causes the connector to lose its strength is the type of permanent
deformation OSHA intends the final definition to cover. Similarly,
damage to a guardrail system that weakens the bolts or other fasteners
so the system cannot support a worker's weight is the type of permanent
deformation the final definition intends to covers.
    OSHA did not receive any comments on the proposed term and
definition and adopts the definition with minor editorial changes for
clarity.
    Fall hazard. This term, in the final rule, means any condition on a
walking-working surface that exposes a worker to a risk of harm from a
fall on the same level or to a lower level. The final definition is
almost identical to the proposal; however, the final rule uses ``risk
of harm'' in place of ``injury.'' It is clear from the Analysis of Risk
(Section II) section and the Final Economic Analysis (FEA) (Section V)
that worker exposure to fall hazards can result in death as well as
injury. OSHA believes the language in the final definition more
accurately and fully captures the range of adverse outcomes that can
result from falls.
    In response to the proposal, OSHA received one comment from Mr.
David Hoberg of DBM Corporations, recommending that OSHA add a specific
height to the definition of fall hazard (Ex. 206). He said that a
specific height is needed for enforcement purposes. OSHA disagrees. The
risk of a fall or other harm exists at any height, including on the
same level. That said, OSHA has established specific heights that
trigger fall protection requirements in final Sec.  1910.28. The final
definition is adopted as proposed.
    Fall protection. The final rule, like the proposed rule, defines
``fall protection'' as any equipment, device, or system that prevents a
worker from falling from an elevation or that mitigates the effect of
such a fall. For the purposes of the final rule, ``mitigates the
effect'' means that the fall protection prevents the worker from coming
into contact with a lower level if a fall occurs. As noted in the
preamble to the proposed standard, examples of fall protection include
guardrail systems, safety net systems, ladder safety systems, personal
fall arrest systems, and similar fall protection systems. OSHA did not
receive any comments on the proposed definition and adopts it with
minor revisions for clarity.
    Fixed ladder. The final definition of fixed ladder, which is
generally consistent with existing Sec.  1910.21(e)(2) and the proposed
rule, means a ladder with rails or individual rungs that is permanently
attached to a structure, building, or equipment. The definition also
states that fixed ladders include individual-rung ladders, but do not
include ship stairs, step bolts, or manhole steps.
    The final definition differs from the existing and proposed rules
by clarifying what OSHA does not consider to be fixed ladders.
Accordingly, the final definition specifies that fixed ladders do not
include ship stairs (ship ladders), step bolts, and manhole steps.
Although these devices share some of

the same characteristics of fixed ladders, such as a vertical or steep
slope, the final rule clarifies that they are not fixed ladders, and
therefore, are covered under separate provisions of the final rule.
    While fixed ladders include ladders attached to equipment, OSHA
notes ladders that are designed into or are an integral part of
machines or equipment are excluded from coverage by final Sec.
1910.23(a)(2).
    The final definition, as revised, is consistent with OSHA's
stairways and ladders standard for construction (Sec.  1926.1050(b))
and ANSI A14.3-2008 (Section 3). OSHA received no comments on the
proposed definition and finalizes it with the revisions discussed.
    Grab bar. This term means an individual horizontal or vertical
handhold installed to provide workers with access above the height of a
ladder. The final definition revises the existing and proposed rules in
two respects. First, the final definition adds language indicating that
employers can use grab bars installed either horizontally or
vertically. OSHA received one comment about the orientation of grab
bars. Nigel Ellis, of Ellis Fall Safety Solutions, recommended OSHA
require employers to use only horizontal grab bars when the length of
the bars exceeds six inches because it would be impossible to stop
workers' hands from sliding down the vertical grab bar during a fall
(Ex. 155). He also cited a University of Michigan study that
recommended using only horizontally oriented grab bars (Ex. 155,
discussing Young J, et al. ``Hand-Handhold Coupling: Effective Handle
Shape, Orientation, and Friction on Breakaway Strength,'' 51 Human
Factors 705-717 (2009)). OSHA is not adopting Mr. Ellis'
recommendations because the customary industry practice, as specified
by the ANSI fixed ladder standard (ANSI A-14.3-2008 (Section <IP_ADDRESS>)),
is to allow the use of either horizontal or vertical grab bars and not
to limit the length of vertical grab bars.
    Second, the final definition deletes language in existing Sec.
1910.21(e)(14) and the proposed rule specifying that employers use only
grab bars placed adjacent to a ladder or used as an extension of a
ladder. The final definition revises this language to ensure that
employers use only grab bars installed above the height of the ladder,
not adjacent to it. When grab bars are also in a vertical orientation
relative to a ladder, they are not an extension of the ladder;
therefore, the final definition removed the language from the proposal
referring to grab bars as an extension of a ladder.
    Guardrail system. In the final rule, similar to the proposal, this
term means a barrier erected along an unprotected or exposed side,
edge, or other area of a walking-working surface to prevent workers
from falling to a lower level. A guardrail system generally consists of
vertical, horizontal, or inclined supports; top rails; midrails;
screens; mesh or solid panels; intermediate vertical members; or other
equivalent structural members. Guardrail systems can be either
permanent or removable. The final definition generally is consistent
with the scaffold and fall protection standards for construction
(Sec. Sec.  1926.450(b) and 1926.500(b)).
    The proposed and final definition simplify the existing definitions
in Sec.  1910.21(a)(6) and (g)(7) by consolidating the terms
``guardrail'' and ``standard railing'' into the single term ``guardrail
system.'' The existing definitions are similar to, and included within,
the final definition. As a result, there is no need to include both
terms and definitions in the final rule since the single term
``guardrail system'' adequately covers both terms.
    The final rule clarifies the proposed definition by specifying that
guardrails are barriers that employers may erect on a side, edge, or
other area of a walking-working surface (e.g., hole). The barrier may
be a framework or system of individual units used together to provide
protection. For example, a guardrail system may consist of several
barriers surrounding a hole.
    OSHA did not receive any comments on the proposed definition and,
therefore, adopts it as explained.
    Handrail. The final rule, like the proposed rule and the
construction stairways standard (Sec.  1926.1050(b)), defines a
handrail as a rail used to provide workers with a handhold for support.
Handrails may be horizontal, vertical, or sloping. According to ANSI/
ASSE A1264.1-2007 (Sections 2.6 and 2.7), handrails also may be part of
a stair rail or stair rail system (i.e., the top rail).
    The proposed and final definition simplify and consolidate into one
term the three definitions for ``handrail'' in the existing rule in
Sec. Sec.  1910.21(a)(3), (b)(1), and (g)(8). Specifically, the final
definition deletes existing specifications for the materials (e.g.,
pipe, bar) that employers must use for handrails, which makes the final
definition consistent with final Sec.  1910.29, Fall protection systems
criteria and practices. The final definition also is consistent with
ANSI/ASSE A1264.1-2007 (Section 2.7). OSHA did not receive any comments
on the proposed definition and adopts the final definition as proposed.
    Hoist area. In the final rule, like the proposal, a hoist area is
defined as any elevated access opening to a walking-working surface
through which equipment or materials are loaded or received. The final
definition deletes the term ``hoisted'' before the phrase ``equipment
or material'' in the proposed definition because the definition covers
any means of loading, passing, or receiving equipment or materials
through the hoist area. OSHA did not receive any comments on the
proposed definition and finalizes it with the revisions discussed.
    Hole. The final rule, similar to the proposed rule, defines a hole
as a gap or open space in a floor, roof, horizontal walking-working
surface, or similar surfaces that is at least two inches in its least
dimension. Similar surfaces include runways, dockboards, stair treads,
and other low-slope or inclined surfaces where employees walk or work.
The existing rule contains four different terms for holes and openings
in walking-working surfaces: Floor hole (existing Sec.  1910.21(a)(1)),
floor opening (existing Sec.  1910.21(a)(2)), wall hole (existing Sec.
1910.21(a)(10)), and wall opening (existing Sec.  1910.21(a)(11)). Each
of the terms has a separate definition. ANSI/ASSE A1264.1-2007 contains
the same four terms and definitions.
    The final definition consolidates and simplifies the existing rule
in two respects. First, the final rule designates a ``hole'' as a gap
or open space in ``horizontal walking-working surfaces,'' (e.g., floor,
roof, similar surfaces) and an ``opening'' as a gap or space in
``vertical walking-working surfaces'' (e.g., wall or partition). The
final definition of ``hole'' revises the proposed definition by adding
``horizontal'' and ``similar surfaces'' so employers know holes are not
limited to floors or roofs.
    Designating the term ``hole'' to refer to gaps in horizontal or
similar walking-working surfaces allows OSHA to simplify and
consolidate the existing definitions for ``floor hole'' and ``floor
opening'' into a single term: ``hole.'' The existing rule in Sec.
1910.21(a)(1) defines a ``floor hole'' as a gap that is more than one
inch but less than 12 inches at its least dimension, while existing
Sec.  1910.21(a)(2) defines a ``floor opening'' as a gap that is 12
inches or more at its least dimension. Combining the two terms also
makes the final definition consistent with the definition in the
construction fall protection standard in Sec.  1926.500(b). The final
rule, like the proposal, also expands the term ``hole'' to cover gaps
in roofs and similar horizontal walking-working surfaces, as well as
floors.

    Second, consistent with the Plain Writing Act of 2010, the final
definition substitutes ``open space'' for ``void'' to make the term
easier to understand.
    OSHA received one comment on the proposed rule. Mark Damon, of
Damon, Inc., questioned the need for a definition of hole in a fall
protection standard, asserting that workers could not fall through a
two-inch or larger gap (Ex. 251). OSHA disagrees with Mr. Damon's
assertion. Although a worker cannot fall through a narrow (2-inch) hole
in a walking-working surface, such holes can cause workers to trip and
fall on the same level or to a lower level. Such falls can result in
worker injury or death. As such, OSHA is retaining the definition with
the changes discussed above.
    Individual-rung ladder. This is a type of fixed ladder that has
rungs individually attached to a building or structure. It does not
include manhole steps. The proposed rule also excluded manhole steps.
    Although manhole steps have individual rungs, they involve unique
conditions, and OSHA addresses these conditions in a separate section
of final subpart D (Sec.  1910.24). Therefore, the final definition
excludes manhole steps from the individual-rung ladder definition to
prevent any confusion and emphasize that final Sec.  1910.24, not final
Sec.  1910.23 applies to manhole steps.
    The proposed rule also included ladders consisting of rungs
individually attached to a piece of equipment. Because final rule Sec.
1910.23(a)(2) excludes ladders designed into or integral to a piece of
equipment, there was no need to include such ladders within the
definition of individual rung ladders.
    OSHA did not receive any comments on the proposed definition and
adopts it with the revisions discussed above.
    Ladder. This term means a device with rungs, steps, or cleats used
to gain access to a different elevation. The final rule simplifies and
consolidates into one definition the three definitions of ``ladder'' in
the existing rule in Sec.  1910.21(c)(1), (d)(1), and (e)(1). The final
definition also eliminates references to ladder specifications (e.g.,
``joined at regular intervals'') since they simply repeat requirements
addressed by final Sec.  1910.23.
    OSHA received one comment on the proposed ``ladder'' definition.
Steve Smith, of Verallia, recommended that OSHA clarify the term
because he said that the phrase ``a device with steps'' is ambiguous
and could include stairs as well as a ladder (Ex. 171). OSHA does not
agree that stakeholders might mistakenly think the term ``ladder''
includes stairs. The proposed and final definitions of ``ladder'' are
essentially the same as the one that all of the ANSI A14 ladder
standards use: ``Ladder. A device incorporating or employing steps,
rungs, or cleats on which a person may step to ascend or descend''
(see, e.g., ANSI A14.1-2007 (Section 4); ANSI A14.2-2007 (Section 4);
ANSI A14.3-2008 (Section 3); ANSI A14.5-2007 (Section 4)). The ANSI A14
ladder standards have been in place for years, and OSHA believes
employers, workers, and manufacturers clearly understand the term
``ladder,'' as defined in the ANSI standards, and will not confuse the
term with stairs. However, to ensure the final rule is understandable,
the final rule clarifies the definitions of ``rung, step, or cleat''
and ``tread'' to specify that a ``step'' is a cross-piece of a ladder
and ``tread'' refers to the horizontal part of ``stairways (stair).''
    Ladder safety system. In the final rule, a ladder safety system is
a system designed to eliminate or reduce the possibility of falling
from a ladder. The final definition explains that a ladder safety
system usually consists of a carrier; a safety sleeve, which is a
moving component that travels on the carrier; a lanyard; connectors;
and a body harness. The final definition also specifies that cages and
wells are not ladder safety systems.
    The existing rule in Sec.  1910.21(e)(13) uses a similar term,
``ladder safety device,'' which also excludes ladder cages and wells.
OSHA's construction ladder standard in Sec.  1926.1053 uses the same
term, but does not include a definition of the term. The final
definition is consistent with the ANSI fixed-ladder standard (ANSI
A14.3-2008; Section 3).
    OSHA received one comment on the definition of ladder safety
system. Darryl Hill, of the American Society of Safety Engineers
(ASSE), urged OSHA to prohibit the use of body belts in ladder safety
systems as the Agency did with personal fall arrest systems:

    ASSE opposes the use of body belts. There are good ``safety
reasons'' . . . for supporting OSHA's decision in 1998 to ban the
use of body belts as part of a personal fall arrest system. OSHA
needs to take this opportunity to ban their use entirely for the
same reasons it banned them in 1998. A full body harness distributes
arresting forces over larger areas of the workers body and provides
better suspension support, as research has repeatedly confirmed (Ex.
127).

    OSHA agrees with ASSE that full-body harnesses provide better
suspension support precisely because they distribute arresting/impact
forces over a larger area of a worker's body than body belts. To that
end, the final rule in Sec.  1910.140(d)(3) retains OSHA's 1998
prohibition on the use of body belts as part of a personal fall arrest
system. OSHA believes this requirement in final Sec.  1910.140
addresses ASSE's concern and the Agency encourages employers to
provide, and require that their workers use body harnesses when using
any type of personal fall protection equipment.
    Low-slope roof. This is a new term that OSHA added to the final
rule. Low-slope roof is defined as a roof with a slope less than or
equal to a ratio of 4 in 12. A ratio of 4 in 12 means a vertical rise
of 4 units (e.g., inches, feet, meters) to every 12 units of horizontal
run. The final definition is almost identical to the definition of
``low-slope roof'' found in the construction fall protection standard
in Sec.  1926.500(b).
    OSHA added this term to final paragraph (b) because the final rule
includes a new provision on controlling fall hazards on low-slope roofs
(final Sec.  1910.28(b)(13)), which is consistent with the construction
fall protection standard in Sec.  1926.501(b)(10). OSHA is aware that
low-slope roofs also are referred to as ``flat roofs.'' However, even a
so-called ``flat roof'' has some slope to allow for drainage. As such,
OSHA believes that the term ``low-slope roof'' more accurately
represents these roofing configurations.
    Lower level. The final rule, similar to the proposal, defines this
term as a surface or area to which workers could fall. The final
definition lists examples of lower levels including, but not limited
to, ground levels, floors, roofs, ramps, runways, excavations, pits,
tanks, materials, water, equipment, and similar surfaces and
structures, or portions thereof. The final rule adds to the proposed
definition of lower level ``surface'' and ``structures, or portions
thereof,'' which make the final definition consistent with the
definition of ``lower level'' in the construction fall protection
standard in Sec.  1926.500(b). The construction standards for
scaffolds, and stairways and ladders, also have similar definitions
(Sec. Sec.  1926.450(b); 1926.1050(b)). OSHA did not receive any
comments on the proposed definition and adopts it with the changes
discussed above.
    Manhole steps. The final rule, similar to the proposal, defines
these as steps that are individually attached to, or set into the walls
of a manhole structure. Although the steps are individually set into or
attached to the walls, manhole steps are not considered ``individual-
rung ladders'' as stated in the final definition of ``fixed ladders.''
Manhole steps also do not include manhole entry

ladders which are portable and are covered in final Sec.  1910.23,
Ladders.
    OSHA did not receive any comments on the proposed definition and
adopts it with minor editorial changes.
    Maximum intended load. The final rule, similar to the proposal,
defines this term as the total load (weight and force) of all
employees, equipment, vehicles, tools, materials, and other loads the
employer reasonably anticipates to be applied to a walking-working
surface at any one time. The existing rule in Sec.  1910.21(f)(19) and
the construction standards for scaffolds, and stairways and ladders in
Sec. Sec.  1926.450(b) and 1926.1050(b) have similar definitions.
    OSHA clarified the final definition in several ways. First, the
proposed rule indicated that ``maximum intended load'' was also known
as ``designed working load.'' OSHA is aware that ``designed working
load'' is an outdated term; thus, the final definition deletes it.
Second, the final definition adds language clarifying that the maximum
intended load includes the combined total weight of the load, as well
as the force of the load.
    Third, the final definition adds ``vehicles'' to the list of
potential components of a total load. Vehicles are found on many types
of walking-working surfaces, and determinations of the maximum intended
load must include the weight of vehicles, and the load being carried by
the vehicles, applied to the walking-working surface.
    Fourth, the final definition adds language clarifying that
employers are responsible for determining the maximum load in terms of
all equipment, vehicles, materials, workers, and other items they
reasonably anticipate applying to a walking-working surface. Requiring
that an employer know the maximum weight and force a walking-working
surface can support and the total weight and force of the loads they
reasonably anticipate applying to that surface is essential in
safeguarding workers from harm, e.g., falls from elevated surfaces and
being struck by falling objects. OSHA believes the language added to
the final definition clarifies the employers' responsibility.
    Fifth and finally, the final definition adds the language ``at any
time'' to make the definition consistent with other OSHA standards
(e.g., existing Sec. Sec.  1910.21(f)(19); 1926.450(b); 1926.1050(b)).
    OSHA did not receive any comments on the proposed definition and
adopts it with the revisions discussed above.
    Mobile. The final rule, like the proposed rule, defines ``mobile''
as being manually propelled or movable. The existing rule defines
``mobile'' as manually propelled (existing Sec.  1910.21(g)(12)). The
proposed and final definitions update the existing rule to make it
consistent with ANSI A14.7-2011 (Section 3), which specifies that
``mobile'' also means ``moveable.'' OSHA believes that the final
definition also clarifies the definitions of ``mobile ladder stand''
and ``mobile ladder stand platform.''
    In the proposal, OSHA asked for comment on whether it is necessary
to define a common term like ``mobile,'' but the Agency did not receive
any comments. Therefore, OSHA adopts the proposed definition with one
editorial clarification (replacing ``and/or'' with ``or'').
    Mobile ladder stand. This term (also known as ``ladder stand'')
means a mobile, fixed-height, self-supporting ladder usually consisting
of wheels or casters on a rigid base and steps that leads to a top
step. The final definition explains that a mobile ladder stand also may
have handrails and is designed for use by one worker at a time. A
parenthetical in the definition refers to ``ladder stand'' as another
name for mobile ladder stands; ``ladder stand'' is the term used for
mobile ladder stands in existing Sec. Sec.  1910.21(g)(9), 1926.450(b),
and 1926.1050(b), and ANSI A14.7-2011 (Section 3).
    The final definition clarifies the proposed rule and OSHA's
existing definition for ladder stand in several ways. First, the final
definition adds language clarifying that mobile ladder stands usually
consist of wheels or casters on a rigid base, in addition to steps.
This addition clearly distinguishes ladder stands from other types of
ladders. Second, the final rule simplifies and clarifies the definition
by using the term ``steps'' in place of ``treads in the form of
steps,'' which is in the existing and proposed definitions. The term
``step,'' which final paragraph (b) also defines, is clear and well
understood, and does not require further elaboration.
    Third, the final definition deletes the proposed term ``flat'' used
to describe ladder stand steps because it is not necessary. Final Sec.
1910.23 establishes requirements for ladder stand steps (final
Sec. Sec.  1910.23(b)(1) and (b)(4)). OSHA did not receive any comments
on the proposed definition and adopts it with the clarifications
discussed above.
    Mobile ladder stand platform. The final rule defines this term as a
mobile, fixed-height, self-supporting unit having one or more standing
platforms that are provided with means of access or egress. Existing
OSHA standards do not include or define the term ``mobile ladder stand
platforms.'' \11\ Frequently employers use mobile ladder stand
platforms to provide elevated standing or working surfaces for one or
more employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ OSHA notes that the existing general industry rule includes
the terms ``platform ladder'' and ``mobile work platform.'' Existing
Sec.  1910.21(d)(5) defines ``platform ladder'' as a ``self-
supporting ladder of fixed steps with a platform provided at the
working level.'' Existing Sec.  1910.21(g)(13) defines ``mobile work
platform'' as ``a fixed work level one frame high on casters or
wheels, with bracing diagonally from platform to vertical frame.''
Both terms include elements of the final definition of ``mobile
ladder stand platform.'' In the proposed rule, OSHA consolidated and
simplified existing terms into one term: Mobile ladder stand
platform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final definition is consistent with ANSI A14.7-2011, although
the ANSI standard, like the proposed rule, includes the definition of
mobile ladder stand. OSHA did not receive any comments on the proposed
definition and finalizes the definition with minor clarifications.
    Open riser. The final rule, which is similar to existing Sec.
1910.21(b)(3) and the proposed rule, defines ``open riser'' as a gap or
space between treads of stairways that do not have upright (vertical)
or inclined members (risers).
    OSHA clarified the proposed definition slightly by adding
terminology to the final definition that it used in the final
definition of ``riser.'' This terminology specifies that, in addition
to not having upright (vertical) members, stairways with open risers do
not have inclined members. This revision makes the final definition
consistent with ANSI/ASSE A1264.1-2007 (Section 2.11).
    OSHA did not receive any comments on the proposed definition and
adopts it with the clarifications discussed above.
    Opening. The final rule, similar to the proposed rule, defines this
term as a gap or open space in a wall, partition, vertical walking-
working surface, or similar surface that is at least 30 inches high and
at least 18 inches wide, through which a worker can fall to a lower
level.
    As discussed in the definition of ``hole,'' the final rule
simplifies and consolidates four terms in the existing rule that
distinguish between openings and holes in walking-working surfaces. As
mentioned, the term ``opening'' in the final rule refers to gaps or
open spaces in areas that are generally vertical, such as walls and
partitions. The final definition consolidates into one term the
definitions of ``wall hole'' and ``wall opening'' in existing Sec.
1910.21(a)(10) and (a)(11). This consolidation makes the final
definition of ``opening'' consistent with the construction fall
protection standard

(Sec.  1926.500(b)), one of OSHA's stated goals of the final rule. OSHA
believes that having consistent general industry and construction
definitions will facilitate compliance with the final rule. The final
definition also is nearly identical to the definition of ``opening'' in
ANSI/ASSE A10.18-2012 (Section 2.9).
    Consistent with the Plain Writing Act of 2010, the final definition
substitutes ``open space'' for ``void'' to make the term easier to
understand.
    OSHA did not receive any comments on the proposed definition and
adopts the term as discussed above.
    Personal fall arrest system. This is a new term OSHA added to
subpart D in the final rule and means a system used to arrest a
worker's fall from a walking-working surface if one occurs. The final
definition explains that a personal fall arrest system consists of a
body harness,\12\ anchorage, connector, and a means of connecting the
body harness and anchorage, such as a lanyard, deceleration device,
lifeline, or a suitable combination of these. A definition for personal
fall arrest systems was provided in proposed subpart I in Sec.
1910.140 (75 FR 29147). Because the term is used in final subpart D,
and OSHA believes the term is integral to understanding the final rule,
the Agency decided to include the same definition in subpart D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ OSHA notes the final rule prohibits the use a body belt as
part of a personal fall arrest system (final Sec.  1910.140(d)(3)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final definition is consistent with OSHA's construction
standards for scaffolds and fall protection in Sec. Sec.  1926.450(b)
and 1926.500(b), respectively, and ANSI/ASSE Z359.0-2012 (Section
2.98). See the preamble to final Sec.  1910.140 for further discussion
and comments on personal fall arrest systems.
    Personal fall protection system. This is a new term OSHA added to
subpart D in the final rule and means a system (including all
components) an employer uses to provide protection from falling or to
safely arrest a worker's fall if one occurs. The final definition
identifies examples of personal fall protection systems, including
personal fall arrest systems, travel restraint systems, and positioning
systems.
    Personal fall protection systems have the following components in
common: An anchorage, body support (i.e., body harness or body belt),
and connectors (i.e., means of connecting the anchorage and body
support).
    A definition for personal fall protection systems was provided in
the proposed rule, in proposed Sec.  1910.140 (75 FR 29147). Because
the term is used in final subpart D, and OSHA believes the term is
integral to understanding the final rule, the Agency decided to include
the same definition in subpart D. The requirements for, and comments
on, personal fall protection systems are in final Sec.  1910.140,
Personal fall protection systems.
    Platform. In the final rule, like the proposal, a platform is
defined as a walking-working surface that is elevated above the
surrounding area. OSHA drew the proposed and final definitions from
existing Sec.  1910.21(a)(4) and the construction scaffold standard in
Sec.  1926.450(b). The final rule is consistent with the definition in
ANSI/ASSE A1264.1-2007.1-2007 (Section 2.14).
    OSHA did not receive any comments on the proposed definition and
adopts it as proposed with a minor editorial revision.
    Portable ladder. The final rule, like the proposal, defines this
term as a ladder that can readily be moved or carried, and usually
consists of side rails joined at intervals by steps, rungs, or cleats.
The definition in the final rule is consistent with the definition of
portable ladder in ANSI A14.1-2007 (Section 4), ANSI A14.2-2007
(Section 4), and ANSI A14.5-2007 (Section 4).
    The final rule clarifies the definition by deleting the language
``rear braces'' from the proposed definition to eliminate any confusion
about what constitutes a portable ladder for the purposes of the final
rule. Rear braces are a structural component of self-supporting
portable ladders; however, as mentioned above, the final definition of
portable ladder is not limited to those types of ladders.
    OSHA notes that portable ladders include, but are not limited to,
self-supporting, non-self-supporting, articulated, sectional,
extension, special purpose, and orchard ladders. OSHA believes that the
term portable ladders should be widely understood by employers.
    OSHA received one comment on the proposed definition. Virginia
Ruiz, representing California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation and
Farmworker Justice, urged OSHA to cover agriculture operations in the
final rule (Ex. 201). In her comment, Ms. Ruiz pointed out that
proposed revisions to the California general industry portable-ladder
standards (Title 8 CCR, Sections 3276, 3277, 3278, 3287, and 3413)
cover special-purpose orchard and fruitpickers' ladders (Ex. 201). For
further discussion on the inclusion of agriculture operations in
subpart D, see the discussion above in final paragraph (a), Scope.
    Positioning system (work-positioning system). This is a new
definition OSHA added to subpart D in the final rule. It means a system
of equipment and connectors that, when used with a body harness or body
belt, allows an employee to be supported on an elevated vertical
surface, such as a wall or window sill, and work with both hands free.
Positioning systems also are called ``positioning system devices'' and
``work-positioning equipment.''
    The definition is the same as the definition in Sec.  1910.140(b).
The newly revised electric power generation, transmission, and
distribution standard in Sec.  1910.269, and the construction standard
for fall protection in Sec.  1926.500(b), also contain similar terms
and definitions. The final definition also is consistent with ANSI/ASSE
Z359.0-2012 (Section 2.120).
    Although the proposed rule for subpart D used the term work-
positioning system, the proposal did not define it. The Agency believes
it is important to define positioning systems in final subpart D to
ensure that employers and workers understand the meaning of this term
as used in this subpart, most importantly that such systems do not
arrest falls from elevated walking-working surfaces.
    Qualified. In the final rule, like in the proposal, ``qualified''
describes a person who, by possession of a recognized degree,
certificate, or professional standing, or who by extensive knowledge,
training, and experience has successfully demonstrated the ability to
solve or resolve problems relating to the subject matter, the work, or
the project. This definition is the same as the definition in the
proposed rule and final Sec.  1910.140(b), as well as several
construction standards (Sec. Sec.  1926.32(m); 1926.450(b)) and ANSI
A10.32-2012 (Section 2.41).
    The final definition, however, differs from the definition of
``qualified person'' in the general industry powered platforms standard
(Sec.  1910.66, Appendix C, Section I(b)) and ANSI/ASSE Z359.0-2012.
The Sec.  1910.66 definition, for instance, requires that qualified
persons have a degree or professional certificate, not only
professional standing, plus extensive knowledge, training, and
experience. OSHA explained in the proposed rule that to require
qualified persons to meet the definition in the powered platforms
standard would mean that the qualified person ``would most likely need
to be an engineer'' (75 FR 28905).
    Two stakeholders recommended that the Agency adopt the definition
in

Sec.  1910.66 (Exs. 155; 206). Mr. Ellis urged OSHA to adopt the Sec.
1910.66 definition at least as it pertains to certification of
anchorages. He also said:

    After investing 40 years in industrial fall protection it is
important to feed back my experiences from hundreds of site visits
and contacts over that time. I am strongly recommending that the
word ``or'' be replaced with ``and''. Both are critically important
and the anchorage must be documented with at least a sketch or
engineering drawing which presently it rarely is except for 1910.66
App. C. In America, anchorages are mostly guesswork and this does
not do justice to ``the personal fall arrest system'' term that OSHA
is seeking to establish unless the engineering background is added.
Furthermore the design of anchorages can easily be incorporated into
architects and engineers drawings but is presently not because there
is no requirement for an engineer. This simple change may result in
saving over one half the lives lost from falls in the USA in my
opinion (Ex. 155).

    Mr. Hoberg, of DBM, Inc., said that defining qualified ``has been a
struggle for decades'' and that the Sec.  1910.66 definition ``is a
good one'':

    Two things have become commonly accepted--a competent person is
one who has enough experience and knowledge to know when to call a
qualified person. A qualified person is one who knows the technical
and working practice aspects of the problem.
    The problem we have had was how to limit the `I know, therefore
I am a qualified person' (Ex. 206).

    The final rule does not adopt the definition of ``qualified
person'' in Sec.  1910.66 appendix C. The definition of ``qualified''
in the final rule has been in use for years in the referenced
construction standards. OSHA believes the definition is clear and
employers understand it. In addition, OSHA believes that employers
understand and can distinguish between qualified and competent persons.
    With regard to the certification of anchorages, OSHA believes that
the anchorage requirements in final Sec. Sec.  1910.27 and 1910.140,
combined with the final definition of ``qualified'' person, are
adequate to ensure worker safety. OSHA notes that building owners are
free to have their building anchorages certified by professional
engineers. Therefore, OSHA finalizes the definition of ``qualified'' as
proposed.
    Ramp. The final rule defines ramp as an inclined walking-working
surface that is used to gain access to another level. Employers use
ramps to move workers, equipment, materials, supplies, and vehicles
from one level to another. Ramps also allow workers to access another
level when stairs are not available or workers cannot use them (such as
for workers who use wheelchairs). Ramps generally are permanent devices
or structures, although some ramps may be portable, such as ramps that
employers use temporarily for accessing a different level where moving
equipment or materials up or down stair risers or curbs is impractical.
    The proposed rule, similar to the 1990 proposal, defines ramp as an
inclined surface between different elevations that is used for the
passage of employees, vehicles, or both. The final rule revises the
proposed definition for two reasons. First, the proposed definition
only refers to the passage of employees and vehicles, but not other
things that may be moved across ramps, such as materials, supplies, and
equipment. The final definition does not limit the use of ramps as
passageways. Second, the final rule simplifies the proposed definition
to make it consistent with the definition in ANSI/ASSE A1264.1-2007
(Section 2.16).
    OSHA did not receive any comments on the proposed definition and
adopts it as discussed above.
    Riser. In the final rule, this term means an upright (vertical) or
inclined member of a stair located at the back of a stair tread or
platform that connects close to the front edge of the next higher
tread, platform, or landing. The final definition is consistent with
ANSI/ASSE A1264.1-2007 (Section 2.17).
    The final rule differs from the proposed definition in that the
final definition clarifies that risers may also be inclined (nearly
vertical), as well as vertical, members of a stair, and connect treads
to the next higher tread, platform or landing. The height of a riser is
measured as the vertical distance from the tread (horizontal surface)
of one step to the top of the leading edge of the tread above it (see
Figure D-8.). OSHA did not receive any comments on the proposed
definition and adopts it with the clarification discussed above.
    Rope descent system. In the final rule, a rope descent system (RDS)
is defined as a suspension system that allows a worker to descend in a
controlled manner and, as needed, to stop at any time during the
descent. The final definition adds language to the proposed definition
explaining that the RDS usually consists of a roof anchorage, support
rope, a descent device, carabiner(s) or shackle(s), and a chair
(seatboard). The final definition also states that an RDS may also be
called controlled descent equipment or apparatus; and does not include
industrial rope access systems. OSHA based the final definition of
``rope descent system'' on the definition of the term in ANSI/IWCA I-
14.1-2001, since the existing rule does not include the term.
    OSHA revised the final definition in several ways. First, the ANSI/
ASSE Z359.0-2012 (Sections 2.13 and 2.100) defines both ``automatic
descent control device'' and ``manual descent control device.''
However, neither definition encompasses the entire system. The Agency's
final definition, like ANSI/IWCA I-14.1-2001, covers the entire system,
not just the descent control device. In light of the ANSI/ASSE Z359.0-
2012 definitions, OSHA believes that stating, as in the proposal, that
another name for an RDS is ``controlled descent device'' may be
confusing. Therefore, OSHA removed that statement in the final
definition. To further clarify the final definition and distinguish it
from the terms in ANSI/ASSE Z359.0-2012, OSHA added language
identifying components of a typical RDS.
    Second, OSHA added language to the final rule specifically
excluding industrial rope-access systems from the final definition of
``rope descent system.'' OSHA received several comments recommending
that the term ``rope descent system'' include industrial rope access
systems, either as part of rope descent systems or as a new section
(e.g., Exs. 129; 205; 355-7; 347). One commenter said that rope descent
systems are a type of industrial rope access system (Ex. 362). However,
some commenters believe the definition of ``rope descent system''
already includes industrial rope access systems (Exs. 69; 72; 122; 168;
178). For example, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) said
they use industrial rope access systems as rope descent systems for
repair and maintenance of wind turbines (Ex. 178). AWEA recommended
that the definition of, and requirements for, rope descent systems
should incorporate and reference the Society of Professional Rope
Access Technicians (SPRAT) and the International Rope Access
Technicians Association standards, which AWEA said ``are much more
developed'' than the ANSI/IWCA I-14.1-2001 standard.
    In light of the comments, not only does the final definition
clarify that rope descent systems do not include industrial rope access
systems, but also final Sec.  1910.27, Scaffolds and rope descent
systems, explains that the final rule does not cover industrial rope
access systems. OSHA agrees, as SPRAT pointed out, that while
industrial rope access systems may use equipment similar to rope
descent systems (e.g.,

anchorages, body harnesses, lifelines), they are ``different in key
ways'' from rope descent systems (Ex. 355-7). For example, industrial
rope access systems are suspension systems that allow the worker to go
up or down, while rope descent systems only go down. Also, industrial
rope access systems have sit harnesses instead of seatboards or chairs.
    Third, OSHA received several comments that opposed OSHA's
characterization of a rope descent system in the proposal as a
``variation of the single-point adjustable suspension scaffold'' (Exs.
62; 168; 205). For example, Brian Gartner, of Weatherguard Service,
Inc., said, ``A rope descent system is not a variation of the single
point adjustable scaffold. The scaffold has the capability of being
raised as well as being lowered, rope descent systems only travel
downward, and a scaffold has an area, a platform, to store tools and
supplies, stand, etc.'' (Ex. 168). OSHA agrees with the commenters and
deleted that comparison from the final definition.
    Rung, step, or cleat. Similar to the proposal, the final rule
defines ``rung, step, or cleat'' as the cross-piece of a ladder on
which a worker steps to climb up and down the ladder. OSHA notes that
in the final definition, ``steps'' only refer to the cross-pieces of
ladders. The final definition is consistent with ANSI A14.1-2007
(Section 4), ANSI A14.2-2007 (Section 4), and ANSI A14.5-2007 (Section
4).
    The final definition consolidates and simplifies the existing
definitions into one term that identifies their common characteristics
and purpose (see existing Sec.  1910.21(e)(8), (9), and (10)). The
final definition also incorporates plain language (``climb up and
down'') to explain that workers use rungs, steps, or cleats to ascend
or descend ladders.
    OSHA received one comment on the proposed definition. Nigel Ellis
said OSHA should retain the separate definitions in the existing rule
``to explain a rung is designed for holding and stepping but that a
step cannot be held since it is only for the feet (shoes)'' (Ex. 155).
OSHA does not agree that including such language is necessary.
    First, the final definition is consistent with ANSI portable ladder
standards (ANSI A14.1-2007, ANSI A14.2-2007, and ANSI A14.5-2007).
Rungs, steps, and cleats are all horizontal surfaces for climbing
ladders, even if their specifications vary. (Rungs are circular or
oval, cleats are rectangular, and steps are flat). Instead of focusing
on the differences in the specification, the final rule and the ANSI
standards identify, and focus on, the primary purpose of rungs, steps,
and cleats; to provide a place to step to climb up and down the ladder.
    Second, OSHA believes it is not accurate to say that ``a step
cannot be held'' (Ex. 155). Although side rails provide handholds for
climbing ladders, especially those with steps, neither the final rule
nor the ANSI standards prohibit workers for holding onto steps, either
while climbing or standing on a ladder. As such, OSHA believes the
language Mr. Ellis suggests may cause confusion; therefore, OSHA is not
adopting it.
    Runway. In the final rule, similar to the proposal, this term means
an elevated walking-working surface, such as a catwalk, a foot walk
along shafting, or an elevated walkway between buildings. The final
definition is consistent with ANSI/ASSE A1264.1-2007 (Section 2.19).
    OSHA added three clarifications to the final ``runway'' definition.
First, the final definition substitutes ``walking-working surface'' for
``passageway.'' This change makes the definition consistent with the
definitions of other terms in final subpart D. Second, the final
definition also more clearly indicates that employees use runways to
perform work as well as to gain access to other areas in the workplace.
Third, the final rule simplifies the definition by substituting plain
language (i.e., ``elevated'') in place of ``elevated above the
surrounding floor or ground level'' used in the proposed definition.
    OSHA did not receive any comments on the proposed definition and
adopts it with the clarifications discussed above.
    Scaffold. In the final rule, like the proposal and consistent with
the construction scaffold standard (Sec.  1926.450(b)), this term means
any temporary elevated or suspended platform and its supporting
structure, including anchorage points, used to support workers,
equipment, materials, and other items. The final rule also states that,
for purposes of final subpart D, ``scaffold'' does not include crane-
suspended or derrick-suspended personnel platforms or rope descent
systems.
    The final rule consolidates into a single term the two definitions
in the existing rule in Sec.  1910.21(f)(27) and (g)(15). The final
definition also adds two clarifications to the proposed definition.
First, it adds ``equipment'' to the list of items a scaffold must be
capable of supporting. Second, it also clarifies that the final
definition of scaffold, including suspension scaffolds, does not
include rope descent systems. As discussed above, a number of
commenters opposed characterizing rope descent systems as a type of
single-point adjustable scaffold (Ex. 62; 168; 205). One commenter,
David Hoberg, with DBM Consultants, said rope descent systems differ in
many ways from scaffolds. For instance, he said the stabilization
required for rope descent systems over a height of 130 feet differs
from the stabilization required for scaffolds (Ex. 206). Consequently,
OSHA added to the definition of scaffold that the term does not apply
to rope descent systems.
    Ship stair (ship ladder). In the final rule, like the proposal, a
ship stair, also known as a ship ladder, is a stairway that is equipped
with treads, stair rails, and open risers, and has a slope that is
between 50 and 70 degrees from the horizontal. The final definition is
consistent with ANSI/ASSE A1264.1-2007 (Section 2.22).
    Ship stairs are not standard stairs within the meaning of this
section. Generally, ship stairs are a type of stairway found in
buildings and structures that have limited space, and are used for
accessing special use areas, such as but not limited to, attics, roofs,
mechanical equipment spaces, etc.
    OSHA notes that ship stair is a term of art and use of the term in
this subpart is not intended to infer applicability to the shipyard
employment, marine terminal, or longshoring industries.
    OSHA did not receive any comments on this definition and adopts it
with minor editorial revisions for clarity.
    Side-step ladder. This term means a type of fixed ladder that
requires a worker to step sideways from it to reach a walking-working
surface, such as a landing. The final definition is consistent with
ANSI A14.3-2008 (Section 3). In the final rule, OSHA revised the
proposed definition to emphasize that side-step ladders are a type of
fixed ladder (see final Sec.  1910.23(d)(4), (d)(6), and (d)(12)(ii)).
The final rule also clarifies that when a worker steps off a side-step
ladder onto a walking-working surface, it may be a landing or another
type of surface (e.g., roof). The proposed definition, on the other
hand, only mentions stepping onto a landing.
    OSHA did not receive any comments on the proposed definition and
finalizes with the clarifications discussed above.
    Spiral stairs. The final rule, similar to the proposal, defines
this term as a series of treads attached to a vertical pole in a
winding fashion that is usually within a cylindrical space. For
clarity, the Agency substituted the language ``stairway having a
helical (spiral) structure attached to a supporting pole'' in the
proposal with ``treads attached to

a vertical pole in a winding fashion within a cylindrical space.'' OSHA
drew the definition from the construction standards for stairways and
ladders (see Sec.  1926.1050(b)); it also is consistent with the
definition of the term in ANSI/ASSE A1264.1-2007 (Section 2.23).
    Additionally, in the final rule, OSHA replaced the proposed term
``steps'' with ``treads.'' As noted above in the definition for rungs,
steps or cleats, in the final rule, OSHA clarifies that steps are a
component of ladders whereas treads are components of stairs.
    Spiral stairs are not standard stairs within the meaning of this
section, and the final rule limits their use in general industry
workplaces (see final Sec.  1910.25(b)(8)). Employers generally use
spiral stairs generally in workplaces that have limited space.
    OSHA did not receive any comments on the proposed definition and
adopts it as discussed above.
    Stair rail or stair rail system. This term means a barrier erected
along the exposed or open side of stairways to prevent workers from
falling to a lower level. Stair rail and stair rail systems include,
but are not limited to, vertical, horizontal, or inclined rails;
grillwork or panels, and mesh. In addition, the top rail of a stair
rail system may serve as a handrail. The final definition is consistent
with the construction standards for stairways and ladders (see Sec.
1926.1050(b)). The ANSI/ASSE A1264.1-2007 (Section 2.6) standard
includes a definition covering ``guardrail/railing system/stair railing
system'' that is applicable to stairways, ramps, landings, portable
ladders, hatchway, manholes, and floor openings; the final definition
is generally consistent with this ANSI/ASSE standard.
    The final definition eliminates ``vertical'' from the term barriers
in order to make the definition consistent with final Sec.  1910.29(f).
That provision does not require barriers to be vertical; for example,
barriers may be horizontal rails.
    OSHA did not receive any comments on the proposed definitions and
adopts it with the revision discussed.
    Stairway (stairs). The final rule defines stairway (stairs) as
risers and treads that connect one level with another. Stairways also
include any landings and platforms between those levels. In addition,
the final rule specifies that stairway includes standard, spiral, ship,
and alternating tread-type stairs.
    The existing rule defines stairways as a series of steps leading
from one level or floor to another, or leading to platforms, pits,
boiler rooms, crossovers, or around machinery tanks and other equipment
that are used more or less continuously or routinely by employees, or
only occasionally by specific individuals. A series of steps and
landings having three or more risers constitutes stairs or stairway
(existing Sec.  1910.21(b)(8)). OSHA did not propose a definition of
stairway; however, the Agency decided to retain and revise the existing
definition.
    The final definition revises the existing definition in several
ways. First, the final rule simplifies the definition considerably.
OSHA believes the term ``stairway'' (``stairs'') is commonly understood
and does not require a long explanation. Therefore, OSHA limits the
final definition to identifying the specific aspects of the stairways
the final rule covers.
    Second, the final rule removes language in the existing definition
that limits stairways to stairs that have ``three or more risers''
(existing Sec.  1910.28(b)(8)). The proposed rule did not retain the
existing definition of stairway, which limited covered stairs to those
that have three or more risers. Including a definition in the final
rule clarifies the Agency's intent to cover stairways that have fewer
risers.
    OSHA adopted the existing definition from national consensus
standards in effect in 1971 and those standards have been revised and
updated. In particular, the current versions of ANSI/ASSE A1264.1-2007
(Section E6.1) and IBC-2012 (Section 202) specify that a stair has one
or more risers. The revision makes the final rule consist with those
national consensus standards, which OSHA believes that most employers
already follow.
    Finally, OSHA adds language to the final definition explaining that
stairways include standard, spiral, alternating tread-type, and ship
stairs (ship ladders). The existing rule did not include that language.
    OSHA did not receive any comments about a definition for ``stairway
(stairs)'' and adopts the definition as discussed.
    Standard stairs. The final rule, like the proposal, defines
standard stairs as stairways that are fixed or permanently installed.
In the preamble to the proposed rule OSHA explained that ``permanently
installed'' standard stairs are interchangeable with the term ``fixed''
standard stairs. To further clarify the definition, OSHA added this
concept.
    Existing OSHA standards do not define ``standard stairs.'' The
ANSI/ASSE A1264.1-2007 (Section 6) standard uses the terms ``fixed
stairs'' and ``conventional stair designs,'' but does not define either
term.
    Although ship stairs, spiral stairs, and alternating tread-type
stairs are fixed or permanently installed stairs, the final definition
specifies that they are not considered standard stairs under this
subpart.
    OSHA did not receive any comments on the proposed definition and
finalizes it as discussed above.
    Step bolt (pole step). This term means a bolt or rung attached at
intervals along a structural member and used for foot placement and as
a handhold when climbing or standing. The final definition, like the
proposal, also refers to step bolts as ``pole steps.'' Existing subpart
D does not specifically define or address step bolts.
    OSHA did not receive any comments on the proposed definition and
adopts it as discussed.
    Stepladder. This term means a self-supporting, portable ladder that
has a fixed height, flat steps, and a hinged back. The final definition
consolidates into one term the two existing definitions in existing
Sec.  1910.21(c)(2) and (d)(2). The final definition also simplifies
the proposed definition by incorporating plain language (fixed height)
in place of ``non-adjustable in length.''
    OSHA did not receive any comments on the proposed definition and
adopts it with the clarification discussed above.
    Stepstool. This term means a self-supporting, portable ladder that
has flat steps and side rails. Similar to the proposed definition, the
final rule defines the term ``stepstool'' to include only those ladders
that have a fixed height, do not have a pail shelf, and do not exceed
32 inches in overall height to the top cap, although the side rails may
extend above the top cap. The definition goes on to clarify that a
stepstool is designed so an employee can climb and stand on all of the
steps as well as the top cap. OSHA drew the definition from the
construction stairways and ladders standard (Sec.  1926.1050(b)), ANSI
A14.2-2007 (Section 4), and ANSI A14.5-2007 (Section 4), which are
similar. The final definition simplifies the proposed term by
incorporating plain language ``fixed height'' in place of ``non-
adjustable in length,'' and reorganizing the definition to make it
easier to understand.
    OSHA did not receive any comments on the proposed definition and
finalizes it with the revisions discussed above.
    Through ladder. The final rule, similar to the proposed rule,
defines a through ladder as a type of fixed ladder that allows workers
to step through the side rails at the top of the ladder to reach a
walking-working surface, such as a landing. The final definition is

consistent with the construction standards for stairways and ladders
(see Sec.  1926.1050(b)) and ANSI A14.3-2008 (Section 3).
    The final definition clarifies the existing rule in Sec.
1910.21(e)(15) and the proposed rule by stating that, at the top of a
through ladder, a worker steps off the ladder onto a ``walking-working
surface,'' which may be a landing or another type of surface (e.g.,
roof); the existing and proposed rules specify stepping onto a landing
only.
    OSHA did not receive any comments on the proposed definition and
adopts it with the clarification discussed above.
    Tieback. Similar to the proposed definition, this term means an
attachment between an anchorage (e.g., structural member) and a
supporting device. The final definition adds language to the proposed
definition clarifying that supporting devices include, but are not
limited to, parapet clamps or cornice hooks.
    According to the International Safety Equipment Association (ISEA),
manufacturers provide a number of choices for tieback applications,
such as tieback lines or lanyards, and tieback anchors (Ex. 185). ISEA
said manufacturers design tieback lanyards for wrapping around a
suitable anchor structure (e.g., a beam or structural member), and have
the advantage of eliminating a separate component for anchorage
connection. ISEA explained that employers typically use tieback
lanyards in personal fall arrest systems (Ex. 185).
    ANSI/IWCA I-14.1-2001 (Sections 5.7.17, 17.4, and 17.6) notes that
the exclusive use of tieback anchors is with tieback lines, not
lifelines. The final rule requires that tieback lines and lifelines
have separate anchors.
    Existing OSHA standards do not define ``tieback.'' OSHA drew the
definition from ANSI A10.8-2011, American National Standard for
Construction and Demolition Operations--Safety Requirements for
Scaffolding. OSHA believes that adding a definition for ``tieback''
clarifies the use of the term elsewhere in this subpart. Mr. Hoberg, of
DBM Consultants, stated clarification is necessary because various
parts of the country use the term differently, and that ``each area
swears adamantly that theirs is the right one and keeps trying to
change the other'' (Ex. 206).
    The definition is finalized with the clarifying revisions noted
above.
    Toeboard. The final rule, similar to the proposal, defines this
term as a low protective barrier that is designed to prevent materials,
tools, and equipment from falling to a lower level, and protect workers
from falling. Typically, employers erect toeboards on platforms,
dockboards, catwalks, gridirons, and other elevated or exposed floor
level edges. Toeboards, also are referred to as toeplates or
kickplates, and may be part of a guardrail system.
    The final rule consolidates into one term the three definitions in
the existing rule in Sec.  1910.21(a)(9), (f)(31), and (g)(16), all of
which are consistent with the final definition. The final rule
clarifies that toeboards prevent tools, as well as materials and other
equipment, from falling on workers who may be below the elevated
walking-working surface.
    Finally, and most importantly, OSHA clarifies expressly that
toeboards serve two purposes: Preventing materials, tools, and
equipment from falling on and injuring workers on a lower level; and
protecting workers from falling off elevated walking-working surfaces.
The final definition is consistent with OSHA's construction standard
for fall protection in Sec.  1926.500(b) and ANSI/ASSE A10.18-2012
(Section 2.18).
    OSHA did not receive any comments on the proposed definition and
adopts it with the clarifications discussed above.
    Travel restraint system. This definition is new in the final rule.
This system is a combination of an anchorage, an anchorage connector,
lanyard (or other means of connection), and body support that an
employer uses to eliminate the possibility of a worker going over the
edge of a walking-working surface.
    OSHA drew the definition from final Sec.  1910.140(b). The
definition also is consistent with the definition in ANSI/ASSE Z359.0-
2012 (Section 2.204), and the definition of the term ``restraint
(tether) system'' in ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2012 (Sections 2.53).
    OSHA did not receive any comments on the proposed definition in
Sec.  1910.140 and, therefore, adopts a definition as described above
for final subpart D. For further discussion about the definition of
``travel restraint system,'' see the preamble discussion for final
Sec.  1910.140.
    Tread. The final rule, similar to the proposal rule, defines this
term as a horizontal member of a stair or stairway, but does not
include landings or platforms. OSHA added clarifying language in the
final rule, that landings and platforms, which are horizontal members
of stairways, are not considered treads.
    The final definition revises the existing and proposed rules by
using ``stairways or stair'' in place of ``step.'' This revision
clarifies that treads describe horizontal members of stairways. In the
existing and proposed rules, treads and steps refer to horizontal
members of both ladders and stairways, which OSHA believes may cause
confusion. By limiting the term ``tread'' to stairways or stairs, and
the term ``step'' to ladders, the final rule should resolve any
potential confusion.
    Treads are measured by their width (side to side) and depth (front
to back). OSHA notes that tread depth is measured horizontally between
the vertical planes of the foremost projection of adjacent treads, and
at a right angle to the tread's leading edge. This method of
measurement is consistent with the NFPA 101-2012 (Section <IP_ADDRESS>.5)
and the IBC-2012 (Section 1009.7.2).
    The final definition is consistent with ANSI/ASSE A1264.1-2007.1
(Section 2.26). OSHA did not receive any comments on the proposed
definition and adopts it as discussed.
    Unprotected sides and edges. This term means any side or edge of a
walking-working surface, (except at entrances and other points of
access) where there is no wall, guardrail system, or stair rail system
to protect workers from falling to a lower level. The final definition,
which replaces the language ``open-sided floors, platforms, and
runways'' in the existing rule in Sec.  1910.23(c)(1), is consistent
with the definition of the term in OSHA construction standards (see
Sec. Sec.  1926.500(b) and 1926.1050(b)).
    The final rule revises the proposed definition in two respects.
First, it states that a walking-working surface is unprotected if it
does not have a stair rail system, in addition to not having a wall or
guardrail system as specified in the proposed definition, to protect
workers from falling.
    Second, OSHA deleted the height-specification language in the
proposed rule. This language is not necessary because final Sec.
1910.29, Fall protection systems and falling object protection--
criteria and practices, already addresses these height requirements.
    OSHA did not receive any comments on the proposed definition and
finalizes it with the revisions discussed above.
    Walking-working surface. The final rule, similar to the proposal,
defines this term as a horizontal or vertical surface on or through
which workers walk, work, or gain access to work areas or workplace
locations. Walking-working surfaces include floors, stairways, roofs,
ladders, runways, ramps, walkways, dockboards, aisles, platforms,
manhole steps, step bolts, equipment, trailers, and other surfaces. The
existing rule does not define ``walking-working

surfaces,'' but the final definition is similar to the definition for
``walking-working surface'' in the construction standard for fall
protection in Sec.  1926.500(b), ANSI/ASSE A10.18-2012 (Section 2.20),
and ANSI/ASSE A1264.1-2007 (Section 2.28). OSHA notes that, unlike the
construction standard for fall protection, the final definition does
not exclude ``ladders, vehicles, or trailers, on which employees must
be located in order to perform their job duties.''
    The final rule makes two revisions to the proposed walking-working
surface definition. First, the final definition adds ``work area'' as a
location to which a worker may gain access. This revision means that
walking-working surfaces include those areas where employees perform
their job duties, as well as other locations in the workplace, such as
hallways and supply and change rooms. OSHA notes that, for some work
and occupations, including equipment service and repair, delivery of
materials and supplies, and landscaping, the ``work area'' may be at
various locations. OSHA believes that adding ``work area'' to the final
definition makes it clear what the term covers. The revision also makes
the final definition consistent with ANSI/ASSE A1264.1-2007 (Section
2.28).
    Second, also consistent with ANSI/ASSE A1264.1-2007, the final rule
deletes the list of examples of walking-working surfaces from the
proposal. Accordingly, the regulated community is to broadly construe
the final definition of ``walking-working surface'' to cover any
surface on or through which employees walk, work, or gain access to a
work area or workplace location. Since the final definition does not
exclude any walking-working surface, OSHA does not believe that
identifying a partial list of surfaces the final rule covers is
helpful, necessary, or definitive.
    OSHA received several comments addressing the scope of the
definition of ``walking-working surface,'' which it discusses above in
the preamble to Sec.  1910.21(a), Scope.
    Warning line. This is a new definition OSHA added to the final
rule. The term describes a barrier that is erected on a roof to warn
workers they are approaching an unprotected side or edge, and which
designates an area in which work may take place without using other
means of fall protection. The warning line is a component of a
designated area, which is an alternative method for preventing falls
that the final rule allows employers to use to protect workers on low-
slope roofs (see final Sec. Sec.  1910.28(b)(13) and 1910.29(d)). A
warning line alerts workers that the space marked off by the line is an
area where they may work without conventional or additional fall
protection (e.g., guardrail, safety net, or personal fall protection
system).
    Workers may enter the demarcated area only if the employer provides
them with the required fall hazard training (see final Sec.  1910.30)
and assigns them to work in the demarcated area. In large part, OSHA
drew the definition in the final rule from the definition of ``warning
line system'' in the construction standard for fall protection (see
Sec.  1926.500(b)).
    Although the proposed rule used the term ``warning line,'' the
proposal did not define it. The final rule corrects this oversight. The
Agency believes it is important to define the term so that employers
and workers understand the new fall prevention method, and so employers
may comply with the new warning line requirements.
    OSHA did not receive any comments and adopts the definition as
discussed above.
    Well. Similar to existing Sec.  1910.21(e)(12) and the proposed
rule, this term means a permanent, complete enclosure around a fixed
ladder. A well surrounding a fixed ladder must provide sufficient
clearance to enable the employee to climb the ladder. The terms
``well'' and ``cage'' typically are used together because the
structures serve the same purpose, i.e., to enclose the climbing area
of a fixed ladder. In the event of a fall, wells and cages contain
workers within the enclosure and direct them to a lower landing (Ex.
198). ANSI A14.3-2008 (Section 3) also contains a similar definition.
    The final rule deletes proposed language stating that ``proper
clearances for a well provide the person climbing the ladder the same
protection as a cage'' to prevent employers and workers from mistakenly
believing that wells and cages provide fall protection. Information in
the record indicates that wells and cages do not protect workers from
falling (see, e.g., Ex. 198); as a result, the final rule in Sec.
1910.28(b)(9) phases out their use as fall protection systems.
    OSHA did not receive any comments on the proposed definition and
adopts the term with the revision discussed above.
    Other issues. Two commenters suggested that OSHA include additional
definitions in the final rule. First, Nigel Ellis recommended that OSHA
add a definition for the term ``cover'' to the final rule, stating:

    The word Cover is not presently defined as to adequacy and
walkability in the May 2010 standard proposal. A cover may be a
plywood board or perhaps OSB or temporarily and more dangerously a
section of drywall to keep out dust and weakens when wet. The new to
America Platform Nets should be accommodated for maintenance work to
allow walkable fabric covers to be used for walking across holes and
open spaces.
* * * * *
    The term cover should be defined on a structural level
applicable to any unit skylight, including plastic, light
transmitting pane and smoke vent and where it is either a board,
fabric, fall protection net, walkable net, skylight with structural
members impervious to the effects of UV sunlight, screen, grill and
should be tested for impacts with humans (Ex. 155).

    OSHA believes employers understand the meaning of cover; therefore,
it is not necessary to add a definition to the final rule.
    Second, Mercer ORC requested that OSHA define the term ``chain
gate'' and identify how it differs from the term ``swinging gate'' (Ex.
254). The reference to chain gate in proposed Sec.  1910.29(b)(10) was
a typographical error that inadvertently omitted the comma between
chain and gate. Given that, there is no need to add a definition for
either chain gate or swinging gate.
Section 1910.22--General Requirements
    Final Sec.  1910.22 revises and updates the existing requirements
that apply to surfaces in general industry. These provisions address:
     Surface conditions and housekeeping (paragraph (a));
     Application of loads on walking-working surfaces
(paragraph (b));
     Access to and egress from walking-working surfaces
(paragraph (c)); and
     Inspection, maintenance, and repair of walking-working
surfaces (paragraph (d)).
    In general, the final rule revises the existing requirements in
several ways. First, final Sec.  1910.22, as well as all other sections
of final subpart D, uses the term ``walking-working surface.'' Final
Sec.  1910.21(b) defines walking-working surface as any horizontal or
vertical surface on or through which an employee walks, works, or gains
access to a workplace location. Walking-working surfaces include, but
are not limited to, floors, stairways, roofs, ladders, runways,
walkways, dockboards, aisles, and step bolts.
    In final Sec.  1910.22, as in other sections of final subpart D,
OSHA revised the existing language so it is performance-based and
easier to understand, consistent with the OSH Act (29 U.S.C.
655(b)(5)), and the Plain Language Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274; see
also E.O. 13568 (1/18/2011)), respectively. OSHA

believes the revised language provides greater flexibility for
employers, and makes it easier for them to comply with the final rule.
    OSHA also moved or deleted provisions in existing Sec.  1910.22
that address specific issues or hazards rather than general conditions.
For example, OSHA moved the existing guardrail and covers requirements
(existing Sec.  1910.22(c)) to final Sec. Sec.  1910.28 (Duty to have
fall protection), and 1910.29 (Fall protection systems criteria and
practices). OSHA believes that the existing provision, which addresses
two specific types of fall protection measures, is more appropriately
grouped with the other fall protection measures. In addition, OSHA
deleted the requirements on mechanical-handling equipment in existing
paragraph (b) because Sec.  1910.176(a) addresses that issue.
Paragraph (a)--Walking-Working Surfaces
    Final paragraph (a), like the existing and proposed rules, contains
general requirements on housekeeping and walking-working surface
conditions. Pursuant to section 6(a) of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 655(a)),
OSHA adopted most of the requirements in existing paragraph (a) from
the ANSI standard in effect in the early 1970s (ANSI Z4.1-1968,
Requirement for Sanitation in Places of Employment (Z4.1-1968)).
Although ANSI updated the Z4.1 standard several times since 1968 (see
ANSI Z4.1-1986 (R2005) (Z4.1-R2005)), OSHA did not update the
requirements until this rulemaking.
    Final paragraph (a)(1), consistent with the existing and proposed
rules, requires that employers ensure surfaces are kept in a clean,
orderly, and sanitary condition in ``[a]ll places of employment,
passageways, storerooms, service rooms, and walking-working surfaces.''
Final paragraph (a)(1) also is consistent with Z4.1-R2005 (Section
3.1.1). OSHA adds the term ``walking-working surfaces'' to the
provision to eliminate any confusion about the surfaces the final rule
is intended to cover.
    In the preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA explained its
longstanding position that Sec.  1910.22(a), especially Sec.
1910.22(a)(1), covers hazards other than slips, trips, and falls, and
includes fire and explosion resulting from combustible dust
accumulations (see 75 FR 28874). Prior court decisions uphold OSHA's
interpretation, saying ``the housekeeping [Sec.  1910.22(a)] standard
is not limited to tripping and falling hazards, but may be applied to
significant accumulation of combustible dust'' (Con Agra, Inc. v.
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, 672 F.2d 699, 702
(8th Cir. 1982), citing Bunge Corp. v. Secretary of Labor, 638 F.2d
831, 834 (5th Cir. 1981)). In Pratt & Whitney Aircraft (9 O.S.H. Cas.
(BNA) 1653, 1981 O.S.H.D. (CCH) P 25359, 1981 WL 18894 (O.S.H.R.C.),
the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (Review
Commission) reached the same conclusion on a converse set of facts.
Pratt & Whitney argued that Sec.  1910.22(a)(1) only covered
``sanitation and the prevention of disease,'' not trip hazards. The
Review Commission rejected that argument, saying the standard's
requirement that employers keep places of employment ``in a sanitary
condition'' is ``in addition to the requirement that workplaces be
`clean and orderly,' thus demonstrating that the standard is directed
not merely to sanitation but to all hazards arising from poor
housekeeping, including tripping hazards.'' (See also, Farmer's Co-op,
1982 WL 2222661 (O.S.H.R.C.); CTA Acoustics (KY 2003), CSB Report No.
2003-09-I-KY (February 2005); Hayes Lemmerz International (Indiana
2003), CSB Report No. 2004-01-I-IN (September 2005).)
    As these cases show, Sec.  1910.22(a)(1) serves as an important
enforcement tool for preventing hazardous combustible dust
accumulations on walking-working surfaces. Moreover, in essentially
every document addressing combustible dust that OSHA released since
Bunge, the Agency affirmed that its combustible dust enforcement
strategy includes citing housekeeping violations (i.e., failure to
control combustible dust accumulations) under Sec.  1910.22(a)(1). (See
e.g., ``Combustible Dust in Industry: Preventing and Mitigating the
Effects of Fire and Explosion,'' OSHA Safety and Health Information
Bulletin (SHIB) 07-31-2005, (2005, July 31) \13\; ``Hazard Alert:
Combustible Dust Explosions,'' OSHA Fact Sheet (March 2008) \14\; OSHA
Compliance Directive CPL-03-00-008, ``Combustible Dust National
Emphasis Program,'' (March 11, 2008) (replacing CPL 03-00-006,
``Combustible Dust National Emphasis Program,'' October 18, 2007) \15\;
and ``Status Report on Combustible Dust National Emphasis Program,''
(October 2009)).\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Combustible Dust in Industry: Preventing and Mitigating the
Effects of Fire and Explosion available from OSHA's Web site at:
http://www.osha.gov/dts/shib/shib073105.html.
    \14\ Hazard Alert: Combustible Dust Explosions available from
OSHA's Web site at: http://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/data_General_Facts/OSHAcombustibledust.pdf.
    \15\ Combustible Dust National Emphasis Program available from
OSHA's Web site at: http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=DIRECTIVES&p_id=3830.
    \16\ Status Report on Combustible Dust National Emphasis Program
available from OSHA's Web site at: http://www.osha.gov/dep/combustible_dust/combustible_dust_nep_rpt_102009.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the proposed rule, OSHA requested comment on whether the Agency
should include a specific reference to combustible dust or other types
of dust or materials in final Sec.  1910.22(a) to clarify explicitly
that the provision does, and will continue to, cover combustible dust
hazards. OSHA received many comments. Two commenters, United Food and
Commercial Workers (UFCW) (Ex. 159) and the American Federation of
Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) (Exs. 172; 329
(1/20/2011, p. 219); 363) supported including a specific reference in
both final Sec.  1910.22(a)(1) and (a)(2). Bill Kojola of the AFL-CIO
said: ``While agency interpretations to include combustible dust have
proven useful to address this hazard, we believe an explicit
referencing of combustible dust within each of these paragraphs is
necessary to * * * let employers know with explicit certainty that
combustible dust is covered by these provisions'' (Ex. 172). UFCW,
which said it represents food plants, including sugar, corn, flour-
milling, and cocoa plants, explained: ``The food dusts in these plants
can be combustible. Housekeeping--keeping combustible dust from
accumulating on floors and other surfaces and keeping surfaces as free
from dust as possible--is a critical aspect to mitigating and
preventing combustible dust explosions'' (Ex. 159).
    However, most commenters, for various reasons, opposed including a
specific reference to combustible dust in final Sec.  1910.22(a) (Exs.
73; 96; 124; 148; 158; 166; 173; 186; 189; 190; 202; 207; 254). First,
many commenters seemed to think that existing Sec.  1910.22(a)(1) does
not cover combustible dust, and that OSHA is aiming to add it to the
final rule as part of this rulemaking (Exs. 73; 96; 124; 148; 158; 166;
202). For example, several commenters said that Sec.  1910.22(a) and
this rulemaking focus, and should focus, on preventing slips, trips,
and falls, which is not the primary hazard of combustible dust (Exs.
73; 96; 124; 158; 166; 190; 207; 254). The United States Beet Sugar
Association (USBSA) and National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA),
citing a 1978 OSHA Memorandum, also argued that OSHA is uncertain
whether Sec.  1910.22(a) applies to combustible dust because the Agency
instructed its compliance officers to cite Sec.  1910.22(a)(1) and

Section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act, in the alternative, for grain-dust
accumulations (Exs. 148; 166).
    These commenters are mistaken. As described in detail above, OSHA
has for more than 30 years interpreted Sec.  1910.22(a)(1) as applying
to combustible dust hazards, and the courts have upheld this
interpretation. In the 2009 ``Status Report on Combustible Dust
National Emphasis Program,'' OSHA noted that housekeeping violations
(Sec.  1910.22(a)(1)) accounted for 20 percent of the violations
involving combustible dust, second only to hazard communication
violations. In the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on combustible
dust, OSHA also stated that existing Sec.  1910.22(a) covers
``accumulation of dust, including dust that may be combustible'' (74 FR
54334, 54335 (October 21, 2009)). Therefore, regardless of whether OSHA
includes a specific reference to combustible dust in final Sec.
1910.22(a)(1), OSHA's enforcement policy remains the same.
    With regard to USBSA's and NGFA's ``uncertainty'' argument, the
1978 memorandum they cite has not been OSHA's policy since 1981, when
the courts and the Review Commission upheld OSHA's interpretation that
Sec.  1910.22(a)(1) covers combustible dust.
    Second, a number of commenters cited OSHA's ongoing combustible
dust rulemaking as a reason why the Agency should not reference
combustible dust in final Sec.  1910.22(a)(1) (Exs. 73; 96; 124; 158;
189; 190; 202; 207; 254). The National Federation of Independent
Business (NFIB) said that including a reference to combustible dust in
final Sec.  1910.22(a) would ``create confusion for small businesses
when the combustible dust rule is finalized'' (Ex. 173). The Small
Business Administration Office of Advocacy (SBA Advocacy) said that
Sec.  1910.22(a) is so vague that ``it would undo any specificity in
any forthcoming combustible dust standard'' (Ex. 124). USBSA agreed,
stating that including a reference to combustible dust in Sec.
1910.22(a)(1) ``would significantly undermine the usefulness of a
combustible dust rule'' and ``would swallow up and nullify whatever
specificity is provided by a comprehensive combustible dust standard''
(Ex. 166).
    The National Cotton Ginners' Association (NCGA), the Texas Cotton
Ginners Association (TCGA), and American Feed Industry Association
(AFIA) said including combustible dust in Sec.  1910.22(a)(1) would be
``redundant and possibly conflicting'' when OSHA ``re-regulate[s] these
same dusts in the future under the combustible dust rule'' (Exs. 73;
96; 158).
    OSHA believes these arguments are premature since OSHA's Spring
2016 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Reg Agenda)
states that combustible dust is in the Prerule Stage.\17\ However, as
OSHA proceeds with a rulemaking on combustible dust, the Agency will
evaluate carefully the relationship between Sec.  1910.22(a)(1) and a
combustible dust rule to avoid any conflicts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See OSHA's Spring 2016 Reg Agenda on Combustible Dust at:
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201604&RIN=1218-AC41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, on a related issue, some commenters contend that OSHA must
regulate combustible dust in a separate rulemaking. The United States
Chamber of Commerce (USCC) said a separate rulemaking is necessary
because combustible dust is a complex, multi-variable hazard that is
``not amenable to a simple characterization'' and does not have a
consensus definition: ``Merely telling employers that the walking/
working surfaces are not to have a level of dust that would be
combustible gives them no guidance, serves no workplace safety purpose,
and will only lead to OSHA having another source for citations'' (Ex.
202).
    USBSA said a separate standard was necessary because Sec.
1910.22(a)(1) and (2) do not address issues such as ``[h]ow much
[combustible dust] is too much?''; ``[w]hat must an employer do at what
dust level?''; and ``[s]hould all combustible dusts be treated the
same?'' (Ex. 166).
    NFIB also said a separate rulemaking on combustible dust is
necessary because OSHA ``does not understand the implications of [final
Sec.  1910.22(a)(1)] on small businesses'' (Ex. 173). NFIB said that
OSHA incorrectly certified in the proposed rule that the rulemaking
would not have a significant economic impact on small businesses,
thereby avoiding the requirement to convene a Small Business Advisory
Review (SBAR) panel. As a result, NFIB said OSHA underestimated the
proposed compliance costs, and that regulating combustible dust in a
separate rulemaking would allow OSHA to hear from a SBAR panel and
``fully grasp the burden'' that a combustible dust rule will impose on
small business (Ex. 173).
    OSHA disagrees with the commenters. As noted above, for more than
30 years, OSHA has used Sec.  1910.22(a)(1) as an effective enforcement
tool in general industry establishments of all sizes to address fire
and explosion hazards related to combustible dust accumulations. This
earlier discussion also mentioned that the 2009 Status Report on the
Combustible Dust NEP determined that 20 percent of all combustible
dust-related violations pertained to housekeeping (Sec.
1910.22(a)(1)). This history indicates that combustible dust is not too
complex to enforce under existing rules.
    With regard to NFIB's contention that the proposed rule
underestimated compliance costs, OSHA points out that Sec.
1910.22(a)(1) already covers combustible dust. Accordingly, in the
proposed economic analysis, OSHA did not have to include any costs for
the combustible dust requirement or any other existing applicable
requirement.
    Fourth, some commenters said including a reference to combustible
dust in final Sec.  1910.22(a)(1) is invalid because the national
consensus standard (ANSI Z4.1-1968) from which OSHA adopted Sec.
1910.22(a)(1), pursuant to section 6(a) of the OSH Act, applied only to
``sanitation'' and sanitary conditions (i.e., ``the physical condition
of working quarters which will tend to prevent the incidence and spread
of disease'' (ANSI Z4.1-1968 (Section 2)) and, therefore, did not apply
to combustible dust (Exs. 124; 166; 190). USBSA pointed out that a
statement in ANSI Z4.1-1968 described the purpose of the standard as
follows: ``The purpose of this standard is to prescribe minimum
sanitary requirements for the protection of the health of employees in
establishments covered by this standard'' (ANSI Z4.1-1968 (Section
1.2)). USBSA contends that OSHA's omission of this ANSI purpose
statement was ``unlawful'' (Ex. 166). As such, USBSA maintains that
OSHA is bound by the scope and purpose of the 1968 ANSI standard, and
the only permissible way OSHA could add combustible dust to Sec.
1910.22(a)(1) was by notice-and-comment rulemaking. To bolster its
argument, USBSA also includes in its comments a declaration from
William Carroll, Executive Director of the Portable Sanitation
Association International, which was the sponsoring organization for
ANSI Z4.1-1968; Mr. Carrol stated that ANSI did not develop Z4.1-1968
to cover fire and explosion from combustible dust.
    OSHA does not agree with USBSA's arguments. Under section 6(a),
OSHA ``is not bound to adopt all provisions of national consensus
standards,'' and that not adopting the scope and purpose provisions
``[does] not constitute impermissible modification'' of the
requirements of a national consensus

standard (Secretary of Labor v. C.R. Burnett and Sons, 9 O.S.H. Cas.
(BNA) (O.S.H.R.C. (October 31, 1980) (the Review Commission rejected
the employer's argument that OSHA was bound by the scope of another
ANSI sanitation standard (ANSI Z4.4-1968, Sanitation--In Fields and
Temporary Labor Camps--Minimum Requirements) adopted pursuant to
section 6(a)).
    Accepting USBSA's position that Sec.  1910.22(a)(1) only addresses
sanitation hazards would mean that OSHA could not use Sec.
1910.22(a)(1) to cite slip, trip, and fall hazards because they are not
sanitation hazards. USBSA does not mention that incongruous outcome in
its comments, but instead selectively addresses a specific hazard it
does not want OSHA to cite under the final rule.
    However, previous decisions by the Review Commission and courts of
appeal broadly construe Sec.  1910.22(a)(1) (Whirlpool Corp. v.
Marshall, 445 U.S. 1, 13, 100 S.Ct. 883, 891, 63 L.Ed.2d 154 (1980)
(``To promote this remedial purpose of the statute, the Act and
regulations must be liberally construed so as to afford workers the
broadest possible protection''); National Eng'g & Contracting Co. v.
OSHA, 928 F.2d 762, 767 (6th Cir. 1991)). In Bunge (638 F.2d at 834),
the court opined: ``The type of hazard . . . is irrelevant to whether
some condition or practice constitutes a violation of [Sec.
1910.22(a)(1)]. Unless the general standard incorporates a hazard as a
violative element, the prescribed condition or practice is all that the
Secretary must show.''
    In Whitney & Pratt Aircraft (1981 W-L 18894), the Review Commission
said:

    We reject Pratt & Whitney's contention that the scope of [Sec.
1910.22(a)(1)] is limited to disease prevention and does not
encompass tripping hazards. The standard's requirement that places
of employment be kept `in a sanitary condition' is in addition to
the requirement that workplaces be `clean and orderly', thus
demonstrating that the standard is directed not merely to sanitation
but to all hazards arising from poor housekeeping, including
tripping hazards.

    OSHA notes that, contrary to Mr. Carroll's declaration, ANSI Z4.1-
1968, on its face, covers hazards other than sanitation hazards. The
standard contains several provisions that do not relate to sanitation,
including lighting; keeping workplaces in an orderly condition; and
maintaining workplaces free from protruding nails, holes, and loose
boards.
    Fifth, NGFA (Ex. 148) and AFIA (Ex. 158) recommended that OSHA not
include a reference to combustible dust in Sec.  1910.22(a)(1) because
it would subject their industry to ``duplicative and unnecessary
requirements'' that OSHA's Grain Handling Facilities standard (Sec.
1910.272) already addresses and, therefore, would cause confusion. They
said Sec.  1910.272, along with section 5(a)(1) (29 U.S.C. 654(a)(1)),
is working effectively in controlling grain dust hazards, which
obviates the need for additional regulation.
    AFIA pointed out that the number of fatalities from explosions
involving combustible dust declined dramatically in the industry since
1980 (Ex. 158). AFIA maintains that a number of factors contributed to
reducing the frequency and severity of these occurrences, including
widespread voluntary efforts by industry and trade organizations to
increase awareness, research into and implementation of new engineering
controls, employee training, and automation that reduces workforce
exposure to explosion hazards from combustible dust. Although the Grain
Handling Facilities standard issued by OSHA in 1987 (Sec.  1910.272)
may account for some of the reduction in explosions, notably grain-
mediated combustible-dust explosions, it was not in effect in the early
1980s, the initial explosion reduction timeframe AFIA cites. Only the
court and the Review Commission decisions affirming OSHA's
interpretation that Sec.  1910.22(a)(1) applies to combustible dust
hazards were in effect in 1981 and 1982. Given that, OSHA believes that
it is reasonable to infer that Sec.  1910.22(a)(1) contributed to
reducing the number of explosions and fires involving combustible dust
during the early 1980s. For all these reasons, OSHA continues to apply
Sec.  1910.22(a)(1) to grain-handling facilities.
    Finally, USBSA explained that referencing combustible dust in Sec.
1910.22(a)(1) could conflict with Sec. Sec.  1910.307 (Electrical-
Hazardous (classified) locations) and 1910.178 (Powered industrial
trucks), stating:

    [A]pplying those provisions with a reference to combustible dust
would undermine what little specificity already exists in the
current standards addressing combustible dust. For example, applying
them would significantly undermine the existing distinctions between
unclassified, Class II, Division 1, and Class II, Division 2, areas
in 29 C.F.R. 1910.307 and 1910.178, which specify where and under
what circumstances approved electrical equipment and forklift trucks
are required in dusty conditions. There is no point in specifying
what electrical equipment and forklift trucks are required under
dusty conditions if those conditions are illegal in the first place
under Sec.  1910.22(a) (Ex. 166).

    In response, OSHA reiterates that Sec.  1910.22(a)(1) already
applies to combustible dust. Existing Sec.  1910.22(a) generally
addresses combustible dust hazards on walking-working surfaces, while
Sec. Sec.  1910.307 and 1910.178 address more specific combustible dust
hazards related to electric equipment and powered industrial trucks,
respectively, and OSHA finds no indication that they conflict with each
other. Moreover, the Agency has not experienced any conflicts enforcing
those requirements.
    Final paragraph (a)(2), like the existing and proposed rules,
requires that employers ensure the floor of each workroom is maintained
in a clean and, to the extent feasible, in a dry condition. The final
rule is similar to OSHA's housekeeping requirements in its Shipyard
Employment standards (Sec.  1915.81(c)(3)) and Z4.1-R2005 (section
3.1.2). OSHA believes it is important for employers to maintain
walking-working surfaces in a clean and dry condition to protect
workers from possible injury from slips, trips, and falls and other
hazards.
    Final paragraph (a)(2) also requires that employers take additional
action if they cannot keep workroom floors in a dry condition. OSHA
notes this provision only requires employers to take additional actions
when they are using ``wet processes.'' When wet processes are used, the
final rule requires that drainage is maintained and, to the extent
feasible, dry standing places are provided, such as false floors,
platforms, and mats. Final paragraph (a)(2) provides examples of
measures employers can use to provide workers with dry standing places,
such as false floors, platforms, and mats, but gives employers
flexibility to select other measures that are effective in providing
dry standing places. OSHA believes this provision is necessary to
protect workers from slips, trips, falls, and other hazards on wet
surfaces.
    The American Meat Institute (AMI) commented on the proposed rule:

    In the meat industry, as in several others, there is simply no
possible way to maintain floors in a ``dry condition'' in areas such
as slaughter departments, vat/bin washing rooms, during sanitation
operations, etc. And, providing false floors, mats, platforms, etc.,
though done where possible, is not practical in all areas. Stated
simply, there are many cases where floors in operating areas will be
``wet'' throughout the working shift. However, it should be
recognized that ``wet'' is a relative term; there is significant
difference between standing water of some depth as opposed to simply
damp surfaces (Ex. 110).

    AMI recommended that the final rule make a distinction between wet
floors where there is standing water and floors that are ``continuously
damp'' because of periodic cleaning or rinsing, stating:

``We . . . submit that while wet floors may pose potentially unique and
specific hazards, damp floors typically pose minimal hazard and do not
require additional, specific regulation'' (Ex. 110). OSHA disagrees
with AMI's recommendation that the final rule should make a distinction
between working in ``standing water,'' which AMI defines as greater
than one inch deep, and working on wet surfaces. Accordingly, OSHA
believes that both working on wet surfaces and working in standing
water are hazardous and pose a risk of slips, trips, falls, or other
harm (e.g., electrocution, prolonged standing in water). Final
paragraph (a)(2) gives employers a great deal of flexibility to tailor
their control measures to the type of wet conditions present in the
particular workplace, thereby making it easier for employers to comply
with the requirement.
    In the proposed rule, OSHA requested comment on whether final
paragraph (a)(2) should include a provision, similar to that in
Shipyard Employment (29 CFR 1915.81(c)(3)), requiring that, in wet
processes, employers provide appropriate waterproof footwear, such as
overboots, when it is not practicable to maintain drainage and dry
standing areas (75 FR 28874). OSHA received three comments in response
to this request, all of which opposed adding that provision to the
final rule. Edison Electric Institute (EEI) (Ex. 207) and the American
Wind Energy Association (AWEA) (Ex. 178) both said that employers
should determine whether a hazard exists that necessitates use of
personal protective equipment (PPE) and select the best method to
prevent slips, trips, and falls on wet surfaces. UFCW raised concerns
that allowing the use of PPE would cause employers to use PPE instead
of following the hierarchy of controls:

    By specifically offering the employer the option of providing
PPE, OSHA will have the unintended effect of negating the original
requirement to eliminate the hazard or control it through
engineering controls. We have seen a similar unfortunate dynamic in
the implementation and enforcement of 1910.95(b)(1) which supposedly
allows the use of PPE only after the implementation of feasible
administrative and engineering controls. Our experience with the
noise standard has been that once excessive sound levels have been
determined, most employers embrace the use of hearing protection,
and the implementation of engineering controls is perfunctory or
ignored altogether (Ex. 159).

UFCW also noted, correctly, that it was not necessary for OSHA to
reference PPE in the final rule because, under Sec.  1910.132(a),
employers already must provide PPE for hazards that they cannot
eliminate or control by other methods (Ex. 159).
    OSHA finds the commenters' arguments convincing and, therefore, did
not add the language in Sec.  1915.81(c)(3) to the final rule. In
particular, OSHA agrees with the concerns UFCW raised about the
hierarchy of controls, and reaffirms that employers must provide dry
standing places, and maintain drainage using engineering controls, to
the extent such controls are feasible.
    Final paragraph (a)(3), which OSHA revised significantly from the
proposed rule, requires employers to ensure walking-working surfaces
are maintained free of hazards such as loose boards, corrosion, leaks,
spills, snow, ice, and sharp or protruding objects.
    In general, OSHA revised the language in final paragraph (a)(3) to
more clearly and specifically reflect the type and nature of the
hazards the Agency intended to address in this provision. The revisions
serve two purposes. First, the revisions clarify that a major focus of
final subpart D is to protect workers from walking-working surface
hazards that could cause or exacerbate the severity of a slip, trip, or
fall. For example, if employers do not maintain walking-working
surfaces free of leaks, spills, and ice workers could slip and fall and
be seriously injured. Similarly, if unused tools (e.g., saws, shears),
materials (e.g., unused pallets, bailing wire), or solid waste or
debris (e.g., scrap metal) are left on surfaces where employees work or
walk, workers could be seriously hurt if they fell on any of those
objects. In addition, in some situations, corrosion may be so severe or
significant that it may weaken the walking-working surface to the point
that the surface can no longer support a worker, equipped with tools,
materials, and equipment, who walks or works on it.
    Second, it emphasizes OSHA's longstanding position, supported by
the court decisions noted previously, that the scope of Sec.  1910.22,
and paragraph (a)(3) specifically, also covers walking-working surface
hazards other than slips, trips, and falls. For example, a nail
protruding from a wall may not cause a slip, trip, or fall, but could
cause a serious laceration or puncture wound if a worker walks into or
bumps into it. Similarly, if employers do not ensure the immediate
removal of caustic chemicals or substances spilled onto a walking-
working surface, workers may be at risk of adverse effects, such as
chemical burns, if they accidentally touch the substance.
    The existing rule, which OSHA adopted from the Z4.1-1968 standard,
requires that employers, to facilitate cleaning, keep every floor,
working place, and passageway free from ``protruding nails, splinters,
holes, or loose boards.'' In the proposed rule, OSHA decided to revise
existing paragraph (a)(3) to emphasize that the examples of the hazards
listed can result in more than slips, trips, and falls, and are present
in more than cleaning operations. Therefore, OSHA replaced the existing
examples of specific hazards with performance-based language, stating,
``Employers must ensure that all surfaces are designed, constructed,
and maintained free of recognized hazards that can result in injury or
death to employees,'' and deleted the existing ``[t]o facilitate
cleaning'' language.
    Many commenters opposed proposed paragraph (a)(3). Most argued that
the performance-based language ``free of recognized hazards'' was
vague, overly broad, and appeared to duplicate the General Duty Clause
of the OSH Act (Exs. 124; 150; 165; 173; 190; 196; 236). For example,
the Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National Association
(SMACNA) said: ``[P]roposed section 1910.22(a)(3) . . . appears to be a
`General Duty Clause' specific to this standard . . . and does not
offer any logical means of compliance. . . . [T]he proposed requirement
is open-ended and provides very little guidance to address any
particular hazard'' (Ex. 165). The Mechanical Contractors Association
of America (MCAA) expressed similar concerns about the language and how
OSHA would enforce it:

    [T]he general duty clause-like language proposed . . . as 29 CFR
1910.22(a)(3) would allow compliance officers to issue general duty
clause-like citations without having to meet the extensive and
elaborate criteria established by the agency for issuing general
duty clause citations. MCAA believes that this language would cause
confusion, dissention and controversy without enhancing worker
protection (Ex. 236).

The American Foundry Society (AFS) said the provision was ``so vague
and open-ended that it could leave employers vulnerable to OSHA
citations based on the subjective assessment of OSHA inspectors as to
what is acceptable,'' and would place ``an impossible obligation on
employers by short-circuiting the requirements'' of the General Duty
Clause (Ex. 190).
    NFIB raised three concerns about proposed paragraph (a)(3). First,
NFIB pointed out that the proposed rule does not define ``recognized
hazards,'' saying ``[t]he term may have a different meaning to a small
business owner than it does to an OSHA inspector'' (Ex. 173).

Second, they said the proposed rule is ``impossible to meet'' and
``virtually meaningless for compliance purposes,'' noting:

    This standard, as written, is so broad that it could be inferred
by an inspector or judge that if any injury occurs--for any reason--
the employer can be cited for failure to comply. The presumption is
that a small business owner should foresee all possibilities of
injuries, even in the most remote of circumstances (Ex. 173).

Finally, NFIB said the proposed requirement could result in a small
business being ``cited twice for the same violation--opening the
business up to excessive fines and penalties'' (Ex. 173).
    According to SBA Office of Advocacy, small businesses attending
their forum on the proposed rule expressed concerns that OSHA would use
the proposed rule to impose a `` `de facto' Safety and Health Program
(S&HP) or Injury and Illness Prevention Program (I2P2) requirement on
employers'' (Ex. 124). Therefore, SBA Office of Advocacy and Associated
Builders and Contractors (ABC), who raised similar concerns,
recommended that OSHA clarify the regulatory language, as well as the
purpose of the requirement in the final rule (Exs. 124; 196).
    The commenters raise valid concerns. The purpose of the proposed
requirement was not to codify the General Duty Clause as a standard or
reduce OSHA's burdens in proving a General Duty Clause violation.
Rather, as explained above, the purpose was to use performance-based
language to point out that failure to adequately clean and maintain
walking-working surfaces: (1) Can make slips, trips, and falls more
severe, and (2) can result in adverse effects other than slips, trips,
and falls (e.g., burns from exposure to corrosive materials). The
revised language in final paragraph (a)(3) ensures that stakeholders
understand that the final rule covers both types of hazards. Also,
adding specific examples, such as those in the existing rule, ensures
stakeholders that the final rule focuses on the types of hazards
associated with walking-working surfaces instead of all ``recognized
hazards that can result in injury or death'' as the proposed rule
specified. Therefore, the final rule stresses that employers'
housekeeping efforts must take into account walking-working surface
hazards other than simply those associated with slips, trips, and
falls.
    Mr. Lankford recommended removing the design and construction
requirements in proposed paragraph (a)(3) because they would impose
``significant responsibility on employers'' in the many instances when
``[t]here is no connection between the designer/builder and the current
employer'' (Ex. 368). In the hearing, Mr. Lankford said OSHA should
allow employers to comply with the requirement by confirming that the
walking-working surfaces ``were built according to the standard or
local building code'' (Ex. 329 (1/20/2011, p. 297)). OSHA agrees, and
removed the design and construction requirements in final paragraph
(a)(3).
    On a separate issue, Ellis Fall Safety Solutions suggested that
OSHA add a requirement to Sec.  1910.22(a) that walking-working
surfaces be ``walkable from a body space point of view,'' meaning an
employee in the 95th height percentile should be able to walk upright
without encountering head or other obstructions (Ex. 155). OSHA
believes the performance-based requirements in final paragraph (a)(3)
takes this issue into account in an effective way. Paragraph (a)(3)
requires that employers maintain walking-working surfaces free of
protruding objects that could harm workers, regardless whether the
worker is tall or large.
    Michael Bell of Joneric Products, a footwear manufacturer, objected
to the scope of OSHA's benefits policy:

    This Proposed Rule virtually ignores fatalities and injuries
that occur not from heights. There are some easy solutions to remedy
these fatalities and injuries.
    1. Recognize that workers whose primary job is to wash, wax or
maintain floors are at high risk of slips and falls. There are
companies that manufacture specialized footwear for these
activities.
    2. Recognize that many workers primarily work outdoors. Most of
them must work on Public Property. Even though OSHA has no authority
to tell a private citizen how to maintain their properties at least
admit that many injuries do occur outdoors and they are reportable
to OSHA.
    3. Recognize that inclement weather is the cause of a good many
of these injuries.
    4. Know that this is serious enough that many companies are
proactive in attempting to reduce these weather related injuries.
But, they do not make up for the companies that ignore the situation
because there is [sic] no OSHA regulations.
    5. Companies have a wide range of products to choose from many
manufacturers (Ex. 77).

    OSHA agrees with Mr. Bell's statement and notes that the provisions
in Sec.  1910.22(a)(1)-(3) address slips and falls to the same level.
In particular, OSHA notes that these final provisions will require
employers to control worker exposure to fall hazards on outdoor
surfaces.
Final Paragraph (b)--Loads
    Final paragraph (b) requires that employers ensure each walking-
working surface can support the ``maximum intended load'' for that
surface. The final rule, like the proposal defines maximum intended
load as the total weight of all employees, equipment, machines,
vehicles, tools, materials, and loads that employers reasonably
anticipate they may be apply to that walking-working surface. The
existing rule includes a similar provision requiring that employers not
place on a floor or roof any load weighing more than the building
official has approved for the surface (existing Sec.  1910.22(d)(2)).
The construction fall protection standard also requires that employers
``determine if walking/working surfaces on which its employees are to
work have the strength and integrity to support employees safely'' and
only allow employees to work on surfaces that meet the requirement (29
CFR 1926.501(a)(2)).
    Final paragraph (b), like the proposal, specifies that it covers
all walking-working surfaces; that is, ``any horizontal or vertical
surface on or through which an employee walks, works, or gains access
to a workplace location'' (see final Sec.  1910.21(b)). Accordingly,
employers must ensure that all walking-working surfaces, which include,
but are not limited to, floors, roofs, stairs, ladders, and ramps; can
support the maximum intended load. The existing rule specifies it
applies to ``any floor or roof'' of a building or other structure
(existing Sec.  1910.22(d)(2)). Final paragraph (b) also replaces the
specification requirements in existing Sec.  1910.22(d)(1) with
performance-based language. The existing rule specifies that the loads
the building official approves for a specific walking-working surface
``shall be marked on plates of approved design . . . and securely
affixed . . . in a conspicuous place in the space to which they
relate.''
    In the proposed rule, OSHA said the existing specification
requirement was not necessary for two reasons: (1) Load-limit
information is available in building plans, and (2) engineers take
maximum loads into consideration when they design industrial surfaces.
OSHA proposed to replace the existing rule with provisions requiring
that employers ensure that walking-working surfaces are ``[d]esigned,
constructed, and maintained to support their maximum intended load''
(proposed paragraph (b)(1)), and ``[n]ot loaded beyond their maximum
intended load'' (proposed paragraph (b)(2)).

    OSHA received three comments on the proposal. The first commenter,
AFSCME, recommended requiring that employers ensure all walking and
working surfaces have the ``structural integrity'' to support the
workers, their tools and equipment. OSHA believes that requiring
employers to ensure each surface is capable of supporting the maximum
intended load, as defined in final Sec.  1910.22(b), achieves the
result AFSCME advocates. The definition of ``maximum intended load'' in
final Sec.  1910.21(b) includes the total weight of all employees,
equipment, machines, vehicles, tools, materials, and loads that the
employer reasonably anticipates may be applied to the walking-working
surface.
    The second commenter, Charles Lankford, objected to the proposed
requirement that employers ensure walking-working surfaces are
``designed and constructed'' to support their maximum intended load
(proposed paragraph (b)(1)):

    [E]mployers will be unable in most cases to ensure positively
that existing or newly purchased walking and working surfaces were
``designed and constructed'' (perhaps decades earlier) to comply
with this standard.
    Employers will for practical purposes be limited to relying on
third party certification, testing, listing, and/or labeling of
platforms and surfaces such as scaffold planks, floors of crane
cabs, runways, etc. However, OSHA did not state in the proposed rule
that reliance on third party certifications would be a method of
compliance or could be a valid defense from citations (Ex. 368; see
also Ex. 329 (1/20/2011, p. 295)).

    OSHA disagrees with Mr. Lankford's contention. The existing rule
makes it easy for employers to know for certain whether a walking-
working surface on an existing building or structure can support the
maximum intended loads employers anticipate placing on that surface.
The existing rule requires that load limits for buildings and
structures used for mercantile, business, industrial, or storage
purposes: (1) Be approved by the building official; and (2) be posted
in the area of the walking-working surface (existing Sec.
1910.22(d)(1)). The existing rule also prohibits employers from putting
any load on a walking-working surface that exceeds the weight the
building official has approved. Under the final rule, employers can
readily obtain information about walking-working surfaces in those
buildings and structures from the plates required to be posted in
accordance with the existing rule. For new buildings and structures,
employers can obtain information on load limits from building plans,
local codes, and third party certification or conduct their own
evaluation.
    Mr. Lankford is correct that the proposed rule, as well as the
final rule, does not state specifically how employers must obtain
information about load limits for a walking-working surface. However,
OSHA believes there are many ways employers can obtain such
information. Mr. Lankford provided examples of several methods
employers may use, including obtaining load limits from the plates
posted in the area; relying on third party certification; and testing
or evaluating walking-working surfaces. Instead of codifying the
methods Mr. Lankford mentioned, OSHA has used performance-based
language in the final rule to give employers greater flexibility in
selecting the method they want to use to identify whether the walking-
working surface can support the maximum intended load employers will
place on it.
    Finally, the National Chimney Sweep Guild (NCSG) contended the
requirement that employers ensure each walking-working surface can
support the maximum intended load they will apply to it is not feasible
and, as proposed, go beyond what is reasonably necessary or appropriate
(Exs. 150; 240; 365; 329 (1/18/2011, p. 254-348)). First, NCSG said
that chimney sweeps are not able to determine the ``maximum intended
load'' \18\ for a roof:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ NCSG is mistaken about the meaning and use of the term
``maximum intended load.'' The term refers to the maximum weight of
``all employees, equipment, tools, materials, transmitted loads, and
other loads'' the employer reasonably anticipates putting on a
walking-working surface, such as a roof. It does not mean the
maximum weight building codes require or the builder designed and
constructed a roof to tolerate, although the maximum intended load
employers place on the surface must not exceed that maximum load
limit for the surface.

    The sweep would have no practical means of determining the
maximum intended load for a roof, and no way of determining whether
the roof was designed, constructed, and maintained to support the
unknown maximum intended load. Only when a job would require a
significant load on a roof or under other highly unusual
circumstances would a sweep attempt to access the attic below a roof
to check the structural integrity of the roof. We doubt most trades
would be able to determine whether a roof could safely support its
maximum intended load (as established by the builder and/or local
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
code) (Ex. 150).

    The final rule, like the construction fall protection standard,
requires that employers are responsible for taking the steps necessary
to ensure that each walking-working surface employee's access has the
strength and structural integrity to safely support the maximum
intended load employers will place on the surface. NCSG agreed that
assessing hazards and inspecting roof surfaces is necessary before
workers step on roofs to perform chimney sweep work:

    We recognize that the employer of a sweep must implement
reasonable measures designed to determine whether a roof or other
walking-working surface can be safely utilized by the employee to
perform the pre-assigned task and any additional tasks that may be
identified after the sweep arrives at the site (Ex. 150).

    Where workers perform single-person jobs, which NCSG said are the
majority of jobs their members perform, employers are responsible for
ensuring that workers know how to assess and determine whether the
walking-working surface they will access will support the loads
reasonably anticipated to be placed on it. For example, employers must
ensure that their employees (e.g., chimney sweeps) know how to visually
inspect or examine the roof for possible damage, decay, and other
problems and look in attics to assess the strength and structural
integrity of the roof. Employers also must ensure that workers actually
do such visual assessments before they access a surface or perform a
job. Finally, if there is a potential problem with the roof or if
workers cannot determine whether the roof is safe for use, employers
must ensure that workers know they must not step onto the roof.
Although NCSG contends that it is infeasible for workers to determine
if roof will support the loads they will place on it, their comments
indicate that member companies and their workers already are doing
this:

    Once we actually get to the job, we are making a hazard
assessment . . . of . . . electrical lines, the slope of the roof,
the condition of the roof, is there adequate places for our ladders,
can we safely access the roof with ladders, is the roof wet, ice
covered, snow covered, and ultimately we use all of that information
to formulate a go or no go roof decision, whether [we] are actually
going to access the roof (Ex. 329 (1/18/2011, p. 276-303)).

    In addition, NCSG said member employers also periodically go to
jobs sites to discuss and observe workers performing tasks, further
indicating that assessments and determinations of the strength and
structural of roofs are being done (Ex. 150).
    Finally, not only did NCSG say it is not feasible for its members
to comply with final paragraph (b), they also said:

    We doubt most trades would be able to determine whether a roof
could safely support its maximum intended load (as established by
the builder and/or local code) (Ex. 150).

    Since 1994, the current construction fall protection standard has
required employers performing construction activities to ``determine if
the walking-working surfaces on which its employees are to work have
the strength and structural integrity to support employees safely''
(Sec.  1926.501(a)(2)). According to NCSG, 20 percent of the work
chimney sweep companies perform are significant and major installations
and repairs and covered by the construction fall protection standard
(Ex. 150). These operations involve a substantial quantity of
equipment, tools and materials being used and placed on the roof. OSHA
has not received any reports that chimney sweep companies have
experienced difficulty assessing whether the roof has the ``strength
and structural integrity'' to support workers and the equipment,
materials, and tools they are using to make those installations and
repairs. Because the final rule is consistent with the construction
standard, OSHA believes NCSG members will not have difficulty visually
assessing whether the roof can support chimney cleaning, inspections,
and minor repair work, which do not require the quantities of
equipment, tools, and materials of substantial and major installations/
repair jobs. For these reasons, OSHA does not find NCSG's infeasibility
contention to be convincing.
    Second, NCSG expressed concern that the final rule will require
member companies to hire ``a structural engineer or someone with
significant advanced training'' to make a ``technical determination''
that the walking-working surface has the necessary structural
integrity, and that it would be infeasible for small companies to have
a structural engineer or similar expert person on staff to assess the
walking-working surfaces at each worksite (Ex. 150).
    The final rule, like the construction fall protection standard,
does not require that employers hire engineers or other experts to make
a technical determination about whether a walking-working surface has
the strength and structural integrity to support the maximum intended
load employers reasonably anticipate placing on that surface. OSHA
agrees with NCSG that employers may comply with final paragraph (b) by
making ``a visual examination of the condition of the roof and the rest
of the structure'' (Ex. 150). As OSHA discussed in the preamble to the
proposed rule, if conditions warrant or if employers cannot confirm
from the visual examination that the walking-working surface can
support the load they will place on it, OSHA believes employers need to
conduct a more involved or detailed inspection to ensure the surface is
safe for employees (75 FR 28888). OSHA does not believe NCSG members
will have difficulty complying with this requirement. NCSG said member
companies already conduct visual examinations and hazard assessments to
determine whether roofs can support the total load their workers will
place on them (Ex. 150). Moreover, NCSG said employers periodically
come to job sites to observe how workers are performing tasks, which
presumably include observing tasks such as hazard assessments and
visual examinations of roofs.
Final paragraph (c)--Access and Egress
    Final paragraph (c), like the proposal, requires that employers
provide, and ensure that each worker uses, a safe means of access and
egress to and from walking-working surfaces. For purposes of the final
rule, the term ``safe'' means that no condition (for example, an
obstruction, lock, damage) could prevent or endanger a worker trying to
access or egress a walking-working surface. Thus, employers must ensure
that means of access and egress remain clear and in good repair so
workers can safely move about walking-working surfaces.
    Final paragraph (c), like the proposal, replaces the specifications
in the existing rule (Sec.  1910.22(b)) with performance-based
language. The existing rule requires that aisles and passageways be
kept in good repair, with no obstructions across or in aisles that
could create a hazard. Where mechanical handling equipment is used, the
existing rule requires that sufficient safe clearances be allowed for
aisles, at loading docks, through doorways, and wherever turns or
passage must be made. The revision ensures that final paragraph (c)
applies to all walking-working surfaces the final rule covers, which
means that employers must provide safe access to and egress from ``any
horizontal or vertical surface on or through which an employee walks,
works, or gains access to a workplace location'' (final Sec.
1910.21(b)). Examples of walking-working surfaces that require safe
access and egress include floors, stairways, ladders, roofs, ramps, and
aisles. The final rule, by using the term ``walking-working surface,''
requires that employers ensure means of access and egress are safe
regardless of whether the walking-working surfaces are on the same or
different levels. The final rule also applies to both temporary and
permanent walking-working surfaces.
    OSHA notes that the final rule does not retain the specification
language in existing Sec.  1910.22(b)(2) that requires appropriate
marking of ``permanent aisles and passageways.'' The performance-based
language in final paragraph (c) requires that an employer provide and
ensure workers use a safe means of access and egress to and from
walking-working surfaces. One way employers can meet the performance
language is by appropriately marking passageways and permanent aisles
as a means of identifying safe access and egress.
    OSHA did not receive any comments on proposed paragraph (c) and
finalizes the proposed provision, as discussed, with minor editorial
changes for clarity.
Final paragraph (d)--Inspection, maintenance, and repair
    Final paragraph (d), like the proposed rule, specifies general
inspection, maintenance, and repair requirements for walking-working
surfaces. Final paragraph (d)(1) requires that employers inspect and
maintain walking-working surfaces in a safe condition. OSHA believes
that inspecting walking-working surfaces is necessary to ensure they
are maintained in a safe condition. To ensure they are in a safe
condition, the final rule specifies that employers must inspect
walking-working surfaces both (1) regularly and (2) as necessary.
    The term ``regular inspection'' means that the employer has some
type of schedule, formal or informal, for inspecting walking-working
surfaces that is adequate enough to identify hazards and address them
in a timely manner. The final rule uses a performance-based approach
instead of mandating a specific frequency for regular inspections. OSHA
believes that employers need to consider variables unique to each
workplace that may affect the appropriate frequency for workplace
inspections. Therefore, OSHA believes that employers are in the best
position to evaluate those variables and determine what inspection
frequency is adequate to identify and address hazards associated with