general industry and construction work.
Paragraph (c)--Safety Net Systems
    Proposed paragraph (c) requires safety net systems used in general
industry to meet the criteria and use requirements for safety net
systems already promulgated for the construction industry at Sec.
1926.502(c). There are no requirements in existing subpart D or
elsewhere in part 1910 (the general industry standards) that address
safety net systems. OSHA believes, however, that there are situations,
especially in maintenance work, where, due to the unsuitability of
guardrail systems or personal fall protection systems, the use of a
safety net system is an appropriate means of employee protection. OSHA
believes that safety net systems used in general industry should be
subject to the same requirements already promulgated for the
construction industry. Those requirements were based on the national
consensus standard for safety nets (i.e., ANSI A10.11-1989). Rather
than repeating all of those requirements here, OSHA proposes to simply
require that where safety net systems are used, they meet the
requirement of Sec.  1926.502(c). A complete discussion of each of the
requirements and an explanation of their meaning can be found in the
preamble to the construction fall protection rule of August 9, 1994, at
59 FR 40699 to 40702.
    OSHA requests comment on whether requiring compliance with the
construction rule is appropriate or whether OSHA should repeat each of
those requirements in the general industry standard. OSHA believes
safety net systems will not be used in general industry as often as
other fall protection systems and, therefore, it would not be an
inconvenience to require employers to follow the construction industry
rules in part 1926 without repeating them here. This is the same
approach OSHA is proposing for scaffolds used in general industry; see
the discussion at Sec.  1910.27 above. OSHA notes that the requirements
for safety net systems codified in part 1926 are essentially the same
as those prescribed in the most current version of ANSI A10.11-1989
(R1998), American National Standard for Construction and Demolition
Operations--Personal and Debris Nets.
Paragraph (d)--Designated Areas
    OSHA is proposing new requirements in paragraph (d) regarding the
use of ``designated areas.'' OSHA is proposing to allow the use of
designated areas, in some instances, as an alternative to providing
conventional fall protection. A designated area, defined in proposed
Sec.  1910.21, is a section of a walking-working surface around which a
perimeter line has been erected so that employees within the area are
warned, when they see or contact the line, that they are approaching a
fall hazard. As required by proposed Sec.  1910.30(a)(2)(iii),
employees working in designated areas must be trained in how to work
safely inside those area.
    Designated areas may only be used for temporary, relatively
infrequent work; for instance, when employees are sent to the center of
the roof of a structure to perform maintenance on machinery, such as
air conditioning equipment. The Agency anticipates that setting up and
maintaining a warning line system, as specified in this proposed
paragraph, around a designated area will ensure that affected employees
can perform their work free from fall hazards. The construction
industry standard, Sec.  1926.501(b)(10), provides for use of a warning
line system (in conjunction with other protection) when employees are
performing roofing work on low-sloped roofs, and Sec. Sec.
1926.501(b)(9) and 1926.502(k), permit the use of ``controlled access
zones'' in other situations. To ensure OSHA standards regulate
comparable work situations consistently, the Agency is basing

proposed paragraph (d) on the construction industry standards for
warning line systems. The Agency requests comments and supporting
rational on the appropriateness of using the construction industry
requirements for controlled access zones (found at Sec.  1926.502(g))
in lieu of its use of the construction industry requirements for
warning lines. Among other differences, warning line systems require
the line between stanchions to have a 500-pound tensile strength,
whereas the controlled access zone only requires a 200-pound tensile
strength.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(1) sets conditions for the use of designated
areas, requiring that employers ensure that employees remain in the
designated area during work operations, that the work be of a temporary
nature, that the slope of the surface be 10 degrees or less from the
horizontal, and that the designated area be surrounded by a rope, wire,
or chain supported by stanchions meeting the criteria in proposed
paragraphs (d)(2) through (d)(4). The 10 degree slope limitation
reflects OSHA's belief that the designated area approach is only
appropriate for surfaces that have a slight slope (pitch) or
unevenness. In particular, OSHA is concerned that a warning line system
would not work on a surface that has a slope of more than 10 degrees
because visibility and the employee's ability to stop when the warning
line is contacted could not be ensured.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(2), which is consistent with Sec. Sec.
1926.502(f)(2) and 1926.502(g)(3), provides criteria for the materials
used to establish designated areas. Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(i)
requires that stanchions with rope, wire, or chain attached be capable
of resisting, without tipping over, a force of at least 16 pounds (71
N) applied horizontally against the stanchion at a height of 30 inches
(76 cm) above the working surface, perpendicular to the designated area
line, and in the direction of the exposed edge. OSHA believes that the
ability to resist a force of 16 pounds (71 N) ensures that an employee
is adequately warned that the edge of the designated area has been
reached.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(ii) requires that the rope, wire, or
chain used to demarcate designated areas have a minimum breaking or
tensile strength of 500 pounds (2.2 kN). In addition, after being
attached to the stanchions, the line must support, without breaking,
the 16 pound (71 N) force applied to the stanchion. This performance
requirement assures that the line is durable and capable of functioning
as intended, regardless of how far apart the stanchions are placed. In
addition, the minimum tensile strength of 500 pounds (2.2 kN) assures
that the line is made of material more substantial than string, such as
wire, chain, rope, or heavy cord. OSHA believes that this minimum
tensile strength is not an unreasonable burden on employers; however,
comments are requested on the appropriateness of this requirement.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(iii) requires that the line be attached
at each stanchion in such a way that pulling on one section of the line
between stanchions will not result in slack being taken up in adjacent
sections before a stanchion tips over. To maximize the warning
capabilities of the line demarcating the designated area, the proposal
limits the amount of potential slack in the system. Slack in the line
decreases its warning properties.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(iv), which is also consistent with
Sec. Sec.  1926.502(f)(2) and 1926.502(g)(3), requires that the height
of the designated area line be no less than 34 inches (86 cm) nor more
than 39 inches (99 cm) from the work surface. This height is low enough
to warn a short employee while the worker is stooped over, and at the
same time, it is high enough not to be a tripping hazard for taller
workers.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(v) requires the perimeter of the
designated area to be readily visible from a distance up to 25 feet
(7.6 m) away, or at the maximum distance a worker may be positioned
away from the line, whichever is less. This criterion is provided so
that the lines will be readily apparent and can effectively warn
employees to stay away from fall hazards. OSHA does not believe that
flagging, as required in Sec. Sec.  1926.502(f)(2)(i) and
1926.502(g)(3)(i), is necessary for a designated area. In general
industry, work is usually performed at a fixed location, while in
construction there is a greater need for aids to visibility (such as
flagging) because the work location, including the fall hazard, shifts
from one part of the roof to another.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(3) sets forth how the designated area is to
be established. Proposed paragraph (d)(3)(i) requires that stanchions
be erected as close around the work area as permitted by the work task.
This criterion is included to make the stanchions as obvious as
possible without interfering with the work.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(3)(ii), which is consistent with Sec. Sec.
1926.502(f)(1)(i) and 1926.502(g)(1), requires that the perimeter of
the designated area be erected at least 6 feet (1.8 m) from the exposed
edge of the fall hazard. OSHA believes that the 6-foot (1.8 m) distance
is sufficient to allow an employee to stop moving toward the fall
hazard after realizing that the perimeter line has been contacted. This
distance would also provide an adequate safety zone should an employee
trip and fall at the edge of the designated area.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(3)(iii), which is consistent with Sec.
1926.502(f)(1)(ii), requires that when mobile mechanical equipment is
being used, the line be erected not less than 6 feet (1.8 m) from the
unprotected side or edge which is parallel to the direction of
mechanical equipment operation, and not less than 10 feet (3 m) from
the unprotected side or edge perpendicular to the direction of
mechanical equipment operation. The proposed criterion provides
additional distance for the employee to stop moving towards the hazard,
taking into account the extra momentum of the equipment being used.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(4) requires that access to the designated
area be made by a clear path formed by two warning lines attached to
stanchions that meet the strength, height, and visibility requirements
of proposed (d)(2) above. This proposed provision was adopted from the
requirements in the construction industry standard at Sec.
1926.502(f)(1)(iii). That standard requires access paths when warning
line systems are used during roofing work performed on low sloped
roofs. As discussed earlier, the concept of ``designated areas'' is
based on the construction industry requirements for warning line
systems and controlled access zones. OSHA requests comment on whether
an access path is reasonably necessary to protect employees in general
industry as they travel to and from designated areas. Specifically,
should OSHA remove, keep, or alter this provision in the final rule?
Paragraph (e)--Covers
    Proposed paragraph (e) sets requirements for covers used to protect
employees from falling into holes in floors, roofs, roadways, and other
walking-working surfaces. Except for proposed (e)(4), the proposed
requirements are a consolidation and revision of existing requirements
related to covers found in Sec. Sec.  1910.23(a)(7), (8), and (9) and
1910.23(e)(7) and (8). They are consistent with the requirements for
covers found in the construction industry standards at Sec.
1926.502(i). The proposed requirements are written in performance
language and replace the specification language of the existing
standard.
    Proposed paragraph (e)(1) requires that covers located in roadways
and vehicular aisles be capable of

supporting, without failure, at least twice the maximum axle load of
the largest vehicle expected to cross over the cover. The proposed
requirement is a revision of the existing requirements in Sec.
1910.23(e)(7)(i) and (e)(7)(ii) and has been rewritten in favor of the
performance-oriented approach used in the construction industry
standard at Sec.  1926.502(i)(1).
    Proposed paragraph (e)(2) requires that all other covers must be
capable of supporting at least twice the weight of employees,
equipment, and materials that may be imposed on the cover at any one
time. OSHA believes that compliance with the proposed paragraph would
adequately protect employees who traverse covers. The provision is
identical to the construction industry requirement at Sec.
1926.502(i)(2). The Agency requests comment on whether the distinction
made between (e)(1) and (e)(2) is useful, or if proposed paragraph
(e)(1) should be removed because of the apparent redundancy between it
and paragraph (e)(2).
    Proposed paragraph (e)(3) requires that covers be secured when
installed so as to prevent accidental displacement, e.g., by wind,
equipment, or employees. This provision clarifies the requirement in
existing Sec.  1910.23(a)(9) that floor opening covers be held firmly
in place and ensure that employers anticipate and take precautions
against all possible causes of cover displacement. The proposed
requirement is nearly identical to the construction industry standard
at Sec.  1926.502(i)(3).
    Proposed paragraph (e)(4) requires that covers be color-coded or
marked with the word ``HOLE'' or ``COVER'' to provide warning of the
hazard. An exception to proposed paragraph (e)(4) states that the
provision does not apply to cast iron manhole covers or steel grates
such as those used on streets or roadways. This is a new requirement
based on the construction industry standard at Sec.  1926.502(i)(4).
OSHA is proposing to add the requirement to the general industry
standard for the same reason it was added to the construction industry
standard. Many commenters to the construction industry standard noted
that covers should be color-coded or marked because alerting employees
that the cover is over a hole could prevent them from accidentally
walking into the hole. OSHA requests comment on the need to include
proposed (e)(4) in the final rule, and also for information on the
extent to which employers are already marking or color-coding covers.
Paragraph (f)--Handrail and Stair Rail Systems
    Proposed paragraph (f) would set requirements for handrail and
stair rail systems to protect employees from falling. Proposed
paragraph (f)(1) establishes height requirements for handrails and
stair rail systems. Proposed paragraph (f)(1)(i) requires that the
height of handrails be between 30 inches (76 cm) and 37 inches (94 cm),
from the top of the handrail to the surface of the tread in line with
the face of the riser at the forward edge of the tread. Existing Sec.
1910.23(e)(5)(ii) requires that handrails be between 30 and 34 inches
(76 and 86 cm) in height. The proposed requirement is consistent with
the construction industry standard at Sec.  1926.1052(c)(6). OSHA
intends that the proposed change will not require any change to
handrails that meet the existing standard.
    Proposed paragraph (f)(1)(ii) is a revision of existing Sec.
1910.23(e)(2) and requires the height of stair rails installed 90 days
after the effective date of the final rule to be not less than 36
inches (91 cm). The existing standard sets a limit between 30 (76 cm)
and 34 inches (86 cm), and the proposed rule would continue to allow
stair rails installed before the new requirement takes effect to be at
least 30 inches (76 cm) from the upper surface of the tread. The
proposed paragraph raises the minimum height of new stair rails 6
inches (15 cm) and removes the existing maximum height requirement. The
proposed requirement is consistent with the construction industry
requirement at Sec.  1926.1052(c)(3). Like the construction rule, it is
based on a recommendation in a study conducted by the University of
Michigan (OSHA-S041-2006-0666-0004). As discussed in the preamble to
the construction industry final rule (55 FR 47668), that study showed
that the minimum height for stair railings should be 42 inches (107 cm)
and suggests that even 42 inches may be too low. Additionally, the
applicable national consensus standard, ANSI A1264.1-2007, prescribes
that the minimum height of stair rails be 34 inches (86 cm) and the
upper height at 42 inches (107 cm). OSHA believes that setting the
minimum height at 36 inches (91 cm) will afford a reasonable level of
safety to employees. However, OSHA requests comment on whether it
should raise the minimum height to 42 inches (107 cm) to be within the
recommended range of the University of Michigan study.
    OSHA also requests comment on whether it should set a maximum
height for stair rail systems. OSHA is proposing to delete the current
upper height limit of 34 inches (86 cm) because an upper height limit
serves no purpose. The purpose of the stair rail system is to prevent
employees from falling over the edge of open-sided stairways.
Eliminating the upper limit would allow employers flexibility to
install safer systems.
    Proposed paragraph (f)(1)(iii) is a new provision which permits a
stair rail to serve as a handrail when the height of the top edge is
not more than 37 inches (94 cm) nor less than 36 inches (91 cm) when
measured at the forward edge of the tread surface. OSHA believes a
single system may perform the function of both a stair rail and
handrail provided the rail is at the appropriate height. The proposed
requirement is consistent with a similar requirement in the
construction industry standard at Sec.  1926.1052(c)(7) and provides
greater flexibility without reducing safety.
    Proposed paragraph (f)(2) continues the existing requirement in
Sec.  1910.23(e)(6) that there be a minimum clearance of 3 inches (8
cm) between a handrail and any obstructions. The existing rule is
consistent with the construction industry requirement at Sec.
1926.1052(c)(11). In the earlier (1990) rulemaking, OSHA proposed that
the requirement be revised to require 1.5 inches (4 cm) of clearance.
OSHA's basis for the 1990 proposal was to be consistent with many local
building codes; the applicable national consensus standard at the time,
ANSI A12.1-1973; the draft revision to it, ANSI A1264.1; and ANSI
A117.1-1986, Providing Accessibility and Usability for Physically
Handicapped People (Ref. 52 in Docket S-041). However, the 2007
revision to the ANSI A1264.1 standard sets 2.25 inches (6 cm) rather
than 1.5 inches (4 cm) as the appropriate clearance; no reason is
provided. OSHA does not believe that \3/4\ inch (2 cm) represents a
significant difference and is of the opinion that consistency between
the construction and general industry provisions will eliminate
potential confusion and ease compliance. Nonetheless, OSHA requests
comment on whether it should revise this provision to set the minimum
clearance at 2.25-inch (6 cm) as does the national consensus standard.
    In paragraph (f)(3), OSHA proposes a minor revision to existing
Sec.  1910.23(e)(1) for stair rails and Sec.  1910.23(e)(5)(i) for
handrails. The proposed provision, like the existing provisions, would
require the rails to be smooth-surfaced to prevent injury from
puncture, laceration, or snagging hazards. The revised provision is
written in clearer language. A similar

provision has been proposed in Sec.  1910.29(b)(6) for the top rail of
guardrail systems. The proposed requirement is consistent with the
construction industry standard at Sec.  1926.1052(c)(8).
    Proposed paragraph (f)(4), based on existing Sec.  1910.23(e),
requires that the openings in stair rail systems be a maximum of 19
inches (48 cm) in their least dimension. The proposed requirement is
consistent with the requirement for openings in guardrail systems in
proposed paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section, which in turn is based
on a study by the former National Bureau of Standards (now known as the
National Institute of Standards and Technology) (Ref. 11 to Docket S-
041). It is also consistent with the construction industry standards at
Sec.  1926.1052(c)(4) for openings in stair rails and with Sec.
1926.502(b)(2)(iii) and (iv) pertaining to the size of openings in
construction guardrail systems.
    Proposed paragraph (f)(5), which is based on existing Sec.
1910.23(e)(5)(i), requires handrails to provide a firm handhold for
employees. The proposed provision is consistent with the construction
industry standard at Sec.  1926.1052(c)(9).
    Proposed paragraph (f)(6), which is also based on existing Sec.
1910.23(e)(5)(i), requires stair rail systems to be designed and
constructed so that their ends do not present a projection hazard into
which employees may inadvertently walk. The proposed provision is
consistent with the construction industry standard at Sec.
1926.1052(c)(10).
    Proposed paragraph (f)(7) requires handrails and the top rails of
stair rail systems to be capable of withstanding, without permanent
deformation or a loss of support, a force of at least 200 pounds (890
N) applied within two inches (5 cm) of the top edge, in any downward or
outward direction, at any point along the top edge. This is a minor
revision of existing Sec.  1910.23(e)(3)(iv) and (e)(5)(iv), and
clarifies the design criteria for handrails and stair rails. It is
consistent with the construction industry standards for stair rail
systems in Sec.  1926.1052(c)(5).
Paragraph (g)--Cages, Wells, and Platforms Used With Fixed Ladders
    Proposed paragraph (g) establishes criteria for cages, wells, and
platforms used with fixed ladders. The proposed requirements are a
revision of the existing criteria located at Sec.  1910.27(d).
    Proposed paragraph (g)(1) requires that where cages and wells are
installed on fixed ladders, they must be designed to permit easy access
to or egress from the ladders that they enclose. The cages and wells
must be continuous throughout the length of the fixed ladder except for
access, egress, and other transfer points. Cages and wells must be
designed and constructed to contain employees in the event of a fall
and to direct them to a lower landing. The current standards, in Sec.
1910.27(d), provide detailed specifications for the construction of
cages and wells used on fixed ladders. OSHA has eliminated these
specifications in this proposal in favor of performance requirements
that address the necessary characteristics for providing proper cages
and wells. OSHA believes that the existing specifications are too
design restrictive, and that the use of performance language will allow
employers the flexibility to install cages and wells that fit a
particular situation, without compromising employee protection.
    Proposed paragraph (g)(2) requires that the landing platforms on
fixed ladders have a horizontal surface of at least 24 inches by 30
inches (61 cm by 76 cm). The criteria for the platform size in the
proposed requirement is the same as existing Sec.  1910.27(d)(2)(ii)
and is also found in ANSI A14.3-2002. Platforms used on fixed ladders,
like other platforms, must conform to the requirements set forth in
proposed Sec.  1910.22(b). That is, platforms must be strong enough to
support the loads imposed on them.
Paragraph (h)--Qualified Climbers
    Proposed paragraph (h) sets forth the criteria that employees must
meet to be considered qualified climbers. The option to use a qualified
climber in lieu of providing positive fall protection is only permitted
in certain outdoor advertising operations, as established in proposed
Sec.  1910.28(b)(10). As provided in proposed Sec.  1910.28(b)(10),
upon reaching the platform, an employee must use fall protection. The
criteria and performance requirements proposed here are based on the
criteria requirements OSHA has enforced in the outdoor advertising
industry as part of a variance originally granted to Gannett Outdoor
Advertising on March 1, 1991 (56 FR 8801). The policy expressed in that
variance was later extended to all employers engaged in outdoor
advertising under a compliance directive (i.e., STD 01-01-014) (Ex. 4).
    Proposed paragraph (h)(1) requires that a qualified climber be
physically capable of performing the duties that may be assigned, as
demonstrated through observations of actual climbing activities or by a
physical examination.
    Proposed paragraph (h)(2) requires that a qualified climber have
successfully completed a training or apprenticeship program that
included hands-on training for the safe climbing of ladders, and that
the climber be retrained as necessary to ensure the critical skills are
maintained. This requirement is in addition to the training
requirements in proposed Sec.  1910.30.
    Proposed paragraph (h)(3) requires the employer to ensure, through
performance observations and formal classroom or on-the-job training,
that the qualified climber has the skill to safely perform the climb.
    Proposed paragraph (h)(4) requires that qualified climbers have
climbing duties as one of their routine work activities. This is
necessary to assure that they maintain climbing proficiency.
Paragraph (i)--Ladder Safety Systems
    Proposed paragraph (i) establishes system performance and use
criteria applicable to ladder safety systems. Existing subpart D, at
Sec.  1910.27(d)(5), permits the use of ladder safety systems (formerly
called ladder safety devices), but does not specify criteria for them.
The criteria proposed are based on the requirements for ladder safety
systems in the construction industry standard for fixed ladders at
Sec. Sec.  1926.1053(a)(22) and (23) and the applicable national
consensus standard for fixed ladders, ANSI A14.3-2002, Safety Standards
for Ladders--Fixed.
    Proposed paragraph (i)(1) specifies that ladder safety systems must
permit the employee using the system to ascend or descend without
continually having to hold, push, or pull any part of the system,
leaving both hands free for climbing. The proposed requirement is
consistent with ANSI A14.3 and the construction industry standard at
Sec.  1926.1053(a)(22)(ii).
    Proposed paragraph (i)(2) specifies that the connection between the
carrier or lifeline and the point of attachment to the body belt or
harness must not exceed 9 inches (23 cm) in length. The proposed
requirement is consistent with ANSI A14.3 and the construction industry
standard at Sec.  1926.1053(a)(22)(iv).
    Proposed paragraph (i)(3) specifies that mountings for rigid
carriers must be attached at each end of the carrier, with intermediate
mountings, as necessary, spaced along the entire length of the carrier
to provide the strength necessary to stop employee falls. The proposed
requirement is consistent with ANSI A14.3 and the construction industry
standard at Sec.  1926.1053(a)(23)(i). OSHA notes that the
manufacturer's recommendations should indicate the need for, and number
of, intermediate mountings; for that reason, OSHA uses

the phrase ``as necessary'' rather than the use of more specific
terminology.
    Proposed paragraph (i)(4) requires mountings for flexible carriers
to be attached at each end of the carrier. It further requires that
cable guides utilized with a flexible carrier be installed at a minimum
spacing of 25 feet (7.6 m) and a maximum spacing of 40 feet (12.2 m)
along the entire length of the carrier. The proposed requirement is
consistent with ANSI A14.3 and the construction industry standard at
Sec.  1926.1053(a)(23)(ii).
    Proposed paragraph (i)(5) specifies that the design and
installation of mountings and cable guides must not reduce the design
strength of the ladder. The proposed requirement is consistent with
ANSI A14.3 and the construction industry standard at
1926.1053(a)(23)(iii).
    Proposed paragraph (i)(6) sets the performance criteria for ladder
safety systems, requiring that ladder safety systems and their support
systems be capable of withstanding, without failure, a drop test
consisting of an 18-inch (46 cm) drop of a 500-pound (227 kg) weight.
The proposed requirement is consistent with ANSI A14.3 and the
construction industry standard at Sec.  1926.1053(a)(22)(i).
    OSHA notes that where personal fall protection systems are used to
protect employees from falls from ladders, those systems must meet the
requirements of subpart I of this part.
Paragraph (j)--Personal Fall Protection Systems
    Proposed paragraph (j) requires that body belts, body harnesses,
and other components used in personal fall arrest systems, work
positioning systems, travel restraint systems, or other fall protection
systems meet the applicable requirements of subpart I of this part.
Paragraph (k)--Protection From Falling Objects
    Proposed paragraph (k) sets forth the performance criteria for
toeboards, guardrails, and canopies used to provide employee protection
from falling objects. Paragraph (c) of Sec.  1910.28 requires employers
to protect employees from falling objects. The proposed requirements
reflect existing criteria in Sec.  1910.23(e)(4) for toeboards and
other measures used to provide this protection and include new criteria
that must be met when canopies are used to provide protection. The
proposed requirements are identical to those in the construction
standards at 29 CFR 1926.502(j).
    Proposed paragraph (k)(1) requires that where toeboards are used,
they must be erected along the edge of overhead walking-working
surfaces for a distance sufficient to protect any employee working
below.
    Proposed paragraph (k)(2) specifies that toeboards must be a
minimum of 3.5 inches (9 cm) in vertical height from their top edge to
the level of the walking-working surface. Additionally, toeboards must
have a clearance of not more than 0.25 inch (0.5 cm) above the walking-
working surface, and the toeboards must be solid or have no opening
over 1 inch (3 cm) in the greatest dimension. An exception to this
requirement applies when toeboards are used around repair, service, and
assembly pits. In those cases, the toeboards must be at least 2.5
inches (6 cm) high. When employers can demonstrate that toeboards would
prevent access to vehicles over pits, the toeboards may be omitted.
    Proposed paragraph (k)(3) specifies that where tools, equipment, or
materials are piled higher than the top edge of a toeboard, then
paneling or screening must be erected from the walking-working surface
or toeboard to the top of a guardrail system's top rail or midrail for
a distance sufficient to protect employees below.
    Proposed paragraph (k)(4) specifies that toeboards must be capable
of withstanding, without failure, a force of at least 50 pounds (222 N)
applied in any downward or outward direction at any point along the
toeboard.
    Proposed paragraph (k)(5) requires that, when guardrails are used
as falling object protection, openings must be small enough to prevent
passage of potential falling objects that could injure workers below.
    Proposed paragraph (k)(6) requires that when canopies are used,
they must be strong enough to prevent collapse or penetration when
struck by falling objects.
Paragraph (l)--Grab handles
    In paragraph (l), OSHA proposes that where grab handles are used,
they be at least 12 inches (30 cm) in length and be mounted to provide
at least 3 inches (8 cm) of clearance from the side framing or the
opening area. Grab handles must be capable of withstanding a maximum
horizontal pull-out force equal to two times the intended load, or 200
pounds (890 N), whichever is greater. OSHA notes that it has proposed
to require the use of grab handles in Sec.  1910.28(b)(2), Hoist areas.
The proposed requirement is essentially the same as the existing
requirement in Sec.  1910.23(e)(10). OSHA requests comment on whether
it should further simplify this requirement by eliminating that portion
of the requirement that pertains to the length and the clearance space
of grab handles, leaving only that portion of the proposed requirement
concerned with pull-out force.
Section 1910.30 Training Requirements
    In Sec.  1910.30, OSHA proposes to add new requirements for
employers to train, and where necessary, to retrain employees in the
subject areas covered by revised subpart D. Specifically, employers
will have to ensure that employees are trained to recognize fall
hazards, know what do about the hazards, and how to use the equipment
provided to them for protection. In addition, the new requirements call
for employees to receive training about the hazards associated with
certain equipment.
    OSHA believes these new training requirements are necessary to
ensure that employees are familiar with hazards, especially fall
hazards, pertinent to the various walking-working surfaces in their
workplace. Unlike OSHA's construction industry standards, there is no
``generic'' training section in the general industry standards. OSHA
believes that effective training is vital in preventing and reducing
work-related injuries, especially those caused by falls. OSHA also
believes that educating employees provides a proactive approach to
injury prevention.
    OSHA notes that existing Sec.  1910.132(f) sets training
requirements for employees using certain types of PPE. In proposed
Sec.  1910.140, OSHA specifies that existing Sec.  1910.132(f) apply to
PPE used for fall protection. As a result, some of the requirements in
Sec.  1910.132(f) may overlap with the training requirements in this
paragraph. It is not OSHA's intent, however, that employers provide
duplicate training to meet their obligations under proposed subparts D
and I.
    Paragraph (a) Fall hazards.
    Proposed paragraph (a) addresses fall hazards. Proposed paragraph
(a)(1) requires the employer to provide training for each employee who
uses personal fall protection equipment and those required to be
trained as indicated elsewhere in this subpart. The training must
enable each employee to recognize the hazards of falling and the
procedures to be followed to minimize these hazards. The purpose of the
training is to enable the employee to recognize fall hazards and to
learn how to minimize these hazards. OSHA believes that it is important
for employees to demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and ability to
protect

themselves before they are exposed to a fall hazard.
    The training required in proposed Sec.  1910.30 is directed to
employers whose employees use personal fall protection equipment and
those who otherwise are required to be trained as specifically
indicated in this subpart (e.g., employees working near unprotected
sides and edges at loading docks).
    Are there any other instances in this subpart where training under
Sec.  1910.30 should specifically be required? Should employees exposed
to fall hazards over four feet (including those using ladders) be
trained? Do employees who use portable guardrails (e.g., around floor
holes or at hoist areas) need to be trained? Do employees who use
portable ladders need to be trained on hazard recognition and proper
use of the ladder? Do employees who use fixed ladders need to be
trained in hazard recognition and proper climbing techniques? Since BLS
data (http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshcdnew.htm) indicate falls to the same
level (such as slips and trips resulting in a fall to the surface on
which the employee was walking) are a significant source of injury,
would additional training requirements for these hazards better protect
employees? Are there circumstances where walking-working surfaces pose
hazards, because of the nature of the work, which are infeasible to
eliminate (e.g., a wet floor in a carwash bay) and training would help
minimize the risk of slips, trips, or falls?
    Proposed paragraph (a)(2) requires that each employee be trained by
a qualified person, and identifies four specific areas that the
training must cover, including:
    (i) The nature of fall hazards in the work area;
    (ii) The correct procedures for erecting, maintaining,
disassembling, and inspecting the fall protection systems to be used;
    (iii) The use and operation of guardrail systems, safety net
systems, warning lines used in designated areas, and other protection;
and
    (iv) The use, operation, and limitations of personal fall
protection systems including proper hook-up, anchoring and tie-off
techniques, methods of use, and proper methods of equipment inspection
and storage as recommended by the manufacturer.
    The performance-oriented approach to training proposed in paragraph
(a)(2) provides flexibility for the employer in designing the training.
While the proposed paragraph specifies topics that must be covered, it
does not specify how the training is to be provided nor does it specify
any particular number of hours. The proposed paragraph is written to
require training to be provided by a ``qualified person.'' OSHA
believes that the involvement of a qualified person who is
knowledgeable in the subject area and industry hazards, in conjunction
with the specific requirements of proposed paragraphs (a) and (c),
provides appropriate assurance that employees will be adequately
trained.
    Paragraph (b) Equipment hazards.
    Proposed paragraph (b) addresses training with regard to equipment
regulated by proposed subpart D. Proposed paragraph (b)(1) requires
employers to ensure that employees are trained in the proper care, use,
and inspection of all equipment covered by this subpart before using
it.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2) requires that employees be instructed in
the proper placing and securing of dockboards to prevent unintentional
movement. Compliance with this provision will help employers meet their
obligations under proposed Sec.  1910.26. The hazards associated with
dockboards becoming dislodged are significant, and OSHA believes that
proper employee training will help to reduce these hazards.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(3) requires the employer to ensure that all
employees who use rope descent systems are trained and retrained as
necessary in the proper rigging and safe use of that equipment.
Compliance with this provision will help employers meet their
obligations under proposed Sec.  1910.27 for rope descent systems.
Improper use of rope descent system equipment can lead to serious
injuries and fatalities. OSHA believes that training employees to use
the equipment properly minimizes the risks of equipment failure and
employee falls.
Paragraph (c) Retraining.
    Proposed paragraph (c) requires employees to be retrained whenever
the employer has reason to believe that the employee does not have the
understanding and skill required by proposed paragraphs (a) and (b).
Specifically, OSHA requires retraining whenever changes in the
workplace or changes in the fall protection systems or equipment render
previous training obsolete; or when an employee has not retained the
understanding or skill required by proposed paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section. The training requirements in this section have been
written to indicate clearly that employers have an ongoing
responsibility to maintain employee proficiency in the use and care of
fall protection equipment, and to ensure employees are trained in safe
work practices and can recognize hazards associated with certain
equipment.
Paragraph (d) Training Must Be Understandable
    Proposed paragraph (d) requires employers to provide information
and training in a manner that is understandable to each employee.
Differences in language, reading capabilities, and physical challenges
may create communication issues in a workplace. It is essential that
employers adapt their training methods so that all of their employees
comprehend the information and training provided.
Other revisions to part 1910
    The proposed changes to subparts D and I result in the need to make
conforming changes to subparts F, N, and R in 1910. These changes,
which are presented at the end of this proposal, are self-explanatory
and do not substantially affect the requirements of these subparts.
References
     Consumer Product Safety Commission Offers Safety Tips to
Prevent Ladder Injuries, Ladder Safety Alert; U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission, Washington, DC 20207, undated (Web address: http://
www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PUBS/ladder.html).
     Injury Facts; National Safety Council, 1121 Spring Lake
Drive, Itasca, IL 60143-3201; 2005-2006 edition.
     Murphy, Patricia J. Get a Leg Up on Ladder Safety; Family
Safety & Health, Spring 2001. Available through the National Safety
Council at the following web address: http://www.nsc.org/issues/
firstaid/ladder.htm.
     Overview of BLS Statistics on Worker Safety and Health,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, DC (Web address: http://
www.bls.gov/bls/safety.htm).
     Preventing Slips, Trips, and Falls, Professional
Development Series, Participant's Guide (Kit Number 12466-0000).
National Safety Council, 444 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois
60611, 2006.
     Portable Ladders; Quick Card, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, Washington, DC, 2005.
     Stairways and Ladders, A Guide to OSHA Rules; Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, Washington, DC, 2003.
     U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for
Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational
Safety and

Health, Worker Deaths by Falls, A Summary of Surveillance Findings and
Investigative Case Reports, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226-1998, November 2000.
    Useful Web sites providing information on safety include:
     OSHA's public page (contains many useful safety and health
topics): http://www.osha.gov/.
     National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health:
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/.
     National Safety Council: http://www.nsc.org/.
     U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission: http://
www.cpsc.gov/.
    The following industry codes and standards were used in the
development of this proposed rule:
    Industry codes and standards for ladders:
     ANSI \3\ A14.1-2000, American National Standard for
Ladders--Wood Safety Requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The following studies, cited in OSHA's April 10, 1990, proposed
rulemaking (55 FR 13421), provide useful and relevant information, and
are a valuable archival resource. These studies provide information
that may be helpful in understanding and implementing the proposed
standards for walking-working surfaces being proposed today.
I. General References
     Accident Prevention Manual for Industrial Operations;
National Safety Council, 444 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois
60611, 1980.
     A History of Walkway Slip-Resistance Research at the
National Bureau of Standards, Special Publication 565; National Bureau
of Standards, National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
Virginia 22151, December 1979.
     A New Portable Tester for the Evaluation of the Slip-
Resistance of Walkway Surfaces, Technical Note 953; National Bureau of
Standards, National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
Virginia 22151, July 1977.
     Miller, James et al. Work Surface Friction: Definitions,
Laboratory and Field Measurements, and a Comprehensive Bibliography;
The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, February 1983.
(NTIS *PB 83-243634, PE 83-243626, PB 84-175926).
     Chaffin, Don B. et al. An Ergonomic Basis for
Recommendations Pertaining

to Specific Sections of OSHA Standard, 29 CFR Part 1910, Subpart D--
Walking and Working Surfaces; The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
Michigan 48109, March 1978.
     Ayoub, M. and Gary M. Bakken. An Ergonomic Analysis of
Selected Sections in Subpart D, Walking/Working Surfaces; Texas
University, Lubbock, Texas 79409, August 1978.
     An Overview of Floor-Slip-Resistance Research with
Annotated Bibliography, Technical Note 895; National Bureau of
Standards, National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
Virginia 22151, January 1976.
     A Bibliography of Coefficient of Friction Literature
Relating to Slip Type Accidents; Department of Industrial and
Operations Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104, February 1983.
     Falls from Elevations Resulting in Injuries; U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22151, June 1984.
     English, William. Slips, Trips and Falls--Safety
Engineering Guidelines for the Prevention of Slips, Trip and Fall
Occurrences; Hanrow Press, Inc., P.O. Box 847, Del Mar, California
92014, 1989. (Also, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>II. Ladder References
     Chaffin, Don B. and Terrence J. Stobbe. Ergonomic
Considerations Related to Selected Fall Prevention Aspects of Scaffolds
and Ladders as Presented in OSHA Standard 29 CFR Part 1910 Subpart D;
The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104, September 1979.
     Ergonomics Considerations Related to Selected Fall
Prevention Aspects of Scaffolds and Ladders as Presented in OSHA
Standard 29 CFR Part 1910 Subpart D; The University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, Michigan 48104.
III. Stair References
     Archea, John et al. Guidelines for Stair Safety; NBS
Building of Science Series 120, National Bureau of Standards, National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22151.
     Carson, D. H. et al. Safety on Stairs; National Bureau of
Standards, National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
Virginia 22151.
     Nelson, Gary S. Engineering--Human Factors Interface in
Stairway Treadriser Design; Texas A&M University of Texas, Agricultural
Extension Service, College Station, Texas 77843, May 1973.
IV. Fall Protection References
     Personnel Guardrails for the Prevention of Occupational
Accidents, NBSIR 76-1132; National Bureau of Standards, National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22151, July 1976.
     Investigation of Guardrails for the Protection of
Employees from Occupational Hazards, NBSIR 76-1139; National Bureau of
Standards, National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
Virginia 22151, July 1976.
     A Model Performance Standard for Guardrails, NBSIR 76-
1131; National Bureau of Standards, National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia 22151, July 1976.
     National Technical Information Services (NTIS), 5285 Port
Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. (Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Web
address: http://www.ntis.gov/.)
C. Proposed Changes to Subpart I
    OSHA is proposing to add a new section to existing subpart I,
Personal Protective Equipment. The new section will be numbered Sec.
1910.140 and titled: Personal fall protection equipment. It will
contain five paragraphs, covering the following topics:
    Paragraph (a) will contain the scope and application for the new
section.
    Paragraph (b) will contain terms and definitions applicable to
personal fall protection systems.
    Paragraph (c) will contain general requirements applicable to all
types of personal fall protection systems covered and will contain
inspection requirements and design criteria common to components used
in all systems.
    Paragraph (d) will contain additional, specific requirements for
personal fall arrest systems and will address equipment such as body
harnesses, lifelines, deceleration devices (i.e., rope grabs and rip-
stitch lanyards), and lanyards.
    Paragraph (e) will contain additional, specific requirements for
positioning device systems. This is equipment, such as a window
cleaner's belt, that is used to support an employee in a work position.
    In addition, OSHA proposes to add two non-mandatory appendices (C
and D) to proposed Sec.  1910.140 to help employers select appropriate
equipment and use it properly. (Note: Existing Appendices A and B to
subpart I are not affected by this rule and remain unchanged.) Proposed
Appendix C provides useful information and guidance concerning the use
of personal fall arrest systems. Proposed Appendix D provides examples
of test methods for personal fall arrest and positioning device
systems. The following discussion provides a more detailed explanation
of the new provisions.
Section 1910.140 Personal Fall Protection Systems
Paragraph (a) Scope and Application
    Proposed paragraph (a) explains that all personal fall protection
systems used to comply with part 1910 must comply with the care and use
criteria established by proposed Sec.  1910.140.
    Currently, there are a number of standards throughout part 1910
that require or permit the use of personal fall protection systems. In
addition, the proposed revision of subpart D contains a number of new
requirements allowing employers to choose to use personal fall
protection systems in lieu of guardrail systems that are mandated under
the existing rules. With few exceptions, the existing standards do not
specify the criteria for the design, operation, performance, or use of
fall protection systems. Without such criteria, OSHA believes there is
risk that personal fall protection systems, especially personal fall
arrest systems, will fail. Such failure may occur for a number of
reasons, including: use of the wrong system (especially one that is not
strong enough for its purpose); use of a system that was not inspected
or tested before use; use of a system that is not rigged properly; use
of a system with non-compatible components; or use of a system for
which the employee is not properly trained. While the vast majority of
fall protection systems currently in use meet national consensus
standards, OSHA believes that, because of the absence of specific
general industry standards, there is likely insufficient awareness of
appropriate criteria for their use. When this rule is promulgated,
employers who choose to use personal fall protection systems would have
to ensure that those systems meet the criteria in this proposed
provision.
Paragraph (b) Definitions
    Paragraph (b) defines key terms used in the proposed standard. Most
of the terms are already used in existing OSHA fall protection
standards, including Appendix C of Sec.  1910.66, Powered platforms for
building maintenance, of the general industry standards; Sec.
1926.502, Fall protection systems criteria and practices, of the
construction standards; and Sec. Sec.  1915.159, Personal fall arrest
systems (PFAS), and 1915.160, Positioning

device systems, of the shipyard employment standards.\7\ OSHA believes
that employee safety will be enhanced by having the terms and
definitions applicable to personal fall protection systems
substantially identical whenever possible. This is particularly
important because the same employees may be engaged in both general
industry and construction activities. Having different meanings for the
same terms could lead to confusion by employers, employees, and OSHA
compliance staff. When a proposed definition differs from a definition
used in the construction and shipyard employment standards, the
difference is identified and explained in the discussion below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    OSHA has also reviewed the terms and definitions used in national
consensus standards that are applicable to personal fall protection
systems covered by the proposed rule, including ANSI/ASSE Z359.0-2007,
Definitions and Nomenclature Used for Fall Protection and Fall Arrest;
and other standards in the Z359 series. All of the terms and
definitions used in this proposed rulemaking are based on existing OSHA
standards or have their source in national consensus standards.
    The following terms are defined in the proposed rule: anchorage,
belt terminal, body belt, body harness, buckle, carrier, competent
person, connector, D-ring, deceleration device, deceleration distance,
equivalent, free fall, free fall distance, lanyard, lifeline, personal
fall arrest system, personal fall protection system, positioning
system, qualified person, rope grab, self-retracting lifeline/lanyard,
snaphook, travel restraint (tether) line, travel restraint system,
window cleaner's belt, window cleaner's belt anchor, window cleaner's
positioning system, and work positioning system. Each term is discussed
below.
    Anchorage. OSHA proposes to define ``anchorage'' to mean a secure
point of attachment for lifelines, lanyards, or deceleration devices.
The definition is nearly identical to the definition in OSHA's general
industry, construction, and the shipyard employment standards on fall
protection. One variation is that the definition used in the general
industry standard on fall protection goes beyond just defining the
term, and also includes a requirement that the anchorage must be
``independent of the means of supporting or suspending the employee.''
OSHA did not include this latter language in the proposed definition,
but did include similar language in the appropriate requirement (see
proposed Sec.  1910.140(c)(12)).
    The proposed definition is also consistent with the definitions in
the national consensus standards, i.e., ANSI/ASSE Z359.0-2007,
Definitions and Nomenclature Used for Fall Protection and Fall Arrest;
and ANSI/IWCA I-14.1-2001, Standard for Window Cleaning Safety; and it
is identical to the definition used in ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004, Fall
Protection Systems.
    Belt terminal. OSHA proposes to define ``belt terminal'' to mean an
end attachment of a window cleaner's positioning system used for
securing the belt or harness to a window cleaner's belt anchor. The
term is used in the proposed requirements specific to fall protection
for window cleaning operations. It is not currently defined in OSHA
standards, nor is the term specifically defined in ANSI/IWCA I-14.1-
2001, although its meaning is clear--that the belt terminal is the end
part of a window cleaner's belt. OSHA is including the definition to
clarify the intent of the requirements in proposed paragraph (e)
relating to the attachment of belt terminals to window cleaner's belt
anchors (window anchor). OSHA requests comment on whether this term and
definition are needed to clarify the provision. That is, is the term's
meaning in proposed paragraph (e) clear enough that a definition is not
needed?
    Body belt. OSHA proposes to define ``body belt'' to mean a strap
with means both for securing about the waist and for attaching to other
components such as a lanyard or lifeline, and that is used in
positioning systems, travel restraint systems, and ladder safety
systems. The definition is consistent with those in the OSHA general
industry, construction, and shipyard employment standards on fall
protection, as well as with the ANSI/ASSE Z359.0-2007 and ANSI/ASSE
A10.32-2004 national consensus standards.
    Body harness. OSHA proposes to define the term ``body harness'' to
mean straps which may be secured about the employee in a manner to
distribute the fall arrest forces over at least the thighs, pelvis,
waist, chest, and shoulders with means for attaching it to other
components of a personal fall arrest system. The definition is
identical to the one in OSHA's general industry standards on fall
protection, and nearly identical to that in the construction industry
standard on fall protection. OSHA's shipyard employment standard on
fall protection contains a similar definition, but that definition does
not include the word ``waist'' in it.
    The national consensus standard, ANSI/ASSE Z359.0-2007, has several
definitions for various types of harnesses, including: harness, chest;
harness, chest-waist; harness, evacuation; harness, full body; harness,
positioning. The definition for full body harness (in section 2.74 of
ANSI/ASSE Z359.0-2007) is essentially the same as the proposed subpart
I definition. The proposed definition is also consistent with ANSI/IWCA
I-14.1-2000, with one exception: the ANSI/IWCA consensus standard
allows the use of body harnesses that permit the arresting forces to be
distributed over any combination of the thighs, pelvis, waist, chest,
and shoulders, rather than all combined. Including this phrase in the
OSHA definition would allow the fall arrest forces to be distributed
over the waist and chest only; therefore, OSHA has not adopted this
aspect of the ANSI/IWCA consensus definition. OSHA believes the dangers
of concentrating arresting forces in one anatomical area (for example,
waist and chest only) are real and well documented. For example, Dr.
Maurice Amphoux, et. al. (Ex. OSHA-S057-2006-0680-0070) conducted
research into the use of thoracic harnesses for fall arrest. They
concluded that these types of harnesses should not be used for fall
arrest because the forces transmitted to the body during post-fall
suspension constrict the rib cage and could cause asphyxiation. There
is also an increased danger of falling out of the assembly.
    OSHA solicits comments on this matter, as well as on whether there
is a need to define other types of harnesses. For example, some types
of body harnesses do not use a waist component but still distribute the
forces over the torso. These harnesses have assemblies that prevent the
shoulder straps from separating enough to allow the employee to fall
out of the harness. OSHA does not intend to prohibit the use of this
type of harness.
    Buckle. OSHA proposes to define the term ``buckle'' to mean any
device for holding the body belt or body harness closed around the
employee's body. The definition is identical to the definition used in
the general industry and construction standards on fall protection, and
it is consistent with the ANSI/ASSE Z359.0-2007 and ANSI/ASSE A10.32-
2004 national consensus standards on fall protection.
    Carrier. OSHA proposes to define a ``carrier'' to mean the track of
a ladder safety system consisting of a flexible cable or rigid rail
which is secured to the ladder or structure by mountings. The
definition is identical to ANSI/ALI

A14.3-2002, American National Standards for Ladders--Fixed.
    Competent person. OSHA proposes to define a ``competent person'' to
mean a person who is capable of identifying hazardous or dangerous
conditions in any personal fall protection system or any component
thereof, as well as in their application and uses with related
equipment. The definition is essentially the same as the one in OSHA's
general industry powered platform standard (Sec.  1910.66), but it
differs from the definition of competent person in OSHA's construction
industry standard at Sec.  1926.32. It also differs from both the ANSI/
ASSE Z359.0-2007 and ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004 national consensus standards
in that the national consensus standards, like OSHA's construction
industry definition, define a competent person as one who has the
``authority to take prompt corrective action'' to eliminate the hazards
in the surroundings or working conditions.
    OSHA's proposed definition does not require the competent person to
have the authority to take prompt corrective action because the Agency
believes that the competent person assigned to inspect personal fall
protection systems serves a role different from that of the person that
typically is designated as the competent person on construction jobs.
In general industry the competent person will most likely be an outside
contractor that specializes in fall protection, and which both designs
the system, and provides training, usually at a remote location. It is
unlikely that an outside contractor would be granted authority over
work operations and, thus, OSHA believes the definition proposed allows
the employer more flexibility in designating an appropriate competent
person.
    Connector. OSHA proposes to define ``connector'' to mean a device
that is used to couple (connect) parts of the fall protection system
together. The definition is essentially the same as OSHA's general
industry, construction, and shipyard employment standards on fall
protection. The proposed definition is also consistent with national
consensus standards, including ANSI/ASSE Z359.0-2007 and ANSI/ASSE
A10.32-2004. These other definitions also include some explanatory
language stating that connectors may be independent components of the
system, such as a carabiner; or may be integral components or parts of
the system, such as a buckle or D-ring sewn into a body support (a body
belt or body harness), or a snaphook spliced or sewn into a lanyard.
The proposed definition does not include such explanatory language
because OSHA believes it is not necessary.
    D-ring. OSHA proposes to define a ``D-ring'' as a connector used
integrally in a harness as an attachment element or fall arrest
attachment, and in a lanyard, energy absorber, lifeline, and anchorage
connector as an integral connector. Also, a D-ring means a connector
used integrally in a positioning or travel restraint system as an
attachment element. The term is not defined in existing OSHA standards
but is defined, consistent with the proposed definition, in the
national consensus standards ANSI/ASSE Z359.0-2007 and ANSI/ASSE
A10.32-2004. ANSI/ASSE A10.32 also defines ``integral'' to mean not
removable from the component, system, or subsystem without mutilating
any element or without use of a special tool. This definition expresses
OSHA's intent in using the term ``integral'' in the proposed definition
of D-ring.
    Deceleration device. OSHA proposes to define ``deceleration
device'' to mean any mechanism that serves to dissipate energy during a
fall. The definition is identical to the national consensus standard
ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004, but differs from the definition in OSHA's
general industry, construction, and shipyard employment standard on
fall protection. These OSHA standards expand on the definition by
citing examples of devices that may be used to either dissipate a
substantial amount of energy during a fall arrest, or otherwise limit
the energy imposed on an employee during a fall. These devices include
rope grabs, rip-stitch lanyards, specially woven lanyards, tearing and
deforming lanyards, or automatic self-retracting lifelines/lanyards.
ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004 includes the same examples in its explanatory
material, but not within the definition itself. ANSI/ASSE Z359.0-2007
does not define the term ``deceleration device,'' but does define the
terms ``energy (shock) absorber,'' ``fall arrester,'' and ``self-
retracting lanyard.'' OSHA notes that, in the preamble to the final
rule for the construction industry fall protection standard (59 FR
40677), there is an extensive discussion about the definition of
``deceleration device,'' including a discussion of commenter
suggestions requesting that instead of defining the term ``deceleration
device,'' OSHA define the terms ``shock absorber,'' ``fall arrester,''
and ``self-retracting lanyard.'' One of those comments was from an ANSI
Z359 Committee representative:

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

OSHA invites comment on whether the Agency should remove the term
``deceleration device'' from subpart I and instead define the terms
``fall arrester'' and ``energy absorber.'' The term ``self-retracting
lifeline/lanyard'' is already defined in this proposed subpart I rule.
    Deceleration distance. OSHA proposes to define the term
``deceleration distance'' to mean the vertical distance a falling
employee travels before stopping, from the point at which the
deceleration device begins to operate to the stopping point, excluding
lifeline elongation and free fall distance. It is measured as the
distance between the location of an employee's body harness attachment
point at the moment of activation of the deceleration device during a
fall (i.e., at the onset of fall arrest forces), and the location of
that attachment point after the employee comes to a full stop.
    The proposed definition is identical to the definition in OSHA's
general industry, construction, and shipyard employment standards on
fall

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

and the shipyard employment rules, OSHA is emphasizing the need to be
qualified in the subject matter--personal fall protection
systems[horbar]which, in some cases, may involve their design and use.
As long as the individual meets the elements of the definition, he or
she may be considered a qualified person for the purpose of subpart I.
The proposed definition is also identical to that used in the national
consensus standard, ANSI/ASSE A10.32, but differs from ANSI/ASSE
Z359.0-2007 standard which also appears to require that the qualified
person be an engineer. The language proposed here will ensure
consistency with the definitions in OSHA's fall protection rules for
construction and shipyard employment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

consensus standards used in developing proposed paragraph (c) include
ANSI/ASME Z359.1-2007, Safety Requirements for Personal Fall Arrest
Systems, Subsystems and Components; ANSI/ASME Z359.3, Safety
Requirements for Positioning and Travel Restraint Systems; ANSI/ASME
A10.32-2004, Fall Protection Systems (for Construction); and ANSI/IWCA
I-14.1-2001, Window Cleaning Safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2), OSHA is proposing that connectors
used in personal fall protection systems be made of drop-forged,
pressed, or formed steel or equivalent materials, and that the
materials be protected from corrosion. In addition, the surfaces and
edges of connectors are to be smooth. These requirements are intended
to ensure that connectors retain the necessary strength characteristics
for the life of the fall protection system under expected use
conditions and that the surfaces and edges do not cause damage to the
attached belt or lanyard. OSHA has already adopted this approach in
paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2), section I, Appendix C of Sec.  1910.66;
paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2), (e)(3), and (e)(4) of Sec.  1926.502; and
paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of Sec.  1915.159. Similar requirements
are also found in the national consensus standards, ANSI/ASSE Z359.1-
1992 (R2002) and ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004.
    In paragraph (c)(3) OSHA is proposing that where vertical lifelines
are used, each employee must be attached to a separate lifeline. OSHA
believes that allowing more than one employee on the same vertical
lifeline would create additional hazards. For example, if one employee
fell, the other attached employee might be pulled off balance, causing
him or her to fall. OSHA has already adopted this approach in
paragraphs (c)(3) and (e)(5), section I, Appendix C of Sec.  1910.66;
paragraph (d)(10) of Sec.  1926.502; and paragraph (b)(1) of Sec.
1915.159. A similar requirement is also found in the national consensus
standard, ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004.
    Proposed paragraphs (c)(4) through (c)(6) relate to the strength of
lanyards and lifelines. In paragraph (c)(4) OSHA is proposing that
lanyards and vertical lifelines have a minimum breaking strength of
5,000 pounds (22.2 kN). Paragraphs (c)(5) and (c)(6) address self-
retracting lifelines and lanyards. In paragraph (c)(5) OSHA proposes
that self-retracting lifelines and lanyards that limit free fall to 2
feet (0.61 m) or less be capable of sustaining a minimum tensile load
of 3,000 pounds. In paragraph (c)(6) OSHA proposes that self-retracting
lifelines and lanyards that do not limit free fall to 2 feet (0.61 m)
or less, as well as rip-stitch lanyards, and tearing and deforming
lanyards must be capable of sustaining a minimum tensile load of 5,000
pounds. The different strengths are appropriate because the dynamic
forces associated with falls increase with the distance of the free
fall, and OSHA believes the proposed levels provide a reasonable factor
of safety. OSHA has already adopted this approach in the general
industry, construction, and shipyard employment standards on fall
protection. The proposed requirements are also consistent with the
requirements in ANSI/ASSE Z359.1-2007 and ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004.
However, neither of the consensus standards contain a separate
provision (as OSHA does in proposed paragraph (c)(6)) directed to self-
retracting lanyards and lifelines that do not limit free fall to 2 feet
or less. OSHA requests specific comment on whether the requirement in
paragraph proposed (c)(6) is necessary, since it is essentially the
same as the requirement in proposed paragraph (c)(4). That is, if OSHA
did not finalize the requirement proposed at paragraph (c)(6), would it
be clear from (c)(4) that all lanyards and lifelines, except those that
limit free fall to 2 feet or less, must have a breaking strength of
5,000 pounds?
    One commenter to the 1990 proposal suggested that the high strength
requirements for lanyards and lifelines would be hard to maintain. OSHA
realizes some wear will occur during normal use of lanyards and
lifelines in the workplace. Ultraviolet radiation, water, and dirt
reduce the strength of lanyards and lifelines. However, wear must never
be allowed to reach the point where equipment performance might be
compromised. This is one reason why it is important to inspect
equipment before each use (and, if necessary, remove it from use) as
required in proposed paragraph (c)(18), and to protect certain
components, including lanyards, from being cut, abraded, or melted, as
required in proposed paragraph (c)(20).
    Another concern related to strength reduction is the use of knots
in lanyards and lifelines. OSHA is aware that the use of knots in
lanyards and vertical lifelines can sometimes reduce breaking strength.
For this reason, OSHA considered proposing a ban on knots, with the
exception of knots at the ends of the components. Such a ban would be
consistent with requirements in the national consensus standards. For
example, ANSI/ASSE Z359.1-2007 (section 7.2.1) prohibits knots,
stating, ``No knots shall be tied in lanyards, lifelines, or anchorage
connectors. Sliding-hitch knots shall not be used in lieu of fall
arresters.'' Likewise, ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004 (section 3.7.3) prohibits
the use of knots, except as a ``stop'' at the end of a lifeline. Rather
than proposing an outright ban on the use of knots, OSHA is requesting
comments on whether it should prohibit knots or require that a
competent person inspect all knots. Commenters should provide suggested
language and rationale to support their positions.
    Comments and testimony from the 1990 rulemaking on the use of knots
both supported and objected to the use of knots. For example, some
commenters (Exs. OSHA-S057-2006-0680-0048, -0083, and -0061) objected
to the use of knots and suggested that OSHA require that ends of
lanyards and lifelines be terminated in swedges or splices. These
commenters felt that knots significantly reduced the strength of the
line and that it is difficult for employees to learn to tie reliably.
    Other commenters (Ex. OSHA-S057-2006-0680-0118) supported the use
of knots, reasoning that some knots will retain up to 90 percent of the
original rope strength. Commenters also noted that some ropes could
lose more than 10 percent of their original breaking strength and still
meet OSHA's proposed 5,000 pound (22.2 kN) requirement. Testimony at
the public hearing also supported the idea that knots could be used to
terminate lifelines and lanyards safely (Ex. OSHA-S041-2006-0666-1252,
p. 389-391, 416-419). The proposal reflects the information currently
available to the Agency--that knots can be used safely in some
circumstances, so employers should be allowed the flexibility to use
knots as long as they verify that proposed strength requirements for
the entire rope have been met.
    Proposed paragraphs (c)(7) through (c)(10) establish criteria for
D-rings and snaphooks. In paragraph (c)(7) OSHA is proposing that D-
rings and snaphooks be capable of sustaining a minimum tensile load of
5,000 pounds (22.2 kN). In paragraph (c)(8), OSHA proposes that all D-
rings and snaphooks be proof-tested to 3,600 pounds (16 kN) without
cracking, breaking, or incurring permanent deformation. The 3,600
pounds (16 kN) criterion is based on the need to meet a 2:1 safety
factor for the use of these components with body harnesses (which limit
maximum arresting forces to 1,800 pounds (8 kN)). OSHA has already
adopted this approach in the general industry, construction, and
shipyard employment standards on fall protection. Similar requirements
are also found in the

national consensus standards, ANSI/ASSE Z359.1-2007 and ANSI/ASSE
A10.32-2004.
    In paragraph (c)(9) OSHA proposes to require the use of locking
snaphooks, thus prohibiting non-locking snaphooks for any personal fall
protection systems. Locking snaphooks require two separate, consecutive
actions to open, which reduces the likelihood of inadvertent opening.
OSHA has already adopted this approach in the construction and shipyard
employment standards on fall protection. The prohibition on the use of
non-locking snaphooks in existing OSHA standards for the construction
and shipyard employment sectors went into effect on January 1, 1998. In
addition, national consensus standards, including ANSI/ASSE Z359.1-2007
and ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004, only permit the use of locking snaphooks.
Evidence in the 1990 rulemaking also showed widespread support for a
prohibition on non-locking snaphooks, which is particularly significant
in light of the fact that these comments were made more than 17 years
ago. Therefore, OSHA believes that there is no reason to propose any
type of extended or delayed effective date for this provision. If there
are reasons for an extended or delayed effective date, they should be
submitted to the record.
    Paragraph (c)(10), like other existing OSHA standards, proposes to
require that, unless the snaphook is designed for the following
connections, it shall not be engaged directly to: webbing, rope, or
wire rope; another snaphook; a D-ring to which another snaphook or
connector is attached; a horizontal lifeline; or any object that is
incompatibly shaped or dimensioned in relation to the snaphook such
that unintentional disengagement could occur if the connected object
depresses the snaphook gate and causes it to open. OSHA has already
adopted this approach in the construction and shipyard employment
standards on fall protection. Both ANSI/ASSE Z359.1-2007 and ANSI/ASSE
A10.32-2004 consensus standards also contain a number of separate
requirements prohibiting these connections. In addition, section 7.2
(Equipment Rigging and Use) of ANSI/ASSE Z359.1 addresses snaphook and
carabiner connections and other concerns. Explanatory notes in that
section contain additional, helpful material about connections.
    In paragraph (c)(11) OSHA proposes to require that horizontal
lifelines be designed, installed, and used under the supervision of a
qualified person, and that they be part of a complete personal fall
arrest system that maintains a safety factor of two. OSHA believes the
safety factor of two provides adequate protection and has already
adopted this approach in the general industry, construction, and
shipyard employment standards on fall protection. An essentially
similar requirement is also found in the national consensus standard,
ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004. The other consensus standard pertinent to fall
protection, ANSI/ASSE Z359.1-2007, does not include specific
requirements for horizontal lifelines because the standard does not
cover them. However, the Z359.1 standard (section 3.1.4) states, ``A
PFAS [personal fall protection system] which incorporates a horizontal
lifeline (outside the scope of this standard) shall be evaluated in
accordance with acceptable engineering practice to determine that such
system will perform as intended.'' OSHA notes that horizontal lifelines
present special problems in application. For example, they allow a
potentially longer fall distance than some other fall protection
devices. In addition, forces applied in a perpendicular direction to a
horizontal lifeline create much larger forces at the anchorages. These
and other concerns relative to the use of horizontal lifelines support
the need for proposed paragraph (c)(11). As a point of clarification,
OSHA notes that there could be more than one qualified person involved
in the process; i.e., the qualified person who designs and installs the
system may be different than the qualified person who supervises the
use of the system.
    In paragraph (c)(12) OSHA proposes to require that anchorages used
for attachment to personal fall protection equipment be independent of
any anchorage being used to support or suspend platforms. This
requirement is intended to ensure that if the anchorage holding other
equipment (such as a powered platform) fails, the employee will be
still be protected by the separate, independent anchorage to which the
fall protection system is secured.
    In paragraph (c)(13), OSHA proposes that anchorages be capable of
supporting at least 5,000 pounds (22.2 kN) for each employee attached
or that they be designed, installed, and used under the supervision of
a qualified person as part of a complete fall protection system
maintaining a safety factor of two. The proposed provision does not
apply to window cleaner's belt anchors, addressed separately in
proposed paragraph (e) of this section, because those positioning
systems are unique. OSHA has already adopted the approach proposed here
in the general industry, construction, and shipyard employment
standards for fall protection. Similar requirements are also found in
the national consensus standards pertinent to fall protection,
including ANSI/ASSE Z359.1-2007 and ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004, as well as
the ANSI/IWCA I-14.1-2001 standard for window-cleaning safety. In
particular, section 7.2.3 of the Z359.1 standard states:

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

In the explanatory material for this provision, ANSI notes: ``The 5,000
pound (22.2kN) anchorage referred to here is the same as that required
by OSHA in Sec.  1910.66--Powered platforms for building maintenance.
An assumption is made that the 5,000 pound (22.2kN) strength level has
been established and, therefore, certification is not required.''
    The strength of fall protection anchorages has generated
considerable comment in previous OSHA rulemakings. OSHA's position at
this time is the same as it was in the earlier rulemakings: the level
of strength required by this proposal is necessary to provide a
reasonable margin of safety for employees. For clarification, OSHA
notes that it is not requiring a 5,000 pound (22.2 kN) anchorage point
in every situation. If an employer cannot find or develop an anchor
point capable of supporting a 5,000 pound (22.2 kN) load, then an
anchor point of lesser strength may be used only if it is both part of
a complete fall protection system maintaining a safety factor of at
least two, and it is designed, installed, and used under the
supervision of a qualified person. The Agency anticipates that
employers who cannot achieve a 5,000 pound (22.2 kN) anchorage strength
will be able to meet the two to one safety factor. As OSHA noted above
with respect to proposed paragraph (c)(11), an employer may use more
than one qualified person to comply with this requirement. For example,
some employers may choose to have an outside firm design an appropriate
system, and an in-house qualified person supervise its use.
    In paragraph (c)(14) OSHA proposes that restraint lines used in
travel restraint systems be capable of supporting at least a 5,000
pound (13.3

kN) tensile load. The Agency is proposing the 5,000 pound requirement
to be consistent with other requirements in this section. (For example,
see proposed paragraphs (c)(4), (c)(6), and (c)(7).) This requirement
provides an important safety factor if a restraint line is ever used as
a lifeline; for example, if it is not rigged properly and a fall
occurs, the restraint line would effectively become a lifeline and
would have to meet the 5,000 pound requirement. Existing OSHA standards
pertinent to fall protection do not include specific requirements for
travel restraint lines, but section 3.11 of the ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004
standard specifies that component parts of travel restraint systems,
including anchorages, be designed to meet the requirements of personal
fall arrest equipment. The ANSI/ASSE Z359.3-2007 standard for
positioning and travel restraint systems similarly requires that
positioning and travel restraint lanyards have a minimum breaking
strength of 5,000 pounds (22.2kN).
    In paragraph (c)(15) OSHA proposes to require that lifelines and
carriers be made of materials other than natural fiber rope.
Additionally, proposed (c)(15) requires that where polypropylene rope
is used, it must contain an ultraviolet (UV) light inhibitor. The
proposed provision is consistent with OSHA's general industry standard
on powered platforms and the shipyard employment standard. Both of
these standards require that ropes and straps (webbing) used in
lanyards, lifelines, and strength components of body belts and body
harnesses be made from synthetic fibers or wire rope. OSHA's
construction industry standard is the same except that it does not make
reference to wire rope.
    None of the existing OSHA standards, however, address carriers, nor
do they require that the polypropylene rope contain a UV light
inhibitor. The proposed provision is consistent with requirements in
section 3.2.3 of ANSI/ASSE Z359.1-2007 and with section 3.8 of ANSI/
ASSE A10.32-2004. Section 6.8 of the national consensus standard for
window-cleaning safety, ANSI/IWCA I-14.1-2001, prohibits ropes made
entirely of polypropylene. Also, section 14.2.3 of ANSI/IWCA I-14.1-
2001 standard requires all rope and webbing used in suspending the seat
board (of rope descent systems) be synthetic fiber, preferably nylon or
polyester, with a rated strength of 5,000 pounds. For fall protection,
the ANSI/IWCA I-14.1-2001 standard requires compliance with ANSI/ASSE
Z359.1 standard.
    The UV light inhibitor provision was added to this proposal in
response to comments received in the 1990 proposed rulemaking (Ex.
OSHA-S057-2006-0680-0083), pointing out that sunlight can cause severe
deterioration in polypropylene rope. OSHA recognizes that ultraviolet
degradation can be a serious problem, but also believes that
polypropylene rope has some advantages over other synthetic materials.
Polypropylene is strong, flexible, and may be less costly than ropes
made of some other materials. Many of the newer polypropylene ropes are
made with an UV light inhibitor which reduces the strength degradation
problem. For these reasons, the Agency believes the proposed provision
offers an appropriate level of safety without unnecessarily sacrificing
flexibility.
    In paragraph (c)(16), OSHA proposes that all personal fall
protection systems and their components be used for employee fall
protection only, and not for any other purpose, such as hoisting
equipment or materials. This means that those systems or components may
not be used as material or equipment hoist slings, bundle ties, or for
other such purposes. OSHA has already adopted this approach in its
general industry, construction, and shipyard employment standards on
fall protection. In the powered platform standard, OSHA did not include
the phrase ``and not used to hoist materials,'' which appears in the
shipyard employment and construction standards. OSHA believes the added
phrase clarifies the intent of the provision.
    In paragraph (c)(17), OSHA proposes that all fall protection
systems or any of their components that have been subjected to impact
loading (as distinguished from static load testing) be removed from
service immediately. A removed system or component may not be used
again until a competent person inspects the equipment and determines
that it is undamaged and suitable for reuse. By this proposed language,
OSHA is recognizing that impact loading may adversely affect the
integrity of a fall protection system, but that there are many factors
that can affect a system's potential capacity for reuse as fall
protection. These include the employee's weight and the type of
deceleration device used, among others. This proposed provision is
intended to ensure that employers will implement procedures for
inspection and evaluation of equipment that will prevent the reuse of
damaged equipment. OSHA has not, however, adopted the suggestion of one
commenter in the 1990 proposed rulemaking (Ex. OSHA-S057-2006-0680-
0048) that the standard allow only the manufacturer to inspect systems
to determine if they are suitable for reuse. OSHA believes that any
competent person could inspect the system effectively because all
competent persons must be capable of determining dangerous or hazardous
conditions in any fall protection system or component. OSHA has already
adopted the proposed approach in the general industry, construction,
and shipyard employment standards on fall protection. The proposed
requirement is also consistent with the ANSI/ASSE Z359.1-2007 (section
5.3.4) and ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004 (section 3.4) consensus standards.
    OSHA solicits comments on whether the proposed approach provides
adequate protection, or whether the final standard should require the
destruction of ropes, lanyards, belts, and harnesses once they have
been subjected to impact loading. Impact loading can cause damage to
fibers that cannot be easily discovered, and these components are
relatively inexpensive. OSHA is therefore still considering revising
the proposed requirement to require the destruction and removal of
ropes, lanyards, belts, and harnesses once they have been subject to
impact loading.
    In paragraph (c)(18) OSHA proposes that fall protection equipment
be inspected for mildew, wear, damage, and other deterioration before
each use. Components showing such damage must be removed from service
if their function or strength has been adversely affected. The intent
of this requirement, like that of proposed paragraph (c)(17), is to
ensure that defective or weakened equipment is removed from service if
the equipment's performance could be adversely affected. OSHA has
already adopted this approach in its general industry, construction,
and shipyard employment standards on fall protection. The proposal is
also consistent with the consensus standards, ANSI/ASSE Z359.1-2007
(section 6.1) and ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004 (section 6.3).
    In paragraph (c)(19), OSHA proposes that ropes, belts, lanyards,
lifelines, and harnesses be compatible with all connectors used. OSHA
is proposing this requirement because it believes the use of
incompatible equipment leads to rollout. Rollout is a process by which
a snaphook or carabiner unintentionally disengages from another
connector or object to which it is coupled, possibly resulting in
injury or death. OSHA has already adopted this approach in its shipyard
employment standards on fall protection. Additionally, both the ANSI/

ASSE Z359.1-2007 and ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004 consensus standards address
the need for compatibility of equipment. For example, the explanatory
material for section <IP_ADDRESS> of the Z359.1 standard states, ``An effort
should be made to encourage compatible connector couplings.''
Requirements in sections 7.1 and 7.2 of that standard also address the
issue of compatibility, as do requirements in the ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004
standard (sections 4.1.1 and 4.4.2).
    In paragraph (c)(20), OSHA proposes that ropes, belts, lanyards,
and harnesses used for personal fall protection be protected from being
cut, abraded, melted, or otherwise damaged. These types of damage could
cause the components to lose strength and fail. OSHA has already
partially adopted this approach in its construction and shipyard
employment standards on fall protection. The general industry standard
on fall protection for powered platforms provides guidelines (see
Appendix C, section III, paragraph (f) of Sec.  1910.66) for the
inspection of personal fall arrest equipment, and emphasizes the need
to remove equipment that has been subject to cuts, abrasion, and other
damage. Similar provisions are found in ANSI/ASSE Z359.1-2007 (section
7) and ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2004 (section 3.7) standards pertinent to
lifelines and lanyards. The existing OSHA requirements apply to
lifelines and lanyards only, whereas the proposed requirement would
apply to all ropes, belts, and harnesses because OSHA believes all of
these components should be protected from being cut, abraded, melted or
exposed to similar hazards.
    Because an employee suspended after a fall may be exposed to
serious injury, including suspension trauma, OSHA is proposing in
paragraph(c)(21) to require the employer to provide for prompt rescue.
To meet this requirement, the employer must evaluate the availability
of rescue personnel, ladders, or other rescue equipment. In some
situations, it may be appropriate to use equipment; for example, a
mechanical device that has descent capability which allows employees to
rescue themselves after a fall has been arrested. In other situations,
a suspended employee may not be able to reach a work level
independently, so the employer must ensure the ability to rescue the
employee promptly.
    In recognition of hazards confronting employees, OSHA developed a
Safety and Health Information Bulletin (SHIB) addressing the hazards
associated with suspension trauma/orthostatic intolerance (SHIB 03-24-
2004, available at http://www.osha.gov/dts/shib/shib032404.html). The
SHIB states in part:

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

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

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

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

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

    The comments and data on fall arrest systems which were
submitted to the record of the powered platforms rulemaking are also
being used in the development of the generic rule. OSHA anticipates
that the provisions on personal fall arrest systems in Appendix C,

section I, of the powered platforms standard will be consistent with
the proposed requirements for those systems in the proposed generic
rule. (54 FR 31450)

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

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

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

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

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

general industry, construction, and shipyard employment standards on
fall protection. Similar requirements are also found in the national
consensus standards, ANSI/ASSE Z359.1-2007 (section 7.2) and ANSI/ASSE
A10.32-2004 (section 4.2.1).
    Paragraph (d)(3) of the proposal prohibits the use of body belts
for personal fall arrest systems. Because OSHA is proposing to ban the
use of body belts as part of personal fall arrest systems, it has not
proposed maximum arresting forces when body belts are used. OSHA notes
that both the construction industry and shipyard employment standards
already prohibit the use of body belts as part of personal fall arrest
systems.

Paragraph (e) Positioning Systems
    Proposed paragraph (e) establishes specific requirements applicable
when positioning systems, including window cleaner's positioning
systems, are used. These new, specific requirements are in addition to
the general requirements in proposed paragraph (c) which apply to all
types of fall protection equipment.
    Proposed paragraph (e)(1) establishes performance criteria for
positioning systems. Proposed paragraph (e)(1)(i) requires that all
positioning systems, except window cleaner's positioning systems, be
capable of withstanding, without failure, a drop-test consisting of a
4-foot (1.2-m) drop of a 250-pound (113-kg) weight.
    Proposed paragraph (e)(1)(ii)(A) requires window cleaner's
positioning systems to be capable of withstanding, without failure, a