413, 416, 462)). In addition, training and professional organizations
have bi-lingual training materials available. For instance, the
International Window Cleaning Association Safety Certification Program
provides a bi-lingual study curriculum (Ex. 222).
    Many commenters said they already use different formats (e.g.,
classroom, audiovisual, demonstration, practical exercises, field
training, written) and new technology (e.g., interactive computer-
based, web-based) to ensure that training is understandable (Ex. 329
(1/18/2011, pgs. 148, 258)). Commenters also said they use testing and
training evaluation to ensure employees understand training (Ex. 329
(1/20/2011, p. 318)). Some commenters also supported certification of
employee training by independent groups (e.g., professional
organizations) (Exs. 205; 222; 364).
    Some commenters said they are using ``interactive training'' to
make training understandable. For instance, SEIU Local 32BJ said their
window cleaner training programs are ``highly interactive'' (Ex. 329
(1/19/2011, pgs. 120-121)), and they support requiring ``interactive''
training. Diane Brown, senior health and safety specialist with AFSCME,
agreed, stating, ``Training should be as interactive as possible. We
support . . . [adopting] training methods that ensure workers get the
information they need'' (Ex. 226). Eric Frumin, health and safety
director with Change to Win, stated:

    [I]t's not sufficient for OSHA to simply require employers to
provide training in a language that workers understand. . . . It's
one of the most important advances in OSHA rulemaking, to assure
that the training is not only done in a language the workers
understand, but that it's interactive, that workers have a chance to
ask questions (Ex. 329 (1/19/2011, p. 119)).

    Some commenters said OSHA should require that employers use
specific training methods and techniques. For example, SEIU said
training should include ``some combination of hands-on and classroom
training methods that have been so successful in our training'' (Ex.
329 (1/19/2011, pgs. 25-26)). Ellis Fall Safety Solutions said that
training methods must include the following:

    [T]here has to be a written curriculum, a presentation and
written or recorded tests [that] see if the material has been picked
up and the final thing is to check by observing discretely if the
work is being done to the proper methodology that was taught. All
these are subject to verification by a CSHO (Ex. 155).

    Some commenters said that supervision is necessary to ensure
training is successful. For instance, Mr. Frumin said, ``You can't take
the chance that someone didn't understand the training. You've got to
supervise them,'' (Exs. 329 (1/19/2011, pgs. 122-23); 329 (1/21/2011,
p. 21)).
    OSHA agrees that many of the training methods and elements the
commenters recommend can help to make workplace training
understandable, and generally supports their use. The Agency also
believes that the final rule should give employers flexibility to
develop training programs and use those training methods that best fit
the needs of their workers and workplace. Therefore, OSHA finalizes
paragraph (d) with only minor revisions for clarity.
    OSHA also received comment on other training issues, including
whether the final rule should require a minimum amount of time for
worker training. Mr. Horton of SEIU Local 32BJ urged that OSHA mandate
that training be a ``minimum number of hours to prevent any inadvertent
or negligent training failures'' (Ex. 329 (1/19/2011, p. 25)). In
contrast, Mr. Robert Miller, senior safety supervisor with Ameren
Corporation, said OSHA should not set time requirements for providing
training because it would interfere with the performance-based approach
in the proposed rule (Ex. 189). Proposed Sec.  1910.30 did not require
that training meet a minimum time requirement, and there is no minimum
time requirement for training in final Sec.  1910.30. OSHA notes that
the preliminary and final economic analysis include times for training,
but the Agency notes that it included those times only for the purpose
of the estimating the costs of the final rule.
    Finally, ASSE suggested that Sec.  1910.30 include a specific
reference to the ANSI/ASSE Z490.1 consensus standard (Criteria for
Accepted Practices in Safety, Health and Environmental Training) as a
source of guidance information for employers (Ex. 127). That voluntary
standard establishes criteria for safety, health, and environmental
training programs. OSHA agrees that the consensus standard may be a
valuable source of information about training programs. However, it
does not address walking-working surfaces or fall and equipment hazards
and OSHA has decided to not reference the standard in the final rule.

B. Final Sec.  1910.140

    OSHA is adding a new section to subpart I Personal Protective
Equipment (PPE) (29 CFR 1910, subpart I) to address personal fall
protection systems, which include personal fall arrest, travel
restraint, and positioning systems (29 CFR 1910.140). The new section
establishes requirements for the design, performance, use, and
inspection of personal fall protection systems and system components
(e.g., body harnesses, lifelines, lanyards, anchorages).
    OSHA also is adding two non-mandatory appendices that provide
information to help employers select, test, use, maintain, and inspect
personal fall protection equipment (Appendix C) and examples of test
methods for personal fall arrest and positioning systems to ensure that
they meet the requirements of Sec.  1910.140 (appendix D).
    In the final rule, OSHA adapts many provisions from its other fall
protection standards, primarily Powered Platforms for Building
Maintenance (29 CFR 1910.66, appendix C); Personal Fall Arrest Systems
in Shipyard Employment (29 CFR 1915.159); Positioning Device Systems in
Shipyard Employment (29 CFR 1915.160); and Fall Protection in
Construction (29 CFR part 1926, subpart M). These adaptations ensure
that OSHA fall protection rules are consistent across various
industries. OSHA notes that other standards also require the use of

personal fall protection systems (Vehicle-Mounted Elevating and
Rotating Work Platforms (Aerial Lifts) (29 CFR 1910.67(c)(2)(v));
Telecommunications (29 CFR 1910.268(g)); and Electric Power Generation,
Transmission, and Distribution (29 CFR 1910.269(g)); however, the
requirements and criteria in those standards generally are not
comprehensive or broadly applicable.
    Similar to the final rule revising 29 CFR part 1910, subpart D,
final Sec.  1910.140, when appropriate, also draws from national
consensus standards addressing personal fall protection systems. Those
standards include:
     ANSI/ALI A14.3-2008, American National Standards for
Ladders--Fixed (A14.3-2008) (Ex. 8);
     ANSI/ASSE A10.32-2012, Personal Fall Protection Used in
Construction and Demolition Operations (A10.32-2012) (Ex. 390);
     ANSI/ASSE Z359.0-2012, Definitions and Nomenclature Used
for Fall Protection and Fall Arrest (Z359.0-2012) (Ex. 389);
     ANSI/ASSE Z359.1-2007, Safety Requirements for Personal
Fall Arrest Systems, Subsystems, and Components (Z359.1-2007) (Ex. 37);
     ANSI/ASSE Z359.3-2007, Safety Requirements for Positioning
and Travel Restraint Systems (Z359.3-2007) (Ex. 34);
     ANSI/ASSE Z359.4-2013, Safety Requirements for Assisted-
Rescue and Self-Rescue Systems (Z359.4-2013) (Ex. 22);
     ANSI/ASSE Z359.12-2009, Connecting Components for Personal
Fall Arrest System (Z359.12-2009) (Ex. 375); and
     ANSI/IWCA I-14.1-2001, Window Cleaning Safety (I-14.1-
2001) (Ex. 10).
    The final rule adopts a number of the provisions in proposed Sec.
1910.140 with only minor, non-substantive technical or editorial
changes. For many of these provisions, OSHA did not receive any
comments from the public. Other provisions in the final rule include
revisions based on information in the record and comments OSHA
received. OSHA also revised provisions in the proposed rule to clarify
the final rule, thereby making it easier for employers, workers, and
others to understand.
Section 1910.140--Personal Fall Protection Systems
Paragraph (a)--Scope and Application
    Paragraph (a) of the final rule specifies that employers must
ensure each personal fall protection system that part 1910 requires
complies with the performance, care, and use criteria specified in
Sec.  1910.140. This section defines ``personal fall protection
system'' as a system that workers use to provide protection from
falling, or safely arrest a fall if one occurs (Sec.  1910.140(b)). As
mentioned earlier, personal fall protection systems include personal
fall arrest, travel restraint, and positioning systems.
    OSHA notes that not only does Sec.  1910.140 apply to the new and
revised requirements in subpart D, but also it applies to existing
requirements in part 1910 that mandate or allow employers to protect
workers from fall hazards using personal fall protection systems
(Sec. Sec.  1910.66; 1910.67; 1910.268; and 1910.269).
    OSHA believes that the scope of final Sec.  1910.140 and the
requirements the final rule establishes are necessary. Importantly,
OSHA did not receive any comments opposing the scope and application in
paragraph (a). OSHA believes that without establishing design and
performance criteria, there is risk that personal fall protection
systems, particularly personal fall arrest systems, may fail and put
workers at risk of harm. Such failure can occur for a number of
reasons, including using:
     The wrong or inadequate system (especially one that is not
strong enough for the particular application in which it is being
used);
     A system not tested or inspected before use;
     A system not rigged properly;
     A system that does not have compatible components; or
     A system on which workers are not properly trained.
    For several reasons, OSHA believes that employers should not
experience significant difficulty complying with the final rule. Most
of the requirements in the final rule come from OSHA's existing fall
protection standards, as well as national consensus standards
addressing fall protection, which also have been in place for years and
represent industry best practices. Accordingly, OSHA believes that
virtually all personal fall protection systems manufactured today meet
the requirements in those standards as well as final Sec.  1910.140. In
addition, to assist employers in complying with the rule, OSHA includes
an appendix in the final rule to provide employers with readily
accessible information that will help them comply with final Sec.
1910.140.
Paragraph (b)--Definitions
    Final paragraph (b) defines terms that are applicable to final
Sec.  1910.140. OSHA believes that defining key terms will make the
final rule easier to understand and, thereby, will increase compliance.
    OSHA drew most of the definitions in paragraph (b) from existing
OSHA and national consensus standards on fall protection. For instance,
many of the terms in this paragraph also are found in the Powered
Platforms standard (Sec.  1910.66(d) and appendix C); construction
standards (Sec. Sec.  1926.450(b), 1926.500(b) and 1926.1050(b)), and
the shipyard employment PPE standard (Sec.  1915.151). OSHA believes
that having consistent definitions across the Agency's standards will
increase understanding of OSHA's fall protection rules, decrease the
potential for confusion, and enhance worker safety. Having consistent
definitions also will help to increase understanding and compliance for
workers engaged in more than one type of work, such as general industry
and construction activities.
    Final paragraph (b) differs from the proposed rule in several
respects. First, the final rule does not retain the proposed
definitions for the following terms because OSHA does not use these
terms in final Sec.  1910.140: ``buckle'' and ``carrier.'' Second,
final paragraph (b) adds two new terms to the proposed definitions:
``carabiner'' and ``safety factor.'' Third, the final rule also
substantially modifies the definition of ``competent person'' from the
proposed rule. OSHA believes that additional revisions, particularly
those made in response to commenter suggestions, clarify the meaning of
the terms, and ensure that they reflect current industry practice.
    OSHA carries forward the following terms and definitions from the
proposed rule without change, or with mostly minor editorial and
technical changes. In revising final paragraph (b), OSHA used plain and
performance-based language. The Agency believes these types of
revisions make the terms and definitions easy for employers and workers
to understand. OSHA believes many of the remaining definitions are
``terms of art'' universally recognized by those who use personal fall
protection systems. Even so, OSHA still received comments on a number
of the definitions, as discussed below.
    Anchorage. The final rule, like the proposal, defines ``anchorage''
as a secure point of attachment for equipment such as lifelines,
lanyards, or deceleration devices. The definition in the final rule is
consistent with the one in OSHA's Powered Platforms, construction, and
shipyard employment fall protection standards (Sec. Sec.  1910.66,
appendix C, Section I(b); 1915.151(b); 1926.500(b)) as well as the
definition in

A10.32-2012 (Section 2.4) and Z359.0 (Section 2.5).
    OSHA notes that the anchorage definition in the Powered Platforms
standard requires that the anchorage must be ``independent of the means
of supporting or suspending the employee.'' The final rule also
includes this requirement in Sec.  1910.140(c)(12), discussed below.
OSHA did not receive any comments on the proposed definition.
    Belt terminal. As defined in the final rule, this term means an end
attachment of a window cleaner's positioning system used to secure the
body harness or belt to the window cleaner's belt anchor. The term is
specific to fall protection for window cleaning operations.
    Neither existing OSHA fall protection standards nor I-14.1-2001
define the term. Although OSHA believes the meaning of ``belt
terminal'' is clear, the Agency is including the definition in the
final rule to clarify the system or criteria of requirements for window
cleaner's positioning systems (see discussion of Sec.  1910.140(e)).
OSHA did not receive any comments or opposition to including the
definition, and adopts the definition as proposed.
    Body belt. The final rule defines ``body belt'' as a strap with
means both for securing it about the waist and for attaching it to
other components such as a lanyard used with positioning, travel
restraint, or ladder safety systems. The definition of ``body belt'' in
final rule generally is consistent with OSHA's Powered Platforms,
construction, and shipyard employment fall protection standards
(Sec. Sec.  1910.66, appendix C, Section I(b); 1915.151(b);
1926.500(b)). However, those definitions do not specify with which
systems employers may use body belts. The final rule clarifies that
employers may use body belts only with positioning, travel restraint,
and ladder safety systems, and the final rule adds language specifying
that employers cannot use body belts with personal fall arrest systems
(see discussion in Sec.  1910.140(d)(3)). Including this language makes
the final definition consistent with the definition in A10.32. That
standard defines ``body belt,'' which it also refers to as a safety or
waist belt, as ``support which is used for positioning, restraint or
ladder climbing only'' (A10.32-2012, Section 2.8).
    The Z359.0 standard uses the term ``body support'' instead of body
belt, and defines it as ``an assembly of webbing arranged to support
the human body for fall protection purposes, including during and after
fall arrest'' (Section 2.17). A note to the definition explains that
body support generally refers to a harness (full body, chest, chest-
waist) or body belt. OSHA did not receive any comments on the
definition and adopts the definition as proposed.
    Body harness. The final rule defines ``body harness'' as straps
that secure about a worker in a manner that distributes fall arrest
forces over at least the worker's thighs, pelvis, waist, chest, and
shoulders should a fall occur. The final rule specifies that a body
harness also is a means for attaching it to other components of a
personal fall protection system.
    The final rule is nearly identical to the definition of ``body
harness'' in OSHA's Powered Platforms, construction, and shipyard
employment fall protection standards (Sec. Sec.  1910.66, appendix C,
Section I(b); 1915.151(b); 1926.500(b)), as well as the definition of
``body support'' in A10.32 (Section 2.9). The Z359.0 standard includes
definitions of various types of body harnesses, including chest
harnesses, chest-waist harnesses, evacuation harnesses, full-body
harnesses, and positioning harnesses. The definition in the final rule
is consistent with the ``full body harness'' definition in Z359.0
(Section 2.83).
    In the proposal, OSHA requested comment on whether the Agency
should define other types of harnesses in the final rule, specifically
those harnesses that do not have a waist strap or component (75 FR
28903). ISEA (Ex. 185) and CSG (Ex. 198) both said that ISEA-member
companies reported that it was more common for body harnesses not to
have waist straps. They said this type of harness distributes fall
arrest forces over the entire torso and has assemblies that prevent the
shoulder straps from separating to the extent that the worker could
fall out of the harness. OSHA concludes that this type of harness meets
the definition of ``body harness,'' and it is not necessary to revise
the term. However, in the final rule, OSHA did not include the other
specific types of body harnesses (e.g., chest-waist, chest) listed in
Z359.0. The other types of harnesses do not spread fall arrest forces
across a broad area of the body, and the final rule does not permit
their use.
    With one exception, the definition in the final rule also is
consistent with I-14.1-2001. The definition of ``body harness'' in I-
14.1-2001 permits the distribution of fall arrest forces over ``any
combination'' of the thighs, pelvis, waist, chest, and shoulders,
rather than across all of those parts of the worker's body combined
(Section 2). The final rule, by contrast, does not incorporate the
``any combination'' language in I-14.1. OSHA believes that adopting the
language from I-14.1-2001 would allow employers to use harnesses that
concentrate fall arrest forces in a small anatomical area, rather than
across the entire torso and thighs. The dangers of concentrating fall
arrest forces in a limited anatomical area (e.g., waist and chest only)
are well documented. In the proposed rule, OSHA discussed research of
Dr. Maurice Amphoux, et al. conducted on the use of thoracic harnesses
for personal fall arrest. Their study concluded that such harnesses are
not suitable for personal fall arrest because the forces transmitted to
the body during post-fall suspension constricted the rib cage and could
cause asphyxiation (75 FR 28903). The proposed rule also identified an
increased danger of falling out of chest-waist harnesses. Therefore,
OSHA believes that the definition of ``body harness'' in the final rule
is more protective than the one in I-14.1-2001.
    Carabiner. The final rule defines carabiner as a connector
comprised generally of a trapezoidal or oval-shaped body with a closed
gate or similar arrangement that may be opened to attach another
object. When released, the carabiner gate automatically closes to
retain the object. There are generally three types of carabiners:
     Automatic locking, with a self-closing and self-locking
gate that remains closed and locked until intentionally unlocked and
opened for connection or disconnection;
     Manual locking, with a self-closing gate that must be
manually locked by the user and that remains closed and locked until
intentionally unlocked and opened by the user for connection or
disconnection; and
     Non-locking, with a self-closing gate cannot be locked.
    Commenters recommended that OSHA apply to carabiners the same
criteria applicable to snaphooks (Exs. 185; 198). For example, the
International Safety Equipment Association (ISEA) said that applying
the snaphook performance criteria to carabiners would ensure that the
final rule specifically covers the two most common types of connectors
(Ex. 185). OSHA agrees, and added a definition of carabiner to the
final rule that is almost identical to the one in Z359.0-2012 (Section
2.20) and A10.32-2012 (Section 2.12). Those definitions note that there
are three types of carabiners: Automatic locking (i.e., self-closing
and self-locking), manual locking, and non-locking. The final rule,
like Z359.0 and A10.32, only allows the use of automatic-locking
carabiners and snaphooks.

    Competent person. In the final rule, OSHA defines a ``competent
person'' as a person who:
     Is capable of identifying existing and predictable hazards
in any personal fall protection system or component as well as in their
application and uses with related equipment; and
     Has the authorization to take prompt corrective measures
to eliminate the identified hazards.
    The definition in the final rule differs from the proposed
definition in two ways. First, the final rule requires that the
competent person be capable of identifying both ``existing and
predictable hazards,'' while the proposal specified that the competent
person identify existing ``hazardous or dangerous conditions.'' Second,
the final rule adds language specifying that competent persons must
have authority to take prompt, corrective actions to eliminate the
hazards that they identified. These changes expand the definition of
competent person and make the final rule consistent with the definition
applicable to OSHA's construction standards (Sec.  1926.32), as well as
the definition in Z359.0-2012 (Section 2.30) and A10.32-2012 (Section
2.16).
    Under the final rule employers must ensure that the worker(s) they
select to be the competent person(s) have the capability and competence
to identify existing hazards and predictable hazards (i.e., hazards
likely to occur when using personal fall protection systems,
components, and related equipment). Competent persons working with
personal fall protection systems in construction already must be able
to identify both existing and predictable hazards. OSHA believes that
requiring the same of competent persons in general industry
establishments that also perform construction activities should not
pose a problem, especially since they may be the same person.
    OSHA added the language requiring that competent persons have
authority to take prompt corrective action in response to the large
number of commenters who urged OSHA to adopt that language from OSHA's
construction standards (Sec.  1926.32), Z359.0, and A10.32. OSHA did
not include the language in the proposed rule because the Agency
believed that competent persons dealing with personal fall protection
systems in general industry were likely to serve a different function
than competent persons in the construction industry (75 FR 28904). In
the preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA said that the competent person
in general industry most likely would be an outside contractor who
specializes in fall protection systems, designs fall protection
systems, and/or provides fall protection training. OSHA said it would
be unlikely that employers would grant an outside contractor authority
over work operations. In addition, OSHA said it did not believe the
definition of competent person in Sec.  1926.32 was widely recognized
and accepted in general industry. Thus, in the proposed rule OSHA used
the definition of competent person from appendix C of Sec.  1910.66.
    By contrast, when OSHA promulgated the construction fall protection
standards, the Agency applied the definition of ``competent person'' in
Sec.  1926.32 because the Agency found that the construction industry
widely recognized the term, which OSHA adopted in 1971 pursuant to
Section 6(a) of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 655(a)). However, commenters on
the proposed rule said that the construction industry definition is as
widely known, accepted, and used in general industry as it is in the
construction industry (Exs. 74; 122). They urged OSHA to incorporate
the construction industry definition of competent person in Sec.
1910.140.
    Many commenters who disagreed with the proposed definition said
that it is essential that the competent person have authority to take
prompt corrective action when they find hazards (Exs. 69; 74; 185; 190;
198; 226). They argued that the duty of the competent person is to
ensure that personal fall protection systems, components, and related
equipment are safe, and they cannot carry out that duty without having
the ability to take corrective action to keep the system working
properly and the workplace safe. In addition, they said that employers,
workers, fall protection equipment suppliers, and national consensus
standards all operate with the expectation that a competent person will
have authority to take action when needed to correct problems. The
American Foundry Society, for instance, pointed out:

    Without any such authority, a competent person under this
definition will be put in the position of being able to recognize
the hazard, but likely not be able [to] do anything about it. That
is not a truly competent person and does not reflect the needed
level of competence to help ensure worker safety (Ex. 190).

Similarly, ISEA said that OSHA's proposed definition amounted to a
subject matter expert rather than a competent person. They asserted
that the rule must define a competent person as one who is on site; has
authority to shut down work operations if there are imminent hazards;
and take PPE, including personal fall protection systems, out of
service if needed (Ex. 185).
    The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
(AFSCME) (Ex. 226) also supported giving the competent person authority
to take prompt, corrective action. AFSCME said that many employers may
seek outside assistance in assessing the risks and types of fall
protection systems, but that no outside party should be an employer's
competent person:

    It is more likely that an internal supervisor would be given the
responsibility for ensuring the employer's fall protection systems
are in place, equipment is inspected, and that employees are trained
and using equipment properly. This person or persons should be
competent in the meaning of the standard, and should have the
authority to correct hazards when found (Ex. 226).

    ISEA made a similar point, saying that it was in the best interest
of worker protection to have an on-site accountable decision maker
because the competent person would be able to examine the personal fall
protection systems, components, and related equipment and know
firsthand the risks involved. Armed with that knowledge, ISEA said an
on-site competent person would be less likely to take risks with
workers' lives. ISEA said that manufacturers and other knowledgeable
sources who are not on-site will not have the knowledge to make
service-life decisions about fall arrest equipment. Capital Safety
Group (CSG) (Ex. 198) agreed, saying that on-site, accountable decision
makers who are fully aware of the risks associated with fall protection
equipment are less likely to put workers' lives in jeopardy. Access
Rescue (Ex. 69) and Extreme Access, Inc. (Ex. 74), expressed similar
concerns.
    OSHA agrees with commenters that, to ensure workers have safe
personal fall protection systems, components, and related equipment the
competent person must have authority to take necessary corrective
action when they identify hazards. In addition, adding the language to
the final rule will make the definition consistent with the widely
known term in OSHA's construction standard and national consensus
standards, which should increase employer compliance.
    OSHA also agrees with commenters that, to carry out their role,
competent persons should be on-site. With appropriate training and
experience, OSHA believes that a worker at the worksite can function as
the competent person.
    Connector. The final rule, like the proposal, defines ``connector''
as a

device used to couple or connect together parts of a personal fall
protection system. Examples of connectors include snaphooks,
carabiners, buckles, and D-rings.
    The definition in the final rule is derived from OSHA's Powered
Platforms, construction, and shipyard employment fall protection
standards, as well as Z359.0-2012 (Section 2.36) and A10.32-2012
(Section 2.18). The definition of ``connector'' in those standards
includes information explaining that connectors may be independent
components of a personal fall protection system or integral parts sewn
into the system. Since the final rule permits employers to use
connectors that are either independent or integral components of a
personal fall protection system, OSHA does not believe it is necessary
to include the explanatory material in the final definition of
``connector.'' OSHA did not receive any comments and adopts the
definition as proposed.
    D-ring, as used in the final rule, is a connector used in:
     Harnesses, as an integral attachment element or fall
arrest attachment;
     Lanyards, energy absorbers, lifelines, or anchorage
connectors as an integral connector; or
     A positioning or travel restraint system as an attachment
element.
    ``Integral'' means the D-ring cannot be removed (e.g., sewn into
the harness) from the body harness without using a special tool. The
final rule is consistent with A10.32-2012, which defines ``integral''
to mean ``[n]ot removable from the component, subsystem or system
without destroying or mutilating any element or without use of a
special tool'' (Section 2.30).
    Although OSHA's existing fall protection standards do not define
``D-ring,'' the final rule is consistent with Z359.0-2012 (Section
2.41). The A10.32-2012 standard does not explicitly define ``D-ring,''
but the definition of ``connector'' includes D-ring as an example of an
integral component of a body harness. The definition also says a D-ring
is a connector sewn into a body harness or body belt (Section 2.18).
OSHA did not receive any comments on the proposed definition and has
adopts the definition with minor editorial revisions.
    Deceleration device, like in the proposed rule, is defined as any
mechanism that serves to dissipate energy during a fall. The final rule
is similar to the definition in OSHA's Powered Platforms, construction,
and shipyard employment fall protection standards (Sec. Sec.  1910.66,
appendix C, Section I(b); 1915.151(b); 1926.500(b)), and almost
identical to the definition in A10.32-2012 (Section 2.19). The
definition in those standards also provides examples of deceleration
devices that employers may use to dissipate energy during a fall,
including rope grabs, rip-stitch lanyards, specially woven lanyards,
tearing or deforming lanyards, and automatic self-retracting lifelines
or lanyards.
    Although the Z359.0 standard does not define ``deceleration
device,'' it includes definitions for ``energy (shock) absorber,''
``fall arrester,'' and ``self-retracting lanyard'' (Sections 2.46,
2.60, 2.159). In the Powered Platforms and construction fall protection
rulemakings, commenters recommended replacing ``deceleration device''
with those terms. OSHA also received similar recommendations in this
rulemaking (Exs. 121; 185; 198). For instance, ISEA (Ex.185) and CSG
(Ex. 198) recommended defining ``fall arrester'' and ``energy
absorber'' because they said ``deceleration device'' is not a commonly
used term. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. (Ex. 121), also supported
replacing ``deceleration device'' with the terms in Z359.0 ``to
increase consistency.'' By contrast, Ameren said ``deceleration
device'' was ``standard verbiage'' in OSHA fall protection standards,
and removing the term was not necessary ``[a]s long as there is no
confusion with the terms'' (Ex.189).
    OSHA agrees with Ameren that using the term ``deceleration device''
makes the final rule consistent with OSHA's other fall protection
standards and would eliminate, rather than generate, confusion. In the
preamble to the final construction fall protection standard, OSHA
explained why the Agency was not adding definitions for ``fall
arrester'' and ``energy absorber,'' stating:

    It was suggested that [deceleration device] be eliminated and
replaced with three terms, ``fall arrester,'' ``energy absorber,''
and ``self-retracting lifeline/lanyard'' because the examples listed
by OSHA in its proposed definition of deceleration device serve
varying combinations of the function of these three suggested
components. In particular, it was pointed out that a rope grab may
or may not serve to dissipate a substantial amount of energy in and
of itself. The distinction that the commenter was making was that
some components of the system were ``fall arresters'' (purpose to
stop a fall), others were ``energy absorbers'' (purpose to brake a
fall more comfortably), and others were ``self-retracting lifeline/
lanyards'' (purpose to take slack out of the lifeline or lanyard to
minimize free fall). OSHA notes, however, that it is difficult to
clearly separate all components into these three suggested
categories since fall arrest (stopping) and energy absorption
(braking) are closely related. In addition, many self-retracting
lifeline/lanyards serve all three functions very well (a condition
which the commenter labels as a ``subsystem'' or ``hybrid
component''). OSHA believes that the only practical way to
accomplish what is suggested would be to have test methods and
criteria for each of the three component functions. However, at this
time, there are no national consensus standards or other accepted
criteria for any of the three which OSHA could propose to adopt.
    In addition, OSHA's approach in the final standard is to address
personal fall arrest equipment on a system basis. Therefore, OSHA
does not have separate requirements for ``fall arresters,'' ``energy
absorbers,'' and ``self-retracting lifeline/lanyards'' because it is
the performance of the complete system, as assembled, which is
regulated by the OSHA standard. OSHA's final standard does not
preclude the voluntary standards writing bodies from developing
design standards for all of the various components and is supportive
of this undertaking (59 FR 40672 (8/9/1994) (citing 54 FR 31408,
31446 (7/28/1989))).

    OSHA believes the preamble discussion in the earlier rulemakings
holds true today and supports only including the definition of
``deceleration device'' in the final rule. Accordingly, the final rule
adopts the definition of ``deceleration device'' specified in the
proposal.
    Deceleration distance. The final rule, like the proposal, defines
``deceleration distance'' as the vertical distance a falling worker
travels before stopping, that is, the distance from the point at which
the deceleration device begins to operate to the stopping point,
excluding lifeline elongation and free fall distance. The final rule
also states that ``deceleration distance'' is the distance between the
location of a worker's body harness attachment point at the moment of
activation of the deceleration device during a fall (i.e., at the onset
of fall arrest forces), and the location of that attachment point after
the worker comes to a full stop.
    The definition in the final rule is almost identical to the
definition in OSHA's Powered Platforms, construction, and shipyard
employment fall protection standards (Sec. Sec.  1910.66, appendix C,
Section I(b); 1915.151(b); 1926.500(b)), but does not reference body
belts because the final rule prohibits the use of body belts in
personal fall arrest systems. The final rule also is consistent with
A10.32-2012 (Section 2.20) and with the definition and explanatory note
in Z359.0-2012 (Section 2.40). OSHA did not receive any comments on the
proposed definition of ``deceleration device'' and adopts the proposed
definition.
    Equivalent. The final rule defines ``equivalent'' as alternative
designs, equipment, materials, or methods that the employer can
demonstrate will

provide an equal or greater degree of safety for workers compared to
the designs, equipment, materials, or methods the final rule specifies.
The definition in the final rule is essentially the same as the
definition in OSHA's Powered Platforms, shipyard employment, and
construction fall protection standards (Sec. Sec.  1910.66(d) and
appendix C, Section I(b); 1915.151(b); 1926.500(b)). A crucial element
of the definition is that the employer has the burden to demonstrate
that the alternative means are at least as protective as the designs,
materials, or methods the standard requires.
    Verallia (Ex. 171) commented that the proposed definition was ``too
subjective and vague to allow for consistent application and/or
enforcement.'' Verallia also said the proposal outlined the skill set
necessary to be a ``qualified'' person, and that it should be
sufficient if a qualified person selects the alternative designs,
equipment, materials, or methods. OSHA disagrees with Verallia's
characterization of the proposed definition. Since 1974, OSHA used the
same definition of ``equivalent'' in various standards (e.g.,
Sec. Sec.  1910.21(g)(6); 1926.450(b)). Over this period, the Agency
experienced no problems achieving consistent application of the
definition, and employers did not report that the term is too vague. To
the contrary, OSHA believes that employers support the definition of
``equivalent'' because it gives them flexibility in complying with the
final rule, provided that they can show that their selected methods,
materials, or designs provide equal or greater level of safety for
workers. Accordingly, the final rule adopts the proposed definition
with only minor changes for clarity.
    Free fall, like in the proposed rule, is defined as the act of
falling before the personal fall arrest system begins to apply force to
arrest the fall. The final definition is almost the same as the
definition in OSHA's Powered Platforms, construction, and shipyard
employment fall protection standards (Sec. Sec.  1910.66, appendix C,
Section I(b); 1915.151(b); 1926.500(b)). It also is identical to the
definition in Z359.0-2012 (Section 2.73), and is consistent with the
definition in A10.32-2012 (Section 2.26). OSHA did not receive any
comments on the proposed definition and finalizes it as proposed.
    Free fall distance means the vertical displacement of the fall
arrest attachment point on the worker's body harness between the onset
of the fall and just before the system begins to apply force to arrest
the fall. The distance excludes deceleration distance, lifeline and
lanyard elongation, but includes any deceleration device slide distance
or self-retracting lifeline/lanyard extension before the devices
operate and fall arrest forces occur.
    The definition in the final rule is essentially the same as the
definition in OSHA's Powered Platforms, construction, and shipyard
employment fall protection standards (Sec. Sec.  1910.66 appendix C,
Section I(b); 1915.151(b); 1926.500(b)). In addition, the final rule is
consistent with the definition in Z359.0-2012 (Section 2.74) and
A10.32-2012 (Section 2.27). OSHA did not receive any comments on the
proposed definition.
    Lanyard, like in the proposed rule, is defined as a flexible line
of rope, wire rope, or strap that generally has a connector at each end
to connect a body harness or body belt to a deceleration device,
lifeline, or anchorage. The definition in the final rule is almost
identical to the Powered Platforms standard (Sec.  1910.66(b) and
appendix C, Section I(b)), and consistent with the definition in OSHA's
construction and shipyard employment fall protection standards
(Sec. Sec.  1915.151(b) and 1926.500(b)). The definition in the final
rule also is consistent with Z359.0-2012 (Section 2.94) and A10.32-2012
(Section 2.31), although the definition in A10.32 does not include body
belts. OSHA did not receive any comments on the proposed definition,
and adopts the definition as proposed.
    Lifeline. The final rule, like the proposal, defines ``lifeline''
as a component of a personal fall protection system that connects other
components of the system to the anchorage. A lifeline consists of a
flexible line that either connects to an anchorage at one end to hang
vertically (a vertical lifeline), or connects to anchorages at both
ends to stretch horizontally (a horizontal lifeline).
    The final rule is consistent with the definition of lifeline in
Z359.0-2012 (Section 2.96) and A10.32-2012 (Section 2.33), however, it
differs slightly from OSHA's Powered Platforms, construction, and
shipyard employment fall protection standards (Sec. Sec.  1910.66(b)
and appendix C, Section I(b); 1915.151(b); 1926.500(b)). OSHA's
existing standards only apply to personal fall arrest systems, and
define ``lifeline'' as a component of such a system. The final
definition specifies that a lifeline is a component of a personal fall
protection system, which includes fall arrest, positioning, and travel
restraint systems. The final definition also includes some minor
editorial revisions. OSHA did not receive any comments on the proposed
definition and adopts the definition as discussed.
    Personal fall arrest system, like the proposed rule, is defined as
a system used to arrest a worker's fall from a walking-working surface.
As the final rule specifies, a personal fall arrest system consists of
a body harness, anchorage, and connector. The means of connecting the
body harness and anchorage may be a lanyard, deceleration device,
lifeline, or suitable combination of these means. In the final rule,
OSHA fully details what the components of personal fall arrest systems
include, specifically, the various means of connecting body harnesses
and anchorages (i.e., lanyards, deceleration devices, lifelines, or a
suitable combination of these means). OSHA believes that fully
clarifying the components will help employers and workers better
understand the personal fall arrest system requirements in the final
rule.
    The definition in the final rule is consistent with OSHA's Powered
Platforms, construction, and shipyard employment fall protection
standards (Sec. Sec.  1910.66(b) and appendix C, Section I(b);
1915.151(b); 1926.500(b)). Those OSHA standards, however, specify that
a fall arrest system may consist of either a body harness or a body
belt. Since the time OSHA promulgated those standards, the Agency
phased out the use of body belts in personal fall arrest systems due to
safety concerns. Effective January 1, 1998, OSHA banned the use of body
belts as part of personal fall arrest systems in the construction and
shipyard employment standards (Sec. Sec.  1926.502(d); 1915.159), and
this final rule also prohibits their use in personal fall arrest
systems.
    The final rule is consistent with Z359.0-2012 (Section 2.115) and
A10.32-2012 (Section 2.38). The consensus standards, like the final
rule and OSHA's existing standards, require the use of body harnesses
in personal fall arrest systems, and prohibit body belts.
    Personal fall protection system, as defined in the final rule,
means a system (including all components) that employers use to provide
protection for employees from falling or to safely arrest a fall if one
occurs. The final definition identifies examples of personal fall
protection systems, including personal fall arrest systems, positioning
systems, and travel restraint systems. Neither existing OSHA fall
protection standards nor national consensus standards define personal
fall protection system.
    Some commenters (Exs. 155; 185; 198) said that OSHA should not use

``personal fall protection system'' because employers could interpret
the term to include passive devices such as guardrails. They suggested
using only the term ``personal fall arrest system.'' In addition, Ellis
Fall Safety Solutions (Ellis) (Ex. 155) recommended that the term
``personal fall protection system'' only include systems that use body
harnesses; in other words, limited to personal fall arrest systems.
    OSHA does not believe that employers will mistake the term
``personal fall protection system'' to include passive fall protection
devices such as guardrails and safety nets. The Z359.0-2012 standard
includes two types of fall protection systems: Active and passive.
Z359.0 defines ``active fall protection system'' as a fall protection
system that requires workers ``to wear or use fall protection
equipment'' (Section 2.2), and lists fall restraint, fall arrest,
travel restriction, and administrative controls as examples. The Z359.0
standard, however, defines ``passive fall protection system'' as one
``that does not require the wearing or use of fall protection
equipment,'' such as safety nets and guardrail systems (Section 2.113).
Like the distinction that the Z359.0 standard draws between active and
passive fall protection systems, OSHA believes that using the term
``personal fall protection system'' establishes the same type of
distinction. That is, a personal fall protection system is one that
employers must ensure that workers actively use to protect them, while
a passive fall protection system, such as a guardrail, is one that does
not require any action by workers to be safe, so long as employers
maintain the system properly. OSHA believes this distinction is
helpful, and that the regulated community recognizes and understands
the distinction. Therefore, the term is carried forward in the final
rule.
    OSHA revised the final definition to expressly clarify the Agency's
intent in the proposed rule that personal fall protection systems
include all components of those systems.
    Positioning system (work-positioning system). The final rule, like
the proposal, defines ``positioning system'' as 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 in the final rule is essentially the same as the
definition in OSHA's construction and shipyard employment fall
protection standards (Sec. Sec.  1915.151(b), 1926.500(b)). The final
rule also is similar to A10.32-2012 (Section 2.39, 2.40) and Z359.0-
2012 (Section 2.120). Weatherguard Service, Inc. (Ex. 168) supported
the proposed definition.
    A note to the definition in Z359.0 explains that ``a positioning
system used alone does not constitute fall protection,'' and that a
separate system that provides backup protection from a fall is
necessary (Section E2.120). Ellis (Ex. 155), who also commented on
OSHA's positioning system requirements, supported adding such a
requirement to the final rule. OSHA did not incorporate this
recommendation (see discussion in final paragraph (e) (positioning
systems)). OSHA adopts the proposed definition with minor editorial
changes.
    Qualified, like in the proposed rule, describes a person who, by
possession of a recognized degree, certificate, or professional
standing, or who by extensive knowledge, training,\76\ and experience
has successfully demonstrated the ability to solve or resolve problems
relating to the subject matter, work, or project. This definition is
identical to the one in final Sec.  1910.21(b). The final definition is
almost identical to the definition applicable to OSHA's construction
standards (Sec.  1926.32(m)), and similar to the definition in the
shipyard employment fall protection standard (Sec.  1915.151(b)). In
addition, the definition in the final rule is consistent with the
definition used in A10.32-2012 (Section 2.41).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ ``Training'' may include informal, or on-the-job, training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule, however, differs from the definition in the Powered
Platforms standard (Sec.  1910.66, appendix C, Section I(b)) and
Z359.0-2012. Those standards require that qualified persons have a
degree, certification, or professional standing, and 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).
    Several commenters opposed the proposed definition of ``qualified''
and supported the definition of qualified in Sec.  1910.66 and Z359.0
(Exs. 155; 193; 367). They also recommended revising the definition to
specifically require that only engineers could serve as qualified
persons. For example, Ellis said:

    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).

Penta Engineering Group added:

    OSHA proposes to require that horizontal lifelines be designed,
installed and used under the supervision of a qualified person and
that they be part of a complete fall arrest system that maintains a
factor of safety of two. To allow a person without an engineering
degree and professional registration would not only be dangerous but
would be contradictory to every current requirement for other
building systems as required by the building codes. Further, in this
specific instance, the design of a horizontal lifeline presents
specific engineering challenges that should not be performed by
anyone without the professional standing and experience to do so
(Ex. 193).

Thomas Kramer of LJB, Inc., agreed, stating:

    We take exception with the change from ``AND'' to ``OR.'' A
person with a structural engineering degree does not necessarily
know the full requirements (clearances, proper PPE selection, use
and rescue procedures, etc.) of a personal fall arrest system. That
knowledge can be obtained only through special training or
experience in the subject matter. Vice versa, someone with knowledge
of the system requirements may not know how to properly design an
anchorage support and can only gain this knowledge through a
professional degree. As stated in our previous comments, many
building codes only allow a professional engineer to design and
stamp a building design or changes to the loading of a structure.
The explanation to make 1910 consistent with the existing
construction and shipyard employment standard is not a good enough
reason in our opinion. OSHA states that personal fall protection
systems will ``in some cases, [may] involve their design and use.''
By using the word ``OR,'' the proposed regulation eliminates the
need for an engineer's involvement. The ANSI/ASSE Z359.0-2007
standard uses ``AND''. These consensus standards are developed with
a considerable level of thought and consideration and were recently
vetted by the industry, so we suggest OSHA reconsider this change
(Ex. 367).

OSHA did not adopt the commenters' recommendations for several reasons.
First, as discussed in the proposed rule, OSHA based the definition of
``qualified'' on the definitions in its construction and shipyard
employment fall protection standards (Sec. Sec.  1915.151(b);
1926.500(b)). For years, those definitions have been effective because
they specify that employers must ensure the design, installation, and

use of components of personal fall protection systems (such as
lifelines) protect workers from falls. Adopting the same definition as
OSHA's other fall protection standards and final Sec.  1910.21(b) also
ensures consistency, which OSHA believes will increase both employer
understanding and compliance with the requirement.
    Second, the Agency believes the performance-based definition in the
final rule gives employers flexibility in selecting a qualified person
who will be effective in performing the required functions. The
performance-based definition also allows employers to select the
qualified person who will be the best fit for the particular job and
work conditions. Employers are free to use qualified persons who have
professional credentials and extensive knowledge, training, and
experience, and OSHA believes many employers already do so.
    Finally, the workers the employer designates or selects as
qualified persons, the most important aspect of their qualifications is
that they must have ``demonstrated ability'' to solve or resolve
problems relating to the subject matter, work, and project. Having both
professional credentials and knowledge, training, and experience will
not protect workers effectively if the person has not demonstrated
capability to perform the required functions and solve or resolve the
problems in question.
    When the person the employer designates as a qualified person has
demonstrated the ability to solve or resolve problems, which may
include performing various complex calculations to ensure systems and
components meet required criteria, the qualifications of that person
are adequate. OSHA also notes that an employer may need to select
different qualified persons for different projects, subject matter, or
work to ensure the person's professional credentials or training,
experience, and knowledge are sufficient to solve or resolve the
problems associated with the subject matter, work, or project. For
example, the employer may determine that an engineer is needed for a
particular project, and the final rule provides the employer with that
flexibility. Accordingly, OSHA adopts the definition of qualified as
proposed.
    OSHA disagrees with Ellis' assertion that architects and engineers
are not designing anchorages into drawings because, according to Ellis,
Sec.  1910.140 does not require qualified persons to be engineers. OSHA
believes that building owners and others work with engineers and
architects in the planning stage to design anchorage points into
buildings and structures so that the anchorages will effectively
support personal fall protection systems used to perform work on the
building. OSHA also believes that the number of building owners
consulting engineers about the design of anchorages will increase under
the final rule. Section 1910.27 of the final rule requires that, when
employers use rope descent systems (RDS), building owners must provide
information to employers and contractors ensuring that a qualified
person certify building anchorages as being capable of supporting at
least 5,000 pounds (29 CFR 1910.27(b)(1)). OSHA believes that building
owners will likely consult and work with engineers to ensure that all
building anchorages, including anchorages that support RDS and personal
fall protection systems, meet the requirements in Sec.  1910.27. Thus,
OSHA does not believe it is necessary to limit the definition of
``qualified'' person to engineers to ensure that building owners
include building anchors in building design plans.
    Rope grab, like the proposed rule, is defined as a deceleration
device that travels on a lifeline and automatically, using friction,
engages the lifeline and locks to arrest a worker's fall. A rope grab
usually employs the principle of inertial locking, cam or lever
locking, or both.
    The final rule is essentially the same as the definition in OSHA's
Powered Platforms, construction, and shipyard employment fall
protection standards (Sec. Sec.  1910.66, appendix C, Section I(b);
1915.151(b); 1926.500(b)). The A10.32 and Z359.0-2012 standards do not
define ``rope grab,'' but the definition of ``fall arrester'' in Z359.0
(Section 2.60) is similar to the definition in this final rule. In
addition, the explanatory note to the ``fall arrester'' definition
identifies a ``rope grab'' as an example of a fall arrester. The
A10.32-2012 standard requires rope grabs to automatically lock (Section
5.4.3). OSHA did not receive any comments on the proposed definition of
``rope grab,'' and the final rule adopts it as proposed.
    Safety factor. The final rule adds a definition for safety factor,
also called a factor of safety. OSHA defines safety factor as the ratio
of the design load and ultimate strength of the material. Generally,
the term refers to the structural capacity of a member, material,
equipment, or system beyond actual or reasonably anticipated loads;
that is, how much stronger the member, material, equipment, or system
is than it usually needs to be to support the intended load without
breaking or failing. A safety factor is an additional or extra margin
of safety that provides assurance the system or equipment is able to
support the intended load (e.g., a safety factor of two).
    The new definition is the same as the one proposed in subpart D and
is consistent with the one in Sec.  1926.32(n). OSHA believes that
adding this term will increase employer understanding and compliance
with the requirements in this section.
    Self-retracting lifeline/lanyard (SRL) is also a type of
deceleration device. The final rule, like the proposal, defines an SRL
as containing a drum-wound line that a worker can slowly extract from,
or retract onto, a drum under slight tension during normal movement. At
the onset of a fall, the device automatically locks the drum and
arrests the fall.
    The definition in the final rule is consistent with OSHA's Powered
Platforms and construction fall protection standards (Sec. Sec.
1910.66, appendix C, Section I(b); 1926.500(b)) and with Z359.0-2012
(Section 2.159) and A10.32-2012 (Section 2.46). There were no comments
on the proposed definition, and the final rule adopts it as proposed.
    Snaphook. The final rule, like the proposal, defines ``snaphook''
as a connector comprised of a hook-shaped body with a normally closed
gate, or a similar arrangement, that the user may open manually to
permit the hook to receive an object. When the user releases a
snaphook, it automatically closes to retain the object. Opening a
snaphook requires two separate actions, meaning the user must squeeze
the lever on the back before engaging the front gate.
    The final definition, like the proposal, identifies two general
types of snaphooks--an automatic-locking type (also called self-locking
or double locking), which the final rule permits employers to use, and
a non-locking type, which the final rule prohibits. An automatic-
locking type snaphook has a self-closing and self-locking gate that
remains closed and locked until intentionally unlocked and opened for
connection or disconnection. By contrast, a non-locking type has a
self-closing gate that remains closed, but not locked until the user
intentionally opens it for connection or disconnection (see discussion
of Sec.  1910.140(c)(9)).
    The definition in the final rule is the same as the definition in
OSHA's Powered Platforms and construction fall protection standards
(Sec. Sec.  1910.66, appendix C, Section I(b); 1926.500(b)). It also is
consistent with Z359.0-2012 (Section 2.168) and A10.32-2012 (Sections
2.50, 2.50.1, 2.50.2). OSHA

received two comments on the snaphook definition, from CSG (Ex. 198)
and ISEA (Ex. 185), both of which supported the proposed definition.
OSHA adopts the definition as proposed.
    Travel restraint (tether) line is a component of a travel restraint
system. Specifically, the final rule, like the proposal, defines it as
a rope or wire rope used to transfer forces from a body support to an
anchorage or anchorage connector in a travel restraint system. The
purpose of a travel restraint (tether) line is to secure workers in
such a way as to prevent them from reaching an unprotected edge and
falling off the elevated surface on which they are working.
    The definition in the final rule is the same as the definition in
OSHA's shipyard employment fall protection standard (Sec.
1915.151(b)). The definition in Sec.  1915.151(b) notes that
manufacturers do not necessarily design travel restraint lines to
withstand forces resulting from a fall. OSHA did not receive any
comments on the proposed definition, and the final rule adopts the
definition as proposed.
    Travel restraint system is a type of personal fall protection
system that consists of a combination of an anchorage, 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. The final rule revises the
proposed definition in two ways. First, the final rule defines ``travel
restraint system'' to specify that it is a system a worker uses to
eliminate the possibility of falling from the unprotected edge of an
elevated walking-working surface. The proposed definition said the
purpose of travel restraint systems was to ``limit travel to prevent
exposure to a fall hazard.'' OSHA believes the final definition more
clearly explains the ultimate purpose of travel restraint systems than
the proposed definition.
    Second, the final definition deletes the second sentence of the
proposed definition, which stated that a travel restraint system ``is
used such that it does not support any portion of the worker's weight;
otherwise the system would be a positioning system or personal fall
arrest system.'' OSHA believes the revised language in the final
definition is sufficient to convey this requirement. In addition, OSHA
addresses this issue in the discussion of Sec.  1910.140(c)(14) below.
    The definition in the final rule is consistent with the definition
in Z359.0-2012 (Section 2.204) and A10.32-2012 (Sections 2.53). The
definition in A10.32 stresses that the purpose of a travel restraint
system is to limit travel in such a manner that the user is not exposed
to a fall hazard. OSHA did not receive comments on the proposed
definition and finalizes the definition as discussed.
    Window cleaner's belt, as defined in the final rule, is a component
of a window cleaner's positioning system. It is a positioning belt that
consists of a waist belt, an integral terminal runner or strap, and
belt terminals.
    The final rule revises the proposed definition to explicitly
clarify that a window cleaner's belt is a component of a window
cleaner's positioning system, and thus is designed to support the
window cleaner on an elevated vertical surface. OSHA notes that a
window cleaner's belt differs from a window cleaner's tool belt, which
holds the window cleaner's tools and materials used for performing the
job. Employers use the tool belt mainly for convenience of the window
cleaner and not as safety equipment. The only commenter on the proposed
definition, Weatherguard (Ex. 168), supported the proposed definition.
Accordingly, the final rule adopts the definition with the revision
discussed above.
    Window cleaner's belt anchor (window anchor), as defined in the
final rule, is a specifically designed fall-preventing attachment point
permanently affixed to a window frame or a part of a building
immediately adjacent to the window frame, for direct attachment of the
terminal portion of a window cleaner's belt. Workers attach the
terminals of the window cleaner's belt to the window anchors to prevent
falling while cleaning windows.
    OSHA based the final definition on the one in I-14.1-2001 (Section
2). OSHA's existing fall protection standards do not specifically
address window cleaning operations, and do not define terms related to
those operations. Weatherguard (Ex. 168), the only commenter, supported
including the definition in the final rule. The final rule adopts the
definition as proposed.
    Window cleaner's positioning system, as defined in the final rule,
is a system that consists of a window cleaner's belt secured to window
anchors. The definition is similar to the general definition of
positioning system in the final rule. Weatherguard (Ex. 168), the only
commenter, supported the proposed definition and the definition is
adopted as proposed.
Paragraph (c)--General Requirements
    Paragraph (c) of the final rule specifies the general requirements
employers must ensure that each personal fall protection system meets.
The general requirements in paragraph (c) are criteria for the common
components of personal fall protection systems, such as connectors,
anchorages, lanyards and body harnesses. Paragraphs (d) and (e) contain
additional requirements for personal fall arrest systems and
positioning systems, respectively.
    The provisions in final paragraph (c) are drawn from or based on
requirements in OSHA's personal fall protection standards, including
Powered Platforms (Sec.  1910.66, appendix C), construction (Sec.
1926.502), and shipyard employment (Sec.  1915.160). They also are
drawn from national consensus standards addressing fall protection,
including Z359.1-2007, Z359.3-2007, A10.32-2012, and I-14.1-2001.
    Paragraph (c)(1) of the final rule requires that employers ensure
connectors used in personal fall protection systems are made of drop-
forged, pressed or formed steel, or equivalent material. Final
paragraph (c)(2) requires connectors to have corrosion-resistant
finishes, as well as smooth surfaces and edges to prevent damage to
interfacing parts of the personal fall protection system.
    The requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) will ensure that
connectors retain the necessary strength characteristics for the life
of the fall protection system under expected conditions of use, and
that the surfaces and edges do not cause damage to the belts or
lanyards attached to them. Employers must not allow workers to use
personal fall protection equipment if wear and tear reaches the point
where equipment performance might be compromised. For example, corroded
or rough surfaces can cause wear and tear on connectors and other
components of personal fall protection system, which may reduce their
strength.
    Final paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) are consistent with OSHA's other
fall protection standards, including Powered Platforms (Sec.  1910.66,
appendix C, section I, paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2)); construction
(Sec.  1926.502(d)(1), (d)(3), and (e)(4)); and shipyard employment
(Sec.  1915.159(a)(1) and (2)). The Z359.1-2007 standard also contains
similar requirements. There were no comments on the proposed provisions
and OSHA adopts them without substantive change.
    When employers use vertical lifelines, paragraph (c)(3) of the
final rule requires that employers ensure each worker is attached to a
separate lifeline. OSHA believes that allowing more than one

worker on the same vertical lifeline would create additional hazards.
For example, if one worker falls, another attached worker might be
pulled off balance and also fall. The final rule is consistent with
OSHA's other fall protection standards (Sec. Sec.  1910.66, appendix C,
section I, paragraphs (c)(3) and (e)(5); 1926.502(d)(10);
1915.159(b)(1)). There were no comments on the proposed provision and
it is adopted with only minor editorial changes.
    Paragraphs (c)(4) and (5) of the final rule set minimum strength
requirements for lanyards and lifelines used with personal fall
protection systems. Paragraph (c)(4) requires that employers ensure
lanyards and vertical lifelines have a minimum breaking strength of
5,000 pounds. Breaking strength refers to the point at which a lanyard
or vertical lifeline will break because of the stress placed on it.
    The final rule requires the same strength requirements for vertical
lifelines and lanyards as OSHA's other fall protection standards
(Sec. Sec.  1910.66, appendix C, section I, paragraphs (c)(4);
1926.502(d)(9); 1915.159(b)(3)). The strength requirement also is the
same as Z359.1-2007. OSHA believes the strength requirements in all of
these standards provide an adequate level of safety. (OSHA notes that
the final rule also requires that travel restraint (tether) lines be
capable of supporting a minimum tensile load of 5,000 pounds (see
discussion of paragraph (c)(14)).
    The lanyards and vertical lifelines requirement in paragraph (c)(4)
also includes self-retracting lifelines/lanyards (SRL) that allow free
falls of more than 2 feet, as well as ripstitch, tearing and deforming
lanyards. The proposed rule addressed those lifelines and lanyards in
paragraph (c)(6); however, that paragraph duplicated paragraph (c)(4),
and OSHA removed it from the final rule. Proposed paragraph (c)(4) also
included a note, which OSHA re-designated as paragraph (c)(6) of the
final rule (see discussion of Sec.  1910.140(c)(6)).
    Paragraph (c)(5) of the final rule, like the proposed rule,
provides an exception to the 5,000-pound strength requirement for SRL
that automatically limit free fall distance to 2 feet or less. The
final provision allows a lower strength requirement because the fall
arrest forces are less when free falls are limited to 2 feet. These
lifelines and lanyards must have components capable of sustaining a
minimum tensile load of 3,000 pounds applied to the device with the
lifeline or lanyard in the fully extended position. Tensile load means
a force that attempts to pull apart or stretch an object, while tensile
strength means the ability of an object or material to resist forces
that attempt to pull apart or stretch the object or material.
    Final paragraph (c)(5) is the same as OSHA's other fall protection
standards (Sec. Sec.  1910.66, appendix C, section I, paragraphs
(c)(5); 1926.502(d)(13); 1915.159(b)(4)) and Z359.1-2007 (Section
<IP_ADDRESS>) and A10.32-2012 (Section 5.3.1). OSHA received comments on the
proposed strength requirements in paragraphs (c)(4) and (5). As far
back as the 1990 proposal, one commenter said that the strength
requirements for lanyards and vertical lifelines were too high and
would be difficult to maintain (75 FR 28907). OSHA acknowledged in the
proposed rule that wear and deterioration to personal fall protection
systems inevitably would occur from normal use of lanyards and
lifelines, and that ultraviolet radiation, water, and dirt also can
reduce the strength of lanyards and lifelines.
    That said, OSHA believes that employers are able to purchase and
maintain personal fall protection system and components that
consistently meet the strength requirements in the final rule. These
strength requirements have been in place for many years, and virtually
all personal fall protection systems manufactured in or for use in the
United States meet the requirements in paragraphs (c)(4) and (5). Since
1990, OSHA has not received any information indicating that the
strength requirements should not be maintained. However, to ensure that
lifelines and lanyards continue to comply with the requirements in
paragraph (c)(5), paragraph (c)(18) of the final rule requires that
employers inspect personal fall protection systems before each use and
immediately remove worn or deteriorated systems and components from
service. In addition, Sec.  1910.132(a) requires that employers
maintain personal protective equipment in reliable condition.
    ISEA and CSG commented on the orientation of SRL with regard to
lanyard and lifeline strength requirements. ISEA said:

[T]he horizontal or vertical orientation of a [self-retracting
lanyard] is important because SRL used in a generally horizontal
orientation rather than overhead may be subject to higher loadings
and greater exposure to sharp or abrasive surfaces. Because the
devices are typically anchored at waist height or below, free fall
potential is greater (Ex. 185).

CSG agreed, adding that the higher loading of SRL used in horizontal
positions reinforced the need for additional training considerations
for horizontally oriented SRL (Ex. 198). Both CSG and ISEA added that
manufacturers generally include extra provisions for absorbing energy
and protecting the lifeline from damage from building edges if the SRL
will be used in a horizontal position. OSHA agrees that employers and
competent persons should consider the horizontal or vertical
orientation of a SRL in selecting and inspecting personal fall
protection systems and training workers (Sec.  1910.30). OSHA notes
that appendix C to Sec.  1910.140 addresses the commenters' points so
employers will be aware of the issue. OSHA also notes that paragraph
(c)(11) of the final rule sets specific requirements when using
horizontal lifelines. Neither commenter suggested that OSHA change the
language of paragraph (c)(4) or (5). Accordingly, OSHA believes it is
not necessary to revise either paragraph in the final rule.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(6) also included a provision to establish
strength requirements for SRL that do not limit free fall distance to
not more than 2 feet, as well as for ripstitch, tearing, and deforming
lanyards. OSHA proposed to require those types of lanyards and
lifelines also be capable of sustaining minimum tensile loads of 5,000
pounds applied to the device when the lifeline or lanyard is in a fully
extended position. The proposed provision was identical to requirements
in OSHA's Powered Platforms (Sec.  1910.66, appendix C, Section I,
paragraph (c)(5)), shipyard employment (Sec.  1915.159(b)(4)), and
construction (Sec.  1926.502(d)(13)) fall protection standards.
However, Z359.1-2007 and A10.32-2012 do not have a separate provision
addressing self-retracting lifelines/lanyards that do not limit free
fall distances.
    OSHA requested comment on whether proposed paragraph (c)(6) was
necessary, or whether paragraph (c)(4) of the final rule adequately
addressed the issue (75 FR 28907). The Society of Professional Rope
Access Technicians (SPRAT) said it would be acceptable to adopt either
proposed provisions (c)(4) through (6) or the requirements in Z359.1
(Ex. 205). However, ISEA and CSG said proposed paragraph (c)(6) was not
necessary, and, if OSHA retained the provision in the final rule, the
Agency should remove SRL from it (Exs. 185; 198). OSHA believes that
paragraph (c)(4) adequately addresses the issue of SRL that do not
limit the free fall to a maximum of 2 feet plus ripstitch, tearing, and
deforming lanyards; therefore, proposed paragraph (c)(6) is not
necessary. Accordingly, OSHA

deleted proposed paragraph (c)(6) from the final rule.
    In final paragraph (c)(6), OSHA replaces proposed paragraph (c)(6)
with the requirement that a competent or qualified person must inspect
each knot in lanyards and vertical lifelines, before a worker uses the
lanyard or lifeline, to ensure that they still meet the minimum
strength requirements in paragraphs (c)(4) and (5). This new
requirement is based on the note OSHA included in proposed paragraph
(c)(4) warning employers that the use of knots ``may significantly
reduce the breaking strength'' of lanyards and vertical lifelines. The
debate about whether knots should be permitted in lanyards and
lifelines has been ongoing for at least 20 years. Although the proposal
did not ban the use of knots, the Agency considered it, noting that
Z359.1-2007 prohibits them: ``No knots shall be tied in lanyards,
lifelines, or anchorage connectors. Sliding-hitch knots shall not be
used in lieu of fall arresters'' (Section 7.2.1). The A10.32-2012
standard also prohibits the use of knots in lifelines, lanyards or
other direct-impact components and also prohibits knots used for load-
bearing end terminations (Sections 4.5.4 and <IP_ADDRESS>).
    As far back as the 1990 proposal, OSHA received comments supporting
and opposing the use of knots. In the preamble to that proposed rule,
OSHA said available information indicated that knots could be used
safely in some circumstances, and that employers should be allowed the
flexibility to use them as long as they verify that the strength
requirements of the rule continue to be met. OSHA also noted that
strength reduction can be a concern because the use of knots in
lanyards and vertical lifelines can reduce breaking strength (75 FR
28907).
    In this proposed rule, OSHA invited comment on whether the Agency
should allow or prohibit the use of knots, or require a competent
person to inspect all knots (75 FR 28907). Several commenters said OSHA
should prohibit knots in personal fall arrest systems, noting they
generally are no longer used in modern fall arrest applications (Exs.
185; 198; 251). Other commenters, including Martin's Window Cleaning
Corp. (Martin's) (Ex. 222) and SPRAT (Ex. 205), opposed a prohibition
on the use of knots. Martin's said, ``A properly tied knot is much
stronger than a swedge or splice,'' which the proposed rule did not
prohibit (Ex. 222). SPRAT said appropriately tied knots were useful at
the end and throughout rope spans, and cited Cordage Institute data
indicating knots commonly used in life-safety systems had an efficiency
range of 75-90 percent (Ex. 205). SPRAT also said their employers
require that competent persons inspect all knots tied in industrial
rope access systems. They added that the rule must require that workers
be trained in uses, limitations, and proper inspection techniques of
knots and hitches.
    At the hearing on the proposed rule, the American Wind Energy
Association (AWEA) also opposed banning the use of knots. Grayling
Vander Velde, an AWEA member, said, ``Knots are widely used in
industrial rope access for competent persons trained and certified in
their proper use and limitations,'' and ``line failure due to
installation of knots has not shown to be the cause of mainline or
backup line failures'' (Ex. 329 (1/21/2011, pgs. 19-20)). He stated
that ropes used for fall arrest must meet the 5,000-pound minimum
strength requirement in the final rule. Also, he noted that SPRAT's
training covers the issue of possible strength reduction in knotted
lanyards.
    After considering the record as a whole, OSHA continues to believe
that knots can be used safely in certain situations, and that the
worker making the knot must be adequately trained to know the strength
of the rope being used and take into consideration any strength
reduction that may occur if a knot is used. As the commenters pointed
out, any rope that has a knot must still meet the strength requirements
in final paragraphs (c)(4) and (5) to ensure that workers have an
appropriate level of safety (Ex. 205). To ensure that lanyards and
vertical lifelines that have knots are safe, OSHA added a new
requirement in paragraph (c)(6) of the final rule specifying that a
competent or a qualified person must inspect each knot to ensure that
it meets the minimum strength requirements before any worker uses the
lanyard or lifeline. OSHA believes the additional requirement will
preserve employer flexibility while providing an adequate level of
safety.
    Paragraphs (c)(7) through (10) of the final rule establish criteria
for D-rings, snaphooks, and carabiners, which are devices used to
connect or couple together components of personal fall protection
systems. OSHA added ``carabiners'' to these final paragraphs because
they are a type of connector commonly used in currently-manufactured
personal fall protection systems. Paragraph (c)(7) of the final rule
requires that D-rings, snaphooks, and carabiners be capable of
sustaining a minimum tensile load of 5,000 pounds. OSHA believes these
devices, like lanyards and vertical lifelines, must be able to sustain
5,000-pound loads to ensure worker safety. If the connectors cannot
sustain the minimum tensile load, it makes no difference what strength
requirements the other components of the system can meet because the
system may still fail.
    Final paragraph (c)(7) is the same as the strength requirements in
OSHA's other fall protection standards (Sec. Sec.  1910.66, appendix C,
Section I, paragraph (d)(6); 1915.159(a)(3); 1926.502(d)(3)). OSHA did
not receive any comments on the proposed provision and is adopting it
as discussed.
    Paragraph (c)(8) of the final rule requires that D-rings,
snaphooks, and carabiners be proof tested to a minimum tensile load of
3,600 pounds without cracking, breaking, or incurring permanent
deformation. OSHA also added a new requirement to final paragraph
(c)(8) specifying that the gate strength of snaphooks and carabiners
also must be proof tested to 3,600 pounds in all directions. Since
proof testing has been the industry standard since 2007 (Z359.1-2007,
Section <IP_ADDRESS>), OSHA believes that connectors of this type already in
use meet the requirements of paragraph (c)(8) and no grandfathering is
necessary.
    The 3,600-pound strength requirement ensures that D-rings,
snaphooks, and carabiners meet a safety factor of at least two when
used with body harnesses. This strength requirement will, in turn,
limit maximum fall arrest forces to 1,800 pounds. Final paragraph
(c)(8) is similar to requirements in OSHA's Powered Platform,
construction, and shipyard employment fall protection standards
(Sec. Sec.  1910.66, appendix C, Section 1, paragraph (c)(7);
1915.159(a)(4); 1926.502(d)(4)), but those standards do not require
proof testing gate strength. The Z359.12-2009 standard is the same as
proposed paragraph (c)(8).
    A number of commenters supported the proposed requirement (Exs.
155; 185; 198). Several commenters also recommended that OSHA include
two additions to the proposed requirement: (1) Proof testing the gate
strength of carabiners and snaphooks; and (2) proof testing the gate
strength in all directions (Exs. 155; 185; 198). ISEA and CSG said that
past interpretations of snaphook strength requirements led to
confusion, and that including a gate strength requirement would help to
clarify this issue (Exs. 185; 198).
    Ellis said adding a requirement that the gate strength of snaphooks
and carabiners also be proof tested to 3,600 pounds would make
paragraph (c)(8) consistent with the Z359.12-2009 standard, and be more
protective than

the A10.32-2004 standard, which prescribes a lower gate strength (Ex.
155). Ellis noted that including the recommended additions also would
help employers ``avoid incidents from bent hook gates to loose gate
fly-by to jamming open scenarios that have plagued the industry for
decades when the strength is 220 lbs/350 lbs as in the A10.32-2004''
(Ex. 155). OSHA agrees that the addition will provide greater
protection for workers.
    Ellis also recommended that OSHA require proof testing snaphook and
carabiner gate strength ``in all directions'' (Ex. 155). The purpose of
proof testing gate strength in all directions is to ensure that no
matter in which direction the pressure is applied, the connector gate
will not fail. Such proof testing will provide greater protection for
workers, therefore, OSHA added the requirement to proof test the gate
strength of snaphooks and carabiners in all directions. Since this
testing has been industry practice for several years (see Z359.1-2007,
Section <IP_ADDRESS>), OSHA does not believe that employers will have
difficulty complying with the new requirement in paragraph (c)(8).
    Paragraph (c)(9) of the final rule requires employers to use
automatic locking snaphooks and carabiners in personal fall protection
systems. Automatic locking snaphooks and carabiners require at least
two separate, consecutive actions to open, which reduce the danger of
``rollout'' (i.e., inadvertent opening and disconnecting of
components). Non-locking snaphooks are prohibited in a personal fall
protection system.
    Final paragraph (c)(9) is consistent with OSHA's shipyard
employment and construction fall protection standards (Sec. Sec.
1915.159(a)(5); 1926.502(d)(5)). In addition, Z359.12-2009 (Section
<IP_ADDRESS>) and A10.32-2012 (Sections 2.12 and 2.50.1) both require the
use of locking snaphooks and carabiners for personal fall protection
systems.
    In the proposed rule, OSHA explained that as far back as the 1990
proposed rule, commenters expressed widespread support for prohibiting
non-locking snaphooks (75 FR 28908). In OSHA's rulemaking on fall
protection in the construction industry, several commenters said the
rule should mandate the use of locking snaphooks, citing the rollout
problems experienced with non-locking (single-action) snaphooks (59 FR
40672, 40705 (8/9/1994)). Those commenters also provided information
indicating that locking snaphooks are superior to non-locking snaphooks
in minimizing rollout. Based on that and other information in that
rulemaking record, OSHA determined that it was necessary to require the
use of locking snaphooks in personal fall protection systems used in
the construction industry, finding that ``in general, locking snaphooks
provide a higher level of protection to workers than the single-action
(non-locking) type of snaphooks'' (59 FR 40705).
    Likewise, OSHA has determined that locking snaphooks and carabiners
are necessary to protect employees in general industry. In the proposed
rule, OSHA asked for comment on whether the requirement should be
phased in, but received no comment on the issue. OSHA does not believe
it is necessary to provide a phase-in period, because the construction
rule has been in place since 1998. Accordingly, OSHA believes that
manufacturers currently are making personal fall protection systems
available with automatic locking snaphooks and carabiners, and most
employers already are using snaphooks and carabiners that comply with
the final rule.
    Paragraph (c)(10) of the final rule prohibits employers from using
snaphooks or carabiners for certain connections unless they are
designed for that connection. Accordingly, the final rule specifies
that employers may connect snaphooks or carabiners to the following
objects only if the snaphooks and carabiners are designed to be
connected:
     Directly to webbing, rope, or wire rope;
     To each other;
     To a D-ring to which another snaphook, carabiner, or
connector is attached;
     To a horizontal lifeline; or
     To any object that is incompatibly shaped or dimensioned
in relation to the snaphook or carabiner such that unintentional
disengagement could occur when the connected object depresses the
snaphook or carabiner gate and allows the components to separate.
    Final paragraph (c)(10) is the same as OSHA's construction and
shipyard employment fall protection standards (Sec. Sec.  1915.159
(a)(6); 1926.502(d)(6)). The Powered Platforms standard addresses the
connection compatibility issue a little differently than this final
rule, requiring that snaphooks ``be sized to be compatible with the
member to which they are connected so as to prevent unintentional
disengagement'' of the snaphook (Sec.  1910.66, appendix C, Section I,
paragraph (d)(8)). Similarly, the Z359.1-2007 standard requires:
``Snaphooks and carabiners shall be compatibly matched to their
associated connectors to reduce the possibility of rollout . . .
Snaphooks and carabiners shall not be connected to each other''
(Section 7.2.2.). Explanatory notes accompanying this provision state
that multiple connections (e.g., two snaphooks, snaphook and webbing)
into a single ring are not recommended (Section E7.2.2).
    OSHA believes that the final rule will help to reduce the potential
of rollout. Certain connections, such as ones that are incompatibly
sized or dimensioned, increase the likelihood of rollout, and OSHA
believes the provision is needed to provide adequate assurance of
worker safety. Accordingly, OSHA adopts the proposed provision, with
the addition of ``carabiners,'' a commonly used connector.
    In paragraph (c)(11) of the final rule, like the proposal, OSHA
establishes two requirements for horizontal lifelines. The provision
specifies that employers must ensure horizontal lifelines are: (1)
Designed, installed, and used under the supervision of a qualified
person (paragraph (c)(11)(i)); and (2) are part of a complete personal
fall arrest system that maintains a safety factor of at least two
(paragraph (c)(11)(ii)).
    Paragraph (c)(11) is the same as OSHA's Powered Platforms (Sec.
1910.66, appendix C, Section I(c)(9)) and construction fall protection
standards (Sec.  1926.502(d)(8)). In addition, A10.32-2012 contains
similar requirements (Section 4.4). Although Z359.1-2007 does not
address horizontal lifelines specifically, it provides: ``A PFAS
[personal fall arrest system] which incorporates a horizontal lifeline
(outside the scope of this standard) shall be evaluated in accordance
with acceptable engineering practice to determine that such system will
perform as intended'' (Section 3.1.4).
    OSHA believes the requirements in paragraph (c)(11) are necessary
because horizontal lifelines present unique safety issues. For example,
horizontal lifelines may be subject to greater impact loads than the
loads imposed by other attached components. Horizontal lifelines also
result in potentially greater fall distances than some other fall
protection devices. Even a few additional feet of free fall can
increase fall arrest forces significantly, possibly to the point of
exceeding the strength of the system. In addition, forces applied in a
perpendicular direction to a horizontal lifeline create much larger
forces at the anchorages. The potential for increased fall arrest
forces and impact loads associated with horizontal lifelines explains
the need for employers to ensure that personal fall arrest systems used
with horizontal lifelines maintain a safety factor of at

least two. (See discussion of horizontal lifelines in appendix C to
Sec.  1910.140, section (j).)
    OSHA received one comment on the proposed provision. Ellis said
OSHA should require that horizontal lifelines be positioned overhead
when the personal fall arrest system is made ready for use because of
increased forces when the line is at waist level. He added, ``Due to
stretch the fall factor increases fall distance when the line is below
shoulder height'' (Ex. 155). OSHA recognizes that using horizontal
lifelines at waist level may be unavoidable in some circumstances.
Requiring that a qualified persons design, install, and supervise the
use of horizontal lifelines with personal fall arrest systems helps to
ensure that issues such as the positioning of horizontal lifelines will
be properly considered and resolved before the personal fall arrest
system is used.
    Paragraph (c)(12) of the final rule, like the proposed rule,
requires that employers ensure anchorages used to attach to personal
fall protection equipment are independent of any anchorage used to
suspend workers or work platforms. This requirement ensures that if the
anchorage holding other equipment (such as a powered platform or RDS)
fails, the worker will still be protected by the separate, independent
anchorage to which the personal fall protection system is secured. The
purpose of the requirement, which the shipyard employment and
construction fall protection standards also require (Sec. Sec.
1915.159(a)(8); 1926.502(d)(15)), is to ensure that anchorages used to
suspend workers or work platforms are not the anchorages that workers
use for their personal fall protection system.
    The Industrial Truck Association (ITA) said the provision was not a
workable requirement for mobile work platforms such as those on powered
industrial trucks:

    On powered industrial trucks that have elevating platforms, such
as high-lift order pickers, the anchorage for the lanyard that
comprises part of the personal fall protection equipment is
necessarily a part of the overhead guard or some other structural
member that elevates with the operator platform and through the same
mechanism (the lift chains) as the platform. This is inherent in
mobile equipment, which cannot depend on some separate fixed
anchorage point for the personal fall protection equipment. The
concern is that the anchorage used for attaching the personal
protective equipment, since it moves up and down with the operator
platform, could be considered not ``independent'' of the anchorage
being used to support the platform. Since OSHA obviously did not
intend by the proposed revision to eliminate the use of high-lift
order pickers or other powered industrial truck platforms, it
appears that 1910.140(c)(12) requires a clarification for mobile
equipment (Ex. 145).

    OSHA agrees with the issue the commenter raised and exempts mobile
work platforms on powered industrial trucks from the requirement in
final paragraph (c)(12) that anchorages be independent. Therefore, OSHA
has added language to the final rule to address anchorages used to
attach to personal fall protection equipment on mobile work platforms
on powered industrial trucks. The new language specifies that those
anchorages must be attached to an overhead member of the platform, at a
point located above and near the center of the platform. OSHA modeled
this language on the anchorage requirements in the national consensus
standard on powered industrial trucks (ANSI/ITSDF B56.1-2012, Safety
Standard For Low Lift and High Lift Trucks (Ex. 384; Section 7.37)).
    Paragraph (c)(13) of the final rule adopts strength requirements
for anchorages for personal fall protection systems, and includes a
performance-based alternative. The final provision, like the proposal,
requires that anchorages either (1) be capable of supporting at least
5,000 pounds for each worker attached, or (2) be designed, installed,
and used under the supervision of a qualified person as part of a
complete personal fall protection system that maintains a safety factor
of at least two. The anchorage strength requirement applies to personal
fall arrest, travel restraint, and positioning system anchorages, but
not to window cleaner's belt anchors, which are addressed separately in
paragraph (e).
    Paragraph (c)(13) is the same as the personal fall protection
system anchorage requirement in OSHA's Powered Platforms, shipyard
employment and construction fall protection standards (Sec. Sec.
1910.66, appendix C, Section (c)(10); 1915.159(a)(9); 1926.502(d)(15)).
The A10.32-2012 standard also contains similar requirements (Section
5.1.1). Although the anchorage requirements in Z359.1-2007 and I-14.1-
2001 are similar to the final rule, they differ to some extent. For
example, the Z359.1 standard requires:

    Anchorages selected for [personal fall arrest systems] shall
have a strength capable of sustaining static loads, applied in the
directions permitted by the PFAS, of at least: (a) Two times the
maximum arrest force permitted on the system, or (b) 5,000 pounds
(22.2kN) in the absence of certification. When more than one PFAS is
attached to an anchorage, the anchorage strengths set forth in (a)
and (b) above shall be multiplied by the number of personal fall
arrest systems attached to the anchorage (Section 7.2.3).

    The I-14.1 standard requires that all components of personal fall
arrest systems, including anchorages, comply with the Z359.1 standard,
with some exceptions, such as window cleaner's belts (Section
9.2.2(a)).
    OSHA did not receive any comments opposing proposed paragraph
(c)(13), and Ameren specifically supported the performance language
alternative: ``Ameren agrees with this language so as to allow use to
determine suitable anchorage points because of capacity and not be
restricted due to other designations of the equipment'' (Ex. 189).
    As discussed above, OSHA believes that all of the strength
requirements in the final rule are necessary to provide a reasonable
margin of safety for workers. At the same time, the final rule gives
employers flexibility in meeting the anchorage strength requirement in
specific circumstances. The final rule does not require a 5,000-pound
anchorage point in every situation. An employer may use an anchorage
that meets a different strength, provided that (1) the anchorage is
part of a complete fall protection system, (2) the personal fall
protection system maintains a safety factor of at least two, and (3)
the anchorage is designed, installed, and used under the supervision of
a qualified person.
    The Agency anticipates that even employers who cannot achieve
5,000-pound anchorage strength should have no difficulty meeting the
alternative 2:1 safety factor. For example, I-14.1-2001 requires that
anchorages for positioning systems be capable of supporting 3,000
pounds or at least twice the potential impact load of a worker's fall,
whichever is greater (Section 9.2.3(b)). The I-14.1 requirement has
been in place for more than 10 years, and employers are familiar with
the standard.
    Ellis recommended that OSHA require employers using the alternate
anchorage strength procedures in (c)(13) to document the anchorage
``with at least a sketch or engineering drawing'' because ``anchorages
are mostly guesswork'' (Ex. 155). OSHA believes that the requirement in
paragraph (c)(13), that qualified persons design, install, and
supervise the use and maintenance of anchorages, is sufficient, and
will be more effective in protecting workers than documentation by a
person who may not have the qualifications of a qualified person.
Qualified persons, as paragraph (b) specifies, must possess the type of

qualifications (i.e., recognized degree, certificate, or professional
standing or extensive knowledge, training, and experience) that makes
them capable of designing anchorages that successfully meet the
requirements of the final rule. Or, the qualified person must have
demonstrated ability to solve and resolve the issues relating to the
subject matter, work, or work project. Final paragraph (c)(13) requires
that the qualified person supervise the use of the anchorages, which
will ensure the qualified person oversees maintenance of the anchorages
so they remain in safe and useable condition. OSHA believes this
supervision will go further in providing worker protection than
anchorage sketches or drawings.
    OSHA notes that an employer may use more than one qualified person
to comply with the final rule. For example, some employers may choose
to have an outside qualified person design the anchorages to meet the
requirements of the final rule and an in-house, on-site qualified
person to supervise their installation and use.
    Paragraph (c)(14) of the final rule, like the proposed rule,
requires that restraint lines in travel restraint systems be capable of
sustaining a tensile load of at least 5,000 pounds. OSHA's existing
fall protection standards do not include any requirements that
specifically address travel restraint systems or lines. The requirement
is drawn from two national consensus standards: (1) The A10.32-2012
standard specifies that component parts of travel restraint systems be
designed and manufactured to meet the standard's requirements for
personal fall arrest systems (Section 4.6.1); and (2) the Z359.3-2007
standard requires that positioning and travel restraint lanyards be
capable of sustaining a minimum breaking strength of 5,000 pounds
(Section 3.4.8).
    OSHA believes the strength requirement for travel restraint lines
in final paragraph (c)(14) is necessary for several reasons. First, the
requirement ensures that the restraint line provides adequate
protection if a restraint line is ever used as a lifeline. For example,
if a travel restraint system is not rigged properly or is inadvertently
used with a personal fall arrest system, and the worker falls off the
walking-working surface, the restraint line essentially becomes a
lifeline. Because of this possibility, OSHA believes it is necessary
that travel restraint lines have the same 5,000-pound minimum breaking
strength required of personal fall protection system lifelines and
lanyards (see paragraph (c)(4)).
    Second, according to CSG (Ex. 329 (1/18/2011, p. 110)) and Mine
Safety Appliances (MSA) (Ex. 329 (1/18/2011, p. 199)) travel restraint
systems (including lines and lanyards) currently are designed and
manufactured to support a 5,000 pound load. Further, MSA said they were
not aware of any company that still manufacturers travel restraint
lines that support only 3,000 pounds.
    Finally, setting the strength requirement at 5,000 pounds for
travel restraint lines makes the provision consistent with other
strength requirements in Sec.  1910.140 for components of personal fall
protection systems (e.g., D-rings, snaphooks, carabiners, anchorages
(paragraphs (c)(7) and (13))). OSHA adopts the provision as discussed.
    Paragraph (c)(15) of the final rule requires that employers ensure
lifelines are not made of natural fiber rope. Natural fiber rope of the
same size is weaker than its synthetic counterpart and may burn under
friction. When the employer uses polypropylene rope, the final rule
requires that it must contain an ultraviolet (UV) light inhibitor.
Final paragraph (c)(15) is consistent with OSHA's Powered Platforms,
shipyard employment, and construction fall protection standards
(Sec. Sec.  1910.66, appendix C, Section (c)(11); 1915.159(c)(2);
1926.502(d)(14)). Those standards specify that ropes and straps
(webbing) used in lanyards, lifelines, and strength components of body
belts and body harnesses be made from synthetic fibers or, with the
exception of the construction standard, wire rope; however, those
standards do not require that lifelines made of polypropylene rope
contain a UV light inhibitor.
    The final rule provision also is consistent with Z359.1-2007 and
with A10.32-2012, which provide useful guidance to help employers meet
the requirement in final paragraph (c)(15). For example, the Z359.1
standard provides: ``Rope and webbing used in the construction of
lanyards shall be made from synthetic materials of continuous filament
yarns made from light and heat resistant fibers having strength, aging,
and abrasion resistant characteristics equivalent or superior to
polyamides'' (Section <IP_ADDRESS>). The A10.32 standard specifies,
``Harnesses, lanyards, lifelines and other load-bearing devices shall
not be made of natural fibers (including, but not limited to, cotton,
manila and leather)'' (Section 4.5.5). The I-14.1-2001 standard
requires that all personal fall arrest systems used in window cleaning
operations comply with Z359.1, and prohibits ropes made entirely of
polypropylene (Sections 6.8, 9.2.2(a)). In addition, the standard
requires that all rope and webbing used in suspending RDS seat boards
be made of synthetic fiber, preferably nylon or polyester (Section
14.3(d)).
    Like the Z359.1 standard, OSHA recognizes that degradation due to
exposure to ultraviolet light can be a serious problem, especially for
polypropylene rope. However, OSHA believes that polypropylene rope has
certain advantages compared to other synthetic materials. Polypropylene
rope is strong and flexible, and may be less costly than rope made of
other materials. Moreover, many newer polypropylene ropes are made with
UV light inhibitors, so employers can use polypropylene rope without
the risk of degradation from UV light. The Agency believes the final
rule provides adequate protection for workers while embracing
technological advances that give employers greater flexibility in
complying with paragraph (c)(15). Additionally, OSHA removed
``carriers'' from the final provision. Carriers are used exclusively in
ladder safety systems, which are covered in Sec.  1910.23, and not in
personal fall protection systems. OSHA did not receive any comments on
the proposed provision, and adopts it as discussed.
    Paragraph (c)(16) of the final rule, like the proposed rule,
requires that all personal fall protection systems and components be
used only for worker fall protection. Paragraph (c)(16) also prohibits
personal fall protection systems from being used for any other purpose,
such as hoisting materials or equipment. The final rule applies to all
personal fall protection systems, including personal fall arrest
systems, positioning devices and travel restraint systems and
components such as anchorages, harnesses, connectors, and lifelines.
    The final rule is similar to OSHA's Powered Platforms, shipyard
employment and, construction fall protection standards (Sec. Sec.
1910.66, appendix C, Section I, paragraph (c)(6); 1915.159(c)(9);
1926.502(d)(18)).
    OSHA received one comment on the proposed requirement. Although
Verallia ``agree[d] with OSHA's goal of using . . . personal fall
protection equipment only for its intended purpose,'' they said:

    [A]nchorage points--while clearly performing a function related
to the use of personal fall protection--fall outside the intended
goal of preserving intact the equipment itself. In other words,
anchorage points are designed for and have many uses outside of fall
protection in industrial settings. Their occasional use for tasks
other than personal fall protection is consistent with their design
(Ex. 171).

    OSHA agrees anchorages have uses other than for personal fall
protection. Anchors are used for suspended work platforms, rope descent
systems, and other equipment. For example, using a structural beam as
an anchorage does not mean the structural beam can never be used as a
structural member. OSHA intends this provision to apply to those
components that would typically be found in a personal fall protection
kit, i.e., a body harness, lanyards, and connectors. Structural members
used as anchorage points will obviously continue to be structural
members and do not fall under this provision. However, for example, if
a worker is using appropriate webbing tied around a structural member
as an anchor point for personal fall protection, that webbing must be
used only for personal fall protection, both at that time, and in the
future. The webbing (and harness, lanyard, and connectors) must not be
used for any other purpose at any other time, such as hoisting
materials and equipment.
    Paragraph (c)(17) of the final rule, like the proposed rule,
requires that any personal fall protection system or its component
subjected to impact loading must be removed from service immediately.
This requirement applies to impact loading due to a free fall, but not
to impact loading during static load testing. The final rule also
specifies that the employer must not use the system or component again
until a competent person inspects the system or component and
determines that it is not damaged and is safe to use for worker
personal fall protection.
    The final rule is the same as the Powered Platforms, shipyard
employment and construction fall protection standards (Sec. Sec.
1910.66, appendix C, Section I, paragraph (e)(7); 1915.159(c)(6);
1926.502(d)(19)). The Z359.1-2007 (Section 5.3.4) and A10.32-2012
(Section 3.4) standards also require that impact loaded systems and
components be removed from service; however, neither standard specifies
requirements that allow or prohibit reuse of such equipment.
    OSHA believes that paragraph (c)(17) will ensure that employers
implement procedures for inspection and evaluation of impact-loaded
personal fall protection systems and components to prevent reuse of
damaged equipment. OSHA believes that the requirements in paragraph
(c)(17), as well as the other requirements in the final rule, provide
sufficient safeguards to allow the reuse of impact-loaded personal fall
protection systems after the competent person inspects and repairs or
replaces the damaged components.
    The final rule provides the following safeguards to ensure the
dangers of impact-loaded personal fall protection systems are addressed
properly before reuse:
     Paragraph (c)(18) of the final rule, discussed below,
requires that employers ensure personal fall protection systems are
inspected for damage before each use, and remove defective components
from service;
     Section 1910.30 of the final rule requires that each
worker be trained in the proper inspection of fall protection
equipment; and
     Appendix C to Sec.  1910.140 provides useful information
on inspecting fall protection equipment and components.
    OSHA requested comment on whether the proposed approach provides
adequate protection. In particular, OSHA asked for comment on whether
the final standard should require destruction of ropes, lanyards,
belts, and harnesses subjected to impact loading (75 FR 28909). Impact
loading can cause damage to fibers that cannot be discovered easily.
OSHA notes these components are relatively inexpensive to replace.
    OSHA received comments supporting the proposed requirement (Exs.
185; 198; 251). ISEA (Ex. 185) and CSG (Ex. 198) both said that
manufacturers commonly indicate in user instructions and product labels
how to handle personal fall protection equipment after an impact, and
recommended that: ``OSHA should err on the side of worker protection
and recommend that when components of personal fall arrest systems such
as ropes, lanyards, or harnesses are impact loaded, they should be
permanently taken out of service and disposed of'' (Ex. 185). ISEA and
CSG pointed out that some fall protection components have an impact
load indicator that alerts users when a product must be taken out of
service (Exs. 185; 198). This device makes it easy for employers to
know when they need to remove personal fall protection systems and
components from service and replace them. One commenter on the 1990
proposed rule said that only manufacturers should inspect systems to
determine if they are suitable for reuse (Ex. OSHA-S057-2006-0680-
0048).
    By contrast, Edison Electric Institute (EEI) opposed requiring
removal of equipment subjected to impact loading. EEI said,
``Inspection by a competent person is adequate to determine whether the
component is still functional'' (Ex. 207). Similarly, SPRAT opposed the
destruction of equipment that is ``retired'' (Ex. 205).
    OSHA believes that impact loading may adversely affect the
integrity of personal fall protection systems, but also recognizes that
many other factors can affect a system's potential capability for reuse
after impact loading. These factors include the type of deceleration
device used, and the length of the fall. For example, a short fall of
one foot may not damage the harness, but a long fall, such as six feet
or more, may damage or even destroy the harness. OSHA believes that if
an impact-loaded system or component is damaged or fails the employer
must remove it from service immediately so a competent person can
inspect the system or component and determine whether it can be reused
for worker fall protection. However, when a competent person's careful
inspection of the entire system and evaluation of the factors involved
in the fall indicates no damage has occurred, and the personal fall
protection system or component continues to meet the strength
requirement and other criteria necessary for continued use, OSHA does
not believe it is necessary that employers permanently remove the
system or component from use. OSHA notes that the employer should be
allowed to reuse such system and components. In addition, OSHA believes
that a competent person, as defined in paragraph (b) of the final rule,
has the ability to carefully inspect the personal fall protection
system and its components, evaluate the various factors involved in the
fall, and make a determination about whether the equipment is safe for
reuse. Moreover, the competent person has the authority to take prompt
corrective action, including prohibiting the reuse of the equipment or
any component that may have been damaged.
    Paragraph (c)(18) of the final rule, like the proposal, requires
that before initial use during each workshift, personal fall protection
systems must be inspected for mildew, wear, damage, and other
deterioration. The provision also requires that employers remove from
service any defective component.
    Final paragraph (c)(18) clarifies two key terms: ``before each
use'' and ``defective component.'' Proposed paragraph (c)(18) specified
that workers must inspect personal fall protection systems ``before
each use.'' The final rule expressly clarifies that OSHA's intention in
the proposed rule was that workers inspect their personal fall
protection systems before initial use during each workshift. Thus, if
the personal fall protection system is used in more than one workshift
during a day, the system must be reinspected at the start of each of
those workshifts.

OSHA also clarifies that the term ``defective component,'' which
appendix C to Sec.  1910.140 refers to as a ``significant defect,''
means damage or deterioration that affects the function or strength of
the system or component.
    The final rule is generally consistent with OSHA's Powered
Platforms, construction, and shipyard employment standards (Sec. Sec.
1910.66, appendix C, Section I(f); 1915.159(c)(5); 1926.502(d)(21)), as
well as with Z359.1-2007 (Section 6.1) and A10.32-2012 (Section 4.1).
    OSHA believes that paragraph (c)(18), like paragraph (c)(17), will
ensure that employers have a procedure in place for inspecting personal
fall protection systems and components and removing defective, damaged,
or weakened components from service. Appendix C to Sec.  1910.140
provides useful information to help employers with the inspection
requirement in the final rule, including a list of the types of defects
that can require removal. (See appendix C to Sec.  1910.140, Section
(g)).
    OSHA received only one comment on inspection of personal fall
protection systems. Verallia recommended that OSHA require ``prior to
use, each employee must visually inspect the anchorage points for wear
and obvious deformities'' (Ex. 171). OSHA does not believe it is
necessary to add the language in Verallia's recommendation because
paragraph (c)(18) already requires that employers inspect anchorage
points. Paragraph (c)(18) requires that employers inspect personal fall
protection systems. The definition of personal fall protection system
in the final rule identifies personal fall arrest systems, positioning
systems, and travel restraint systems as examples of personal fall
protection systems. The definitions of each of those systems explain
that they consist of various components (``a system of equipment''),
including anchorages. Therefore, employers must ensure that the
inspection covers every component of the personal fall protection
system, including anchorages, so the entire system is safe to use.
    Paragraph (c)(19) of the final rule requires employers to ensure
that ropes, lanyards, harnesses, and belts used for personal fall
protection are compatible with the connectors being used. Although the
final rule does not define ``compatible,'' Z359.0-2012 defines
compatible as follows:

    Capable of orderly, efficient integration and operation with
other elements or components in a system, without the need of
special modification or conversion, such that the connection will
not fail when used in the manner intended (Section 2.29).

    OSHA believes compatibility between personal fall protection
components and connectors is essential to prevent hazards such as
rollout, exceeding system strength, and long free fall distances that
can increase fall arrest forces significantly. For example, a lifeline
or harness can disengage from a connector if its size or dimension is
incompatibly sized or configured for use with the connector.
    In addition, the Agency has found that it is common practice for
employers to interchange or replace components of personal fall
protection systems (e.g., lanyards, connectors, lifelines, deceleration
devices, body harnesses, body belts) with components produced by other
manufacturers. Final paragraph (c)(19) gives employers flexibility to
continue this practice when they need to replace personal fall
protection components. At the same time, the final rule ensures that
workers are protected from rollout and other fall hazards regardless of
whether the employers uses replacement components from the same or a
different manufacturer.
    Appendix C to final Sec.  1910.140 provides important information
to help employers ensure they maintain compatibility when replacing
personal fall protection components. For example, the appendix
cautions: ``Any substitution or change to a personal fall protection
system should be fully evaluated or tested by a competent person to
determine that it meets applicable OSHA standards before the modified
system is put to use'' (Sec.  1910.140, appendix C, Section (d)). OSHA
notes that final paragraph (c)(19) and appendix C are consistent with
Z359.1-2007 (Section 7.1.7), which requires that connectors, regardless
of whether they are integral elements of the personal fall protection
system, individual components, or replacements produced by the same or
different manufacturers, must be suitably configured to interface
compatibly with associated connectors which will be attached to them.
    Final appendix C to Sec.  1910.140 states the ideal way for
employers to ensure the compatibility of components of personal fall
protection systems is to supply workers with complete systems (appendix
C to Sec.  1910.140, Section (d)).
    The final rule is similar to the shipyard employment fall
protection standard, which requires that system components be
compatible with ``their hardware'' (Sec.  1915.159(c)(3)). Both Z359.1-
2007 and A10.32-2012 include similar compatibility requirements. For
example, A10.32 specifies: ``All equipment used in a fall protection
system shall be compatible to limit force levels, maintain system
strength, and prevent accidental disengagement'' (Section 1.4.3; see
also Z359.1-2007 (Section 7.1.1)). These national consensus standards
also require that competent persons ensure personal fall protection
systems comprised of components and subsystems produced by different
manufacturers are compatible (Z359.1-2007 (Section 7.1.10); A10.32-2012
(Section 7.4)).
    Commenters raised two concerns about proposed paragraph (c)(19).
First, ISEA and CSG seem to imply that the compatibility requirement in
final paragraph (c)(19) is not necessary (Exs. 185; 198). For support,
they point out that Z359.12 (Section 7.1) requires that snaphooks and
carabiners be designed to prevent ``forced rollout,'' which ISEA and
CSG appear to believe is an adequate solution without requiring that
employers also comply with paragraph (c)(19). In addition, ISEA and CSG
pointed out that manufacturers currently are designing connectors to
prevent forced rollout. However, the explanatory note in Z359.12
states:

    While connectors which are compliant with ANSI/ASSE Z359.12
reduce the possibility or risk of failure as a result of
incompatible connections, they do not eliminate it (Z359.12-2009
(Section E7.1)).

    Moreover, OSHA notes that rollout is not the only hazard that
component incompatibility can cause. The A10.32-2012 standard specifies
that components of personal fall protection systems must be compatible
in order ``to limit force levels, maintain system strength, and prevent
accidental disengagement'' (Section 1.4.3). Accordingly, OSHA believes
the component compatibility requirement in final paragraph (c)(19) is
necessary because it will protect workers from all of those hazards.
    Second, ASSE argues that it is not feasible to eliminate
incompatible connections:

    The reality is that there are too many non-certified anchorages
and structural variations where gate loading or pressure on the
connector will occur.
    It is not enough just to require a locking type snap hook.
Connectors that have significantly stronger gates are readily
available and have been for many years to the point where ANSI has
made it a requirement for construction and design of connectors.
Connectors tested and approved to the ANSI Z359.12 standard provide
workers with an additional level of security that would help prevent
fatalities (Ex. 127).

    OSHA does not agree with, and national consensus standards do not
support, ASSE's argument. The Z359.12-2012 and A10.32-2012 standards
include component

compatibility requirements. In addition, the final rule addresses the
conditions that ASSE identifies as making the elimination of
incompatible connections infeasible. For example, like the ANSI/ASSE
standards, the final rule requires that anchorages, connectors, and
other components be capable of supporting 5,000 pounds (Sec.
1910.140(c)(4), (c)(7), and (c)(13)(i)). In addition, final Sec.
1910.27(b)(1) requires that anchorages be certified as meeting the
5,000-pound requirement. The final rule also incorporates a number of
other provisions in Z359.12-2012 to ensure workers have ``an additional
level of security that would help prevent fatalities.''
    ASSE also maintains that the requirement in proposed (c)(19) is not
feasible because ``we continue to see fatalities related to
incompatible connections and gate failure'' after OSHA included a
connector compatibility requirement in Sec.  1910.66, appendix C, and
the construction fall protection standard (29 CFR part 1926, subpart M)
(Ex. 127). OSHA does not agree with ASSE's conclusion. The fact that
accidents, fatalities, injuries, or illnesses may occur after OSHA
implements a standard does not mean that the controls the standard
requires are not feasible. Rather, it is more likely that those
incidents are the result of noncompliance with the connector
compatibility requirements in Sec.  1910.66 and the construction fall
protection. Accordingly, the final rule adopts the proposed requirement
that employers must ensure ropes, belts, lanyards, and harnesses used
for personal fall protection are compatible with all connectors used,
regardless of whether the components are integral elements of the
personal fall protection system, individual components, or replacements
produced by the same or different manufacturers.
    Paragraph (c)(20) of the final rule, like the proposal, requires
that employers ensure all ropes, lanyards, lifelines, harnesses, and
belts used for personal fall protection systems are protected from
being cut, abraded, melted, or otherwise damaged. OSHA believes that
these components of personal fall protection systems need to be
protected from the specified hazards, which could cause damage and
deterioration that results in components losing strength and failing.
    Final paragraph (c)(20) is broader than the requirements in OSHA's
shipyard employment and construction fall protection standards
(Sec. Sec.  1915.159(c)(4), 1926.502(d)(11)), which only address
protecting lanyards and lifelines from damage. By contrast, Appendix C
of the Powered Platforms standard specifies that any component of a
personal fall arrest system with any significant defect which might
affect its efficiency must be withdrawn from service immediately, or
destroyed (Sec.  1910.66, appendix C, Section III(f)). The Z359.1-2007
and A10.32-2012 standards contain several provisions requiring
lifelines, lanyards, ropes, webbing, and other fall protection system
components to be protected from the types of damage the final rule
specifies.
    In addition to protecting fall protection equipment components from
cuts, abrasions, and melting, the final rule requires that employers
protect fall protection equipment from other damage (i.e., ``otherwise
damaged''). Although the final rule does not define ``otherwise
damaged,'' OSHA's other fall protection standards and the national
consensus standards provide useful guidance about the types of damage
that employers need to consider. For example, the shipyard employment
standard requires equipment be protected from ``cuts, abrasions, burns
from hot work operations and deterioration from acids, solvents, and
other chemicals'' (Sec.  1915.159(c)(4)). Appendix C to the Powered
Platforms standard lists a number of hazards: ``Any components with any
significant defect, such as cuts, tears, abrasions, mold, or undue
stretching; . . . damage due to deterioration; contact with fire,
acids, or other corrosives; . . . wearing or internal deterioration of
ropes alterations'' (Sec.  1910.66, appendix C, Section III(f)).
    The A10.32-2012 standard requires that employers protect fall
protection equipment from abrasion, cutting, welding, electrical, and
chemical hazards (Section 7.5). Similarly, Z359.1 requires that fall
protection equipment be made of ``abrasive and heat resistant
materials'' (Sections 3 and 5). OSHA did not receive any comments on
the proposed provision, and adopts paragraph (c)(20) with the minor
revisions mentioned above. In addition, appendix C to Sec.  1910.140
includes many hazards employers should consider when inspecting
personal fall protection systems (appendix C to Sec.  1910.140, Section
(g)).
    Paragraph (c)(21) of the final rule, like the proposed rule,
requires that employers provide for the prompt rescue of workers in the
event of a fall. This requirement is necessary because workers
suspended after a fall are in danger of serious injury due primarily to
suspension trauma.
    The final rule is consistent with the rescue requirements in OSHA's
Powered Platforms, shipyard employment, and construction fall
protection standards (Sec. Sec.  1910.66, appendix C, Section I(e)(8);
1915.159(c)(7); 1926.503(d)(20)). Those standards require that
employers ``provide for prompt rescue of employees in the event of a
fall or shall assure the self-rescue capability of employees'' (Powered
Platforms (Sec.  1910.66, appendix C, Section I(e)(8)).