. 203). OSHA believes that requiring employers to
inspect ropes ``as necessary'' helps to ensure that the top rails and
midrails made of such rope will continue to comply with the strength
requirements in final Sec.  1910.29(b)(3) and (5).
    Final paragraph (b) includes an informational note that OSHA
proposed as paragraph (b)(16). The note reminds employers that criteria
and practice requirements for guardrail systems on scaffolds used in
general industry are in the construction scaffold standards (29 CFR
part 1926, subpart L, Scaffolds). This provision is a companion to
final Sec.  1910.28(b)(12)(i), which requires that employers protect
employees working on scaffolds in accordance with the construction
scaffold standards. These companion provisions ensure that employers
who use scaffolds to perform both general industry and construction
activities will have one consistent set of requirements to follow. OSHA
believes this approach will increase understanding of, and promote
compliance with, the final rule, a conclusion Ameren supported because
it would promote consistent application for employers who use scaffolds
to perform both general industry and construction activities (Ex. 189).
OSHA did not receive any comments opposing the proposed provision and
adopts the note as discussed.
    Ellis recommended OSHA include additional guardrail criteria in the
final rule (Ex. 155). He recommended prohibiting guardrails from being
used as personal fall protection anchorages unless approved and marked
by a registered structural engineer, and that horizontal rails in wood
guardrails be attached on the inside of the posts so the nails are not
pushed out in a fall.
    With regard to using guardrails as personal fall protection
anchorages, final Sec.  1910.140 requires that anchorages be capable of
supporting 5,000 pounds. Therefore, unless the guardrail is designed to
meet all the requirements for anchorages in final Sec.  1910.140, they
already are prohibited from such use.
    Although OSHA agrees with Ellis on the placement of wood rails, the
Agency does not believe it is necessary to regulate guardrail systems
to this detail. Employers are responsible for ensuring that guardrail
systems are erected to meet the strength requirements specified in the
final rule.
Paragraph (c)--Safety Net Systems
    Final paragraph (c), like the proposed rule, requires that general
industry employers ensure all safety net systems they use meet the
criteria and practice requirements in 29 CFR part 1926, subpart M, Fall
protection. Neither the existing subpart D nor other provisions in 29
CFR part 1910 address safety net systems.
    Final Sec.  1910.28 allows employers to use safety net systems to
protect workers on several types of elevated walking-working surfaces,
including unprotected sides and edges, wall openings, and low-slope
roofs. To ensure that the requirements for safety net systems used in
general industry are consistent with, and are as protective as, the
construction requirements, OSHA requires employers working in general
industry to follow the construction criteria and practice requirements
for safety net systems. Incorporating by reference the construction
safety net system requirements also eliminates unnecessary repetition
of the construction requirements.

    OSHA received two comments on this requirement, both of which
supported making the general industry requirements for safety net
system criteria and practices as protective as those in the
construction fall protection standard in Sec.  1926.502(c) (Exs. 155;
226). The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
(AFSCME) said the requirements for safety net systems used in general
industry should be ``no less'' protective than the provisions in the
construction standard (Ex. 226). In the same comment, AFSCME raised an
issue about the difference in testing requirements for safety net
systems and personal fall arrest systems and anchorages, saying the
400-pound drop-test requirement for safety net systems is ``stricter''
than the requirement for personal fall arrest systems and anchorages
(Ex. 226). OSHA notes the 400-pound drop-test requirement is consistent
with the construction fall protection standard in Sec.
1926.502(c)(4)(i).
    OSHA agrees with the commenters that the safety net system
requirements in the final rule should be as protective as the
requirements in the construction fall protection standard. In addition,
OSHA believes that making the general industry and construction
requirements consistent will make the rule easier to understand and
follow for those employers who perform both general industry and
construction operations.
    In the proposal, OSHA also requested comment about whether the
final rule should require that employers meet the requirements for
safety net systems in the construction fall protection standard or list
the specific construction safety net system requirements in the final
rule (75 FR 28895). Ellis supported incorporating the construction
standard by reference (Ex. 155). AFSCME, however, recommended that OSHA
include the specific safety net system criteria and practice
requirements in final Sec.  1910.29(c), stating, ``Referencing the
construction standard, CFR Sec.  1926.502(c), may not be helpful to
employers who normally do not use the construction standards; therefore
information on the requirements and testing of the safety net systems
should be covered in the General Industry Standard'' (Ex. 226).
    After reviewing the record, OSHA decided to incorporate by
reference into this final rule the safety net system requirements in
the construction fall protection standard. OSHA notes that the final
rule also incorporates by reference the construction scaffold
requirements. OSHA does not agree with AFSCME that general industry
employers who do not use construction standards will have a difficult
time obtaining them. OSHA's construction standards are readily
available online at www.osha.gov, along with other guidance materials,
which will facilitate obtaining, and complying with, the construction
safety net provisions. In addition, OSHA believes that having a single
set of safety net system requirements to follow should make compliance
easier for employers who perform both general industry and construction
activities.
    Ellis raised another issue about safety nets. He recommended that
the final rule allow the use of ``platform nets'' in general industry,
provided those nets also complied with the requirements in the
construction standard in Sec.  1926.502(c). He observed, ``[Platform
nets] are not only for catching falling workers they are also for
working from if the mesh or fabric is tight enough to prevent the foot
from going through. These nets . . . are finding considerable use
around the world for construction and maintenance work and provide both
access and a walking-working surface'' (Ex. 155).
    The final rule does not prohibit the use of platform nets. However,
if employers also use platform nets for fall protection, the nets must
meet the criteria and practice requirements in the construction fall
protection standard.
Paragraph (d)--Designated Areas
    Final paragraph (d), like the proposed rule, establishes criteria
and practices for ``designated areas,'' which the final rule in Sec.
1910.21(b) defines as ``a distinct portion of a walking-working surface
delineated by a warning line in which employees may perform work
without additional fall protection.'' Designated areas are non-
conventional controls for addressing fall hazards.
    As mentioned earlier in this preamble, final Sec.  1910.28(b)(13)
limits the use of designated areas to one situation: Work on low-slope
roofs. The final rule in Sec.  1910.21(b) defines ``low-slope roof'' as
``a roof that has a slope less than or equal to a ratio of 4 in 12
(vertical to horizontal).'' Final Sec.  1910.28(b)(13) limits the use
of designated areas to work on low-slope roofs performed at least six
(6) feet from the roof edge and requires that employers use
conventional controls (e.g., guardrail systems, safety net systems,
personal fall arrest systems) if workers are less than six (6) feet
from the roof edge. In the area that is 6 feet to less than 15 feet
from the edge, employers may use designated areas when their employees
perform work that is both temporary and infrequent. Where employers
perform work that is 15 feet or more from the edge, they also can use a
designated area for any work (i.e., without regard to frequency or
duration of the work). In addition, the final rule does not require
that employers provide any fall protection or use a designated area
when employees perform work that is both temporary and infrequent and
the work is 15 feet or more from the roof edge.
    Proposed Sec.  1910.28(b)(1), (7), and (13) allowed general
industry employers to use designated areas in additional situations: On
unprotected sides and edges of walking-working surfaces, at wall
openings, and on walking-working surfaces the final rule does not
specifically address. However, as discussed in the preamble to Sec.
1910.28, OSHA believes that employers must use designated areas, like
warning line systems in the construction fall protection standard, only
in ``a few, very specific situations'' (see, e.g., letter to Mr. Keith
Harkins (11/15/2002) \69\). Allowing the use of designated areas only
on low-slope roofs makes the final rule consistent with limited use
specified by the construction standard for non-conventional controls.
(See further the discussion of designated areas in the preamble to
final Sec.  1910.28(b).)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ Letter to Mr. Keith Harkins available on OSHA's Web site
at: https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24552.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Final paragraph (d)(1) establishes general criteria and practice
requirements for the use of designated areas on low-slope roofs. Final
paragraph (d)(1) revises the proposed requirements by deleting, as
unnecessary, the language in proposed paragraph (d)(1)(iii) requiring
employers use designated areas only on ``surfaces that have a slope
from horizontal of 10 degree or less,'' since that is now contained in
the definition of a low-slope roof.
    Final paragraph (d)(1)(i), like the proposed rule, requires that
employers ensure workers remain within the designated area during work
operations. Going outside of the designated area will increase the risk
of a worker falling off the roof edge. If workers must go outside the
designated area, they must be protected by conventional fall protection
systems. OSHA did not receive any comments on the proposed requirement
and finalizes it as discussed.
    Final paragraph (d)(1)(ii), similar to the proposed rule, requires
that employers delineate the perimeter of designated areas with a
warning line.

The final rule in Sec.  1910.21(b) defines ``warning line'' as ``a
barrier erected to warn employees that they are approaching an
unprotected side or edge, and which designates an area in which work
may take place without the use of other means of fall protection.''
    Final paragraph (d)(1)(ii) also specifies warning lines may consist
of ropes, wires, tape, or chains that employers ensure meet the
requirements of final paragraphs (d)(2) and (3). Final paragraphs
(d)(2) and (3) contain specific requirements for warning lines, for
example, they must be installed so the lowest point of the line,
including sag, is not less than 34 inches (86 cm) and not more than 39
inches (99 cm) above the walking-working surface (final paragraph
(d)(2)(i)).
    The final rule generally is consistent with the requirements for
warning line systems in the construction fall protection standard in
Sec.  1926.502(f)(1).
    Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding (NGS) recommended that OSHA give
employers more flexibility to demarcate designated areas by using
materials other than ropes, wires, tape, chains, and supporting
devices, stating:

    [W]e recommend that a contrasting color marking on the floor or
roof surface be another acceptable means of delineating the
designated area. Note that this is similar to the options provided
in proposed 1910.28(b)(8) for pits. Colored markings are the best
means to permanently mark pathways and work areas for maintenance of
rooftop equipment, thus eliminating the hazards associated with
getting stanchions and rope or chain to the job site. Stanchions
typically cannot be permanently attached to rooftops because they
will damage the roof surface and they cannot be left in place
because they pose a projectile hazard in the event of high winds
(Ex. 180).

    OSHA agrees that using warning line materials made of contrasting
colors, such as brightly-colored ropes or tape makes the line ``clearly
visible,'' which final paragraph (d)(2)(iv) requires. However, OSHA
believes that painting the surface of the roof instead of attaching
warning line materials to supporting devices does not provide a clearly
visible perimeter throughout the designated area as required by final
paragraph (d)(2)(iv). To be clearly visible, OSHA believes materials
used to demarcate a designated area need to be high enough above the
walking-working surface to be visible from a distance at least 25 feet
away, as well as anywhere within the designated area, and not obscured
by materials, tools, and equipment that may be in the designated area.
    NGS also pointed out that the proposed rule would allow employers
to apply floor markings, instead of erecting warning lines, to
demarcate vehicle repair, services, and assembly pits (see proposed and
final Sec.  1910.28(b)(8)(ii)). OSHA does not consider the working
conditions on low-slope roofs to be similar enough to the working
conditions at vehicle repair, service, and assembly pits to permit the
use of floor markings. OSHA allows employers to apply floor markings to
delineate vehicle repair, service, and assembly pits that are less than
10 feet deep because the pits often are so close together that using
warning lines would impede movement of vehicles and equipment around
and over the pits, which is not true for work on low-slope roofs.
    Final paragraph (d)(2) establishes criteria and practice
requirements for warning lines. As part of these requirements, final
paragraph (d)(2)(i) specifies that employers ensure warning lines have
a minimum breaking strength of 200 pounds. The proposed rule in
paragraph (d)(2)(ii) would have required that employers ensure the
warning line has a 500-pound minimum breaking or tensile strength and,
after being attached to the stanchions, is capable of supporting the
loads applied to the stanchions as prescribed in proposed paragraph
(d)(2)(i). Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(i) also would have required that
stanchions be capable of resisting, without tipping over, a force of at
least 16 pounds applied horizontally against the stanchion. The force
would have been required to be applied 30 inches above the work
surface. OSHA drew the proposed requirement from the construction
warning line system requirements for roof work performed on low-slope
roofs (see Sec.  1926.502(f)(2)(iv)). OSHA explained in the proposal
that the requirement would ensure the warning line is ``durable and
capable of functioning as intended, regardless of how far apart the
stanchions are placed'' (75 FR 28896). In addition, OSHA said the
proposed strength requirement would ensure that employers use
substantial materials for warning lines, such as chains, ropes, or
heavy cord. OSHA also requested comment on the appropriateness of
requiring warning lines to have a tensile strength of 500 pounds
(similar to construction warning line system requirements), which
``assures the line is made of material more substantial than string''
(75 FR 28896).
    Several stakeholders indicated carrying stanchions that meet the
proposed strength requirement would be infeasible or create a greater
hazard for workers (Exs. 165; 171; 296). For example, the National
Chimney Sweep Guild (NCSG) said, ``The technician would be exposed to a
greater fall hazard while transporting numerous stanchions weighing
over 50 pounds to the roof.'' Later, NCSG stated, ``Stanchions would
not meet the specified stability criterion unless they were either
weighted to the point where they create an unacceptable fall hazard or
attached to the roof'' (Ex. 296). The Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning
Contractors' National Association (SMACNA) agreed, stating, ``The
placement of a designated area by the construction of a barrier system
(rope, wire or chain supported by stanchions meeting specific design
criteria) would create more safety hazards due to the transporting of
barrier materials up to the roof'' (Ex. 165). Verallia recommended that
OSHA also reconsider the companion requirement in proposed paragraph
(d)(2)(i) addressing the stability of stanchions, noting:

    With respect to the specified size of the stanchions, 16 pounds
resistance may be insufficient in some cases, while . . . completely
unnecessary in others. The further the area is from the unprotected
edge, the less is required to adequately protect (or warn) the
affected employees.
    The size and form of stanchions (or comparable barriers) should
be left to the discretion of the employer, as long as they are
effective in putting the employee on notice that a fall hazard may
exist. . . . Moreover, there is an additional concern that the use
and handling of 16-pound resistant stanchions could itself present
an independent hazard and/or cause damage to roofs or working
surfaces (Ex. 171).

After analyzing the entire rulemaking record on designated areas, OSHA
has determined that the proposed 500-pound breaking strength
requirement is not necessary to warn workers they are approaching a
fall hazard on a low-slope roof. Therefore, in the final rule OSHA
replaces the proposed requirement with a 200-pound minimum breaking
strength requirement, which is consistent with the requirement for
control lines in controlled access zones in the construction fall
protection standard in Sec.  1926.502(g)(3)(iii). OSHA believes that
the strength requirement in the final rule, combined with the other
requirements in final paragraph (d)(2), will ensure that the
delineation of designated areas is sturdy and provides adequate warning
to workers.
    In addition, in response to these commenters, the final rule also
deletes the stanchion stability requirement specified by proposed
paragraph (d)(2)(i), which would have required that employers ensure
stanchions are ``capable of resisting, without tipping over, a force of
at least 16 pounds (71

N) applied horizontally against the stanchion,'' The Agency drew
proposed paragraph (d)(2)(i) from the construction warning line system
requirements in Sec.  1926.502(f)(2)(iii). OSHA believes this deletion
will give employers greater flexibility in selecting supporting devices
to delineate designated areas. OSHA will consider employers who erect
designated area warning lines that meet the requirements of proposed
paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and (d)(2)(ii) (i.e., using stanchions that meet
the 16-pound force resistance) to be in compliance with the final rule;
however, OSHA notes the final rule does not require that stanchions
meet those requirements.
    Final paragraph (d)(2)(ii), like proposed paragraph (d)(2)(iv),
requires that employers install warning lines so the lowest point,
including any sag, is not less than 34 inches or more than 39 inches
above the walking-working surface. The final rule is consistent with
the warning line system requirement in the construction fall protection
standard in Sec.  1926.502(f)(2)(ii).
    NGS recommended that the final rule permit employers to use
contrasting color marking on the floor or roof instead of erecting
warning lines at 34 to 39 inches above the walking-working surface (Ex.
180). As discussed above, the final rule does not include NGS'
recommendation. OSHA believes the warning line height specified in the
final rule is necessary to adequately warn workers that they are
approaching the boundary of a designated area. At a height of between
34 to 39 inches, warning lines will be more visible than if employers
paint them on the surface of the roof. Moreover, at the height the
final rule requires, warning lines will be visible even if equipment,
tools, or objects are near the warning line.
    OSHA also rejects NGS's recommendation because painting warning
lines on surfaces makes them permanent, thus suggesting that employers
may use designated areas for any operation regularly or routinely
performed on a low-slope roof, rather than performing work in these
areas that is both temporary and infrequent. As discussed earlier in
this preamble, employers must provide conventional fall protection for
routine, regular, or frequent work performed within 15 feet of the edge
of low-slope roofs.
    Final paragraph (d)(2)(iii) requires that employers ensure warning
lines are supported in such a manner that pulling on one section of the
line will not result in slack being taken up in any adjacent sections
causing the line to fall below the limit of 34 inches at any point, as
specified in (d)(2)(ii). Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(iii) and the
construction fall protection standard in Sec.  1926.502(f)(2)(v)
require that taking up slack in adjacent sections of a warning line
must not cause the supporting devices to tip over. The final rule
revises the proposed provision for two reasons. First, the revised
language ensures that the warning line will be visible at all times
because it will remain at the height specified in final paragraph
(d)(2)(ii). Second, the revisions ensure employers remain in compliance
with final paragraph (d)(2)(ii). OSHA did not receive any comments on
the proposal and adopts the requirement with the revisions discussed
above.
    Final paragraph (d)(2)(iv) requires that employers ensure warning
lines are clearly visible from a distance of 25 feet away and anywhere
within the designated area. The final rule clarifies proposed paragraph
(d)(2)(v) by recasting the provision in plain language that is easier
to understand than the proposed paragraph.
    The proposed rule would have required that employers ensure the
warning line is clearly visible from any unobstructed location within
the designated area up to 25 feet away, or at the maximum distance a
worker may be positioned away from the warning line, whichever is less.
The final rule states more clearly than the proposed provision that
employers must erect warning lines that are clearly visible within the
designated area, regardless of where the employee is working in that
area. That is, the warning line must be clearly visible when the worker
is approaching the line. Whether the designated area is large or small,
the final rule also requires that the warning line be visible at least
25 feet away. For large designated areas, requiring that warnings lines
be visible at least 25 feet away ensures that workers have adequate
warning when approaching fall hazards. Such warning is particularly
necessary when workers use mobile mechanical equipment that can cover
distances quickly. If workers cannot clearly see warning lines until
the mobile equipment they are operating is near the boundary of the
designated area, they may not be able to stop in time to prevent going
past the boundary or over the edge of the roof. For designated areas
that are small and close to the roof edge (e.g., 6 feet from the edge),
the 25-foot minimum visibility range adequately prepares workers for
approaching the hazard zone.
    As the proposal noted, there is a possibility that a portion of the
warning line could be obstructed. This remains true in the final rule.
As long as the boundaries of the designated area are clearly visible
within 25 feet and anywhere within the area, obstructions of some
portion of the line are permissible.
    The construction fall protection standard in Sec.
1926.502(f)(2)(i) and (g)(3)(i) requires employers to flag warning