[Federal Register: May 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 99)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 28861-29153]
[DOCID:fr24my10-15]

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

Part II

Department of Labor

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

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

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

29 CFR Part 1910

Walking-Working Surfaces and Personal Protective Equipment (Fall
Protection Systems); Proposed Rule

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1910

[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0072]
RIN 1218-AB80

Walking-Working Surfaces and Personal Protective Equipment (Fall
Protection Systems)

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
Department of Labor.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA proposes to revise the walking-working surfaces standards
and the personal protective equipment standards in our regulations. The
proposal is estimated to reduce the number of fall-related employee
deaths and injuries by updating the rule to include new technology
(including personal fall protection systems) and industry methods. OSHA
believes that the proper use of personal fall protection systems can
protect employees from injury and death due to falls to different
elevations. The proposal reorganizes the rule in a clearer, more
logical manner and provides greater compliance flexibility. The
proposed rule is written in plain-language to make it easier to
understand, thereby facilitating compliance. Additionally, the proposal
increases consistency between construction, maritime, and general
industry standards, and eliminates duplication.

DATES: Submit comments (including comments on the information-
collection (paperwork) determination described under the section titled
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of this document), hearing requests, and
other information by August 23, 2010. All submissions must bear a
postmark or provide other evidence of the submission date. (See the
following section titled ADDRESSES for methods you can use in making
submissions.)

ADDRESSES: Comments and hearing requests may be submitted as follows:
    Electronic: Comments may be submitted electronically to http://
www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow
the instructions online for submitting comments.
    Facsimile: OSHA allows facsimile transmission of comments and
hearing requests that are 10 pages or fewer in length (including
attachments). Send these documents to the OSHA Docket Office at (202)
693-1648; hard copies of these documents are not required. Instead of
transmitting facsimile copies of attachments that supplement these
documents (e.g., studies, journal articles), commenters may submit
these attachments, in triplicate hard copy, to the OSHA Docket Office,
Technical Data Center, Room N-2625, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20210. These attachments must
clearly identify the sender's name, date, subject, and Docket ID (i.e.,
OSHA-2007-0072) so that the Agency can attach them to the appropriate
document.
    Regular mail, express delivery, hand (courier) delivery, and
messenger service: Submit three copies of comments and any additional
material (e.g., studies, journal articles) to the OSHA Docket Office,
Docket ID OSHA-2007-0072 or RIN No. 1218-AB80, Technical Data Center,
Room N-2625, OSHA, Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. (OSHA's TTY number is
(877) 889-5627.) Please contact the OSHA Docket Office for information
about security procedures concerning delivery of materials by express
delivery, hand delivery, and messenger service. The hours of operation
for the OSHA Docket Office are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions. All submissions must include the Agency name and the
OSHA Docket ID (i.e., OSHA-2007-0072). Comments and other material,
including any personal information, are placed in the public docket
without revision, and will be available online at http://
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, the Agency cautions commenters about
submitting statements they do not want made available to the public, or
submitting comments that contain personal information (either about
themselves or others) such as Social Security numbers, birth dates, and
medical data.
    Docket. To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or to the OSHA Docket Office
at the address above. Documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index; however, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are
available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Contact
the OSHA Docket Office for assistance in locating docket submissions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General information and press
inquiries. Contact Ms. Jennifer Ashley, Director, Office of
Communications, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3647, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
1999 or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Technical inquiries. Contact Ms. Virginia Fitzner, Directorate of
Standards and Guidance, Room N-3609, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor,
200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202)
693-2052 or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Copies of this Federal Register notice. Available from the OSHA
Office of Publications, Room N-3101, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
1888.
    Electronic copies of this notice. Go to OSHA's Web site (http://
www.osha.gov), and select ``Federal Register,'' ``Date of
Publication,'' and then ``2010.''
    Additional information for submitting documents. See section XI
(``Public Participation'') of this notice.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Replacement of previously proposed rule. This proposed revision of
subparts D and I replaces the proposed rules originally published in
the Federal Register (55 FR 47660) on April 10, 1990, and republished
in the Federal Register on May 2, 2003 (69 FR 23528).
    References and exhibits. In this Federal Register notice, OSHA
references a number of supporting materials. References to these
materials are given as ``Ex.'' followed by the number of the document
(e.g., Ex. 23). The referenced materials are posted in Docket Nos.
OSHA-2007-0072, OSHA-S041-2006-0666 (formerly Docket No. S-041), OSHA-
S029-2006-0662 (formerly Docket No. S-029), and OSHA-S057-2006-0680
(formerly Docket No. S-057) all of which are available at http://
www.regulations.gov. The documents are also available at the OSHA
Docket Office (see ADDRESSES section). For further information about
accessing exhibits referenced in this Federal Register notice, see the
``Public Participation'' section of this document.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Analysis of Risk
III. Issues
IV. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Rule
V. Preliminary Economic and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Screening
Analysis
VI. Applicability of Existing National Consensus Standards
VII. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

VIII. Federalism
IX. State Plan States
X. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
XI. Public Participation
XII. Authority and Signature
XIII. Proposed Regulatory Text

I. Background

    The majority of employees in general industry workplaces walk or
work on level surfaces, such as floors, where slips, trips, and falls
are common occurrences. These occurrences, however, are not likely to
result in major injuries or fatalities. On the other hand, there are
many employees who work on ladders, scaffolds, towers, outdoor
advertising signs, and similar surfaces where slips, trips, or falls
are likely to result in serious injury or death.
    The existing OSHA general industry standards recognize the use of
guardrails and physical barriers as the primary methods for employee
protection against falls. However, those standards do not directly
recognize that personal fall protection systems can also provide
effective means for employee protection. OSHA believes that the
proposed rules will give employers the necessary flexibility to decide
which fall protection method or system works best for the work
operation being performed, while ensuring employees receive a level of
protection that is effective and necessary. OSHA believes many of these
slips, trips, and falls can be prevented and has devoted many years to
assembling and analyzing information aimed at the elimination and
prevention of hazards that cause these incidents. The Agency used that
information to form the basis for this proposed rule.
    History of the earlier rulemaking effort. OSHA's efforts to address
slips, trips, and falls began with its initial standards. Those
standards, which address a variety of walking-working surface hazards,
were part of the initial package of standards promulgated by OSHA in
1971 under section 6(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (the Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.). Since that time, a number of
interested parties suggested changes to the standard. In particular,
the suggested changes addressed updating the existing standard to
reflect the current national consensus standards.
    Subpart D. Efforts to revise the initial standards in subpart D
have been ongoing for many years. In September 1973, OSHA published a
proposed revision of subpart D in the Federal Register (38 FR 24300).
    In April 1976, OSHA withdrew the 1973 proposal (41 FR 17227)
because it was outdated. In the same year, to obtain public input on
revising subpart D, OSHA conducted several informal public meetings
around the country. After reviewing the information gathered from the
public, OSHA determined that a more thorough, scientific and technical
research effort was needed to develop objective information upon which
an effective revision to the subpart D standard could be based.
    From 1976 through the 1980s, OSHA accumulated a wide variety of
technical information. This included recommendations for fall
prevention, ladders, scaffolds, slip-resistance, and handrails from the
University of Michigan; studies concerning guardrails, slip-resistance,
scaffolds, and fall prevention from the National Bureau of Standards
(now the National Institute of Standards and Technology); analysis of
various walking-working surfaces from Texas Tech University; accident
and injury data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics; and various
national consensus standards from the American National Standards
Institute, American Society of Testing and Materials, and the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers. This technical information provided
the basis for a new proposal that was published in 1990; that proposal
was not finalized due to other regulatory activities that took
precedent.
    Subpart I. Many of the Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
standards in subpart I, like subpart D, were also adopted by OSHA under
section 6(a) of the Act. Existing subpart I contains general
requirements for personal protective equipment, as well as specific
performance and use requirements for certain types of personal
protective equipment, including eye and face protection, respiratory
protection, head protection, foot protection, protective clothing, hand
protection, and electrical protective devices. Existing subpart I does
not, however, contain any specific requirements addressing the
performance or use of PPE used for fall protection; hence the need for
this proposal.
    OSHA first proposed to revise subpart I to address fall protection
PPE in 1990 in combination with a proposal to revise subpart D. As
noted above, the 1990 rule was not finalized. On April 6, 1994, OSHA
updated other portions of the PPE standard (59 FR 16334) by adding new
requirements for employers to conduct hazard assessments; to select the
proper PPE; to remove defective or damaged PPE from service; and to
provide training in the proper use, care, and disposal of PPE. Those
provisions, however, only applied to PPE used for face and eye, head,
foot, and hand protection. In this rulemaking, OSHA proposes to require
the hazard assessments to address PPE used for fall protection as well.
    The combined proposals for subparts D and I. On April 10, 1990,
OSHA proposed to revise both subparts D and I (55 FR 13360 and 55 FR
13423, respectively). The proposals were intended to remove ambiguities
and redundancies in the existing standards, simplify and consolidate
existing provisions, and use performance language instead of
specifications where possible. Additionally, OSHA proposed adding new
requirements to subpart I, Personal Protective Equipment, to set
performance and use criteria for fall protection equipment. The two
subparts were interdependent with respect to personal fall protection
systems; that is, the duty requirements for personal fall protection
systems were in subpart D and the criteria for the systems were in
subpart I. OSHA received comments and held a public hearing on the
proposals.
    On May 2, 2003, OSHA reopened the rulemaking record and republished
the 1990 proposal (68 FR 23528) to refresh the record due to the length
of time that had elapsed since 1990. Based upon comments and
information received in that reopening, and because of technological
advances, particularly within the fall protection industry, OSHA
determined the best course of action was to issue a new proposal for
subparts D and I.
    Today's proposed rule. Today's proposed rule replaces the 1990
proposals (55 FR 13360). OSHA proposes to revise subpart D to
accomplish the following:
    (1) Reflect current industry practices and national consensus
standards;
    (2) Harmonize provisions, when possible, with other OSHA provisions
(e.g., the construction standards in 29 CFR part 1926 and the Shipyard
Employment Standards in 29 CFR part 1915); and
    (3) Use performance-oriented language when possible, rather than
specification-oriented language.
    In subpart I, OSHA proposes to add new specific performance and use
requirements for personal fall protection equipment. Existing subpart I
contains general requirements for all types of personal protective
equipment, as well as specific performance and use requirements for
other types of personal protective equipment, but it does not
specifically contain criteria for fall protection PPE.
    To be effective, fall protection systems must be both strong enough
to provide

the necessary fall protection and capable of absorbing fall impact so
that the forces imposed on employees when stopping falls do not result
in injury or death. The ability of the human body to tolerate the
arresting force imposed on it by a fall protection system has been
addressed directly in general industry only by Sec.  1910.66, Powered
Platforms for Building Maintenance. Throughout this proposed rule, OSHA
will make reference to the general industry powered platform standard;
the construction industry standard for fall protection; and the
shipyard employment standards for personal fall protection systems.
Experience gained by the Agency in enforcing those rules provides
additional guidance in the development of this proposed rule. OSHA's
objective is to make consistent all of its requirements for the use of
personal fall protection systems. The listed fall protection standards
contain requirements that are identical to, or essentially the same as,
those proposed in this document.
    The proposed rule for subpart I, to be codified at Sec.  1910.140
(Fall protection), would apply whenever another standard requires or
allows the use of fall protection PPE. In these situations, the system
used must comply with the requirements of Sec.  1910.140. For example,
subparts D, F, and R of the general industry standards (part 1910) each
contain a requirement (a duty) to use fall protection. Where an
employer uses a personal fall protection system to meet the duty, that
system would have to meet the criteria and performance requirements
proposed in this rule. Many of the requirements proposed here for
personal fall arrest systems are already in effect when employees are
working on platforms regulated by OSHA's general industry standard in
subpart F--Powered Platforms for Building Maintenance (Sec.  1910.66).
Appendix C of Sec.  1910.66 sets out mandatory requirements for
personal fall arrest systems. Therefore, the entire powered platform
rulemaking record is hereby incorporated into this proposed rulemaking
(Dockets S-700 and S-700A).
    In addition to proposing new requirements for personal protective
equipment (PPE) used for fall protection, OSHA proposes to amend a
number of general industry standards that already set a duty to use PPE
by requiring that PPE meet the new requirements of subpart I. For
example, paragraph (g) of Sec.  1910.269 requires personal fall arrest
systems to meet the requirements of subpart M of part 1926 (the
construction industry requirements). This provision would be revised to
require personal fall arrest systems to meet the mostly parallel
criteria requirements of subpart I of 1910 (the general industry
requirements). Subpart M of part 1926 differs from proposed subpart I
in that subpart M addresses fall arrest systems used in the
construction of elevator shafts, while subpart I does not address the
construction of elevator shafts. In addition, subpart I uses
performance language with regard to anchorages for fall arrest systems,
while subpart M specifically prohibits the use of guardrails as
anchorage points.
    Finally, OSHA proposes to add two non-mandatory appendices to
subpart I to provide examples of test methods and procedures that will
assist employers and PPE manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with
the criteria proposed in Sec.  1910.140.
    OSHA believes that many equipment manufacturers are currently
following the criteria and test methods of the above-mentioned
standards. Therefore, the vast majority of equipment covered by the
proposed rule already complies with the requirements in this proposal.
Also, OSHA notes that equipment that meets the proposed standards is
readily available to any employer that does not already meet the
proposed standard because personal fall protection systems required to
be used by other OSHA standards (e.g., the construction standards in 29
CFR part 1926 and the Shipyard Employment Standards in 29 CFR part
1915) must meet essentially the same criteria and testing requirements
as in this proposed rule.
    The OSH Act requires OSHA to make certain findings with respect to
standards. One of these findings, specified by section 3(8) of the OSH
Act, requires an OSHA standard to address a significant risk and to
reduce this risk significantly. (See Industrial Union Dep't v. American
Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607 (1980).) As discussed in section II
of this preamble, OSHA preliminarily finds that slips, trips, and falls
constitute a significant risk, and estimates that the proposed standard
will prevent 20 fatalities and 3,706 injuries annually. Section 6(b) of
the OSH Act requires OSHA to determine if its standards are
technologically and economically feasible. As discussed in section V of
this preamble, OSHA preliminarily finds that this proposed standard is
economically and technologically feasible.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, as amended) requires
that OSHA determine whether a proposed standard will have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small firms. As discussed in
section VI, OSHA examined the small firms affected by this standard and
certifies that the proposed standard will not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small firms.
    Executive Order 12866 requires that OSHA estimate the benefits,
costs, and net benefits of proposed standards. The table below
summarizes OSHA's preliminary findings with respect to the estimated
costs, benefits, and net benefits of this standard. As is clear, the
annual benefits are significantly in excess of the annual costs.
However, it should be noted that under the OSH Act, OSHA does not use
the magnitude of net benefits as the decisionmaking criterion in
determining what standards to promulgate.

 Net Benefits and Cost Effectiveness of the Proposed Revision to OSHA's
                        Walking-Working Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Annualized Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   1910.22 General Requirements..  $15.7 million.
Sec.   1910.23 Ladders...............  $9.7 million.
Sec.   1910.24 Step Bolts and Manhole  $3.7 million.
 Steps.
Sec.   1910.27 Scaffolds.............  $73.0 million.
Sec.   1910.28 Duty to Have Fall       $0.09 million.
 Protection.
Sec.   1910.29 Fall Protection         $8.4 million.
 Systems Criteria and Practices.
Sec.   1910.30 Training Requirements.  $44.1 million.
Sec.   1910.140 Fall Protection......  $18.5 million.
                                      ----------------------------------
    Total Annual Costs...............  $173.2 million.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             Annual Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Injuries Prevented.........  3,706.
Number of Fatalities Prevented.......  20.
Monetized Benefits (assuming $50,000   $328.5 million.
 per injury and $7.2 million per
 fatality prevented).
OSHA standards that are updated and    Unquantified.
 consistent with voluntary standards.
                                      ----------------------------------
    Net Benefits (benefits minus       $155.4 million.
     costs).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Effectiveness: Compliance with the proposed standards would result
 in the prevention of 1 fatality and 231 injuries for every $10 million
 in costs, or alternatively, $1.90 in benefits per dollar of costs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Directorate of Evaluation and
  Analysis, Office of Regulatory Analysis, 2009.

II. Analysis of Risk

    Nature of the risk. Falls and other hazards associated with
walking-working surfaces, primarily resulting in slips, trips, and
falls, and hazards leading to combustible dust explosions and other
accidents, are addressed in this proposal. These hazards are
encountered by millions of employees working in industry sectors
regulated by OSHA under 29 CFR part 1910. There are many causal factors
for slips, trips, and falls, such as ice, wet areas, grease, loose
flooring or carpeting, inattention to surroundings, uneven scaffolding
planking, clutter, worn rope on descent systems, open desk drawers and
filing cabinets, damaged ladder steps, and a more subtle cause--a
belief that the action being taken will not lead to an accident. For
example, where a ladder is not readily available, employees may
improvise and use a chair, or even a 5-gallon bucket, as a way to reach
a higher level. In fact, accident data show that many falls could be
prevented if existing OSHA regulations and recommended safe practices
were followed. The hazards generally can be grouped into three (often
interrelated) factors: Equipment, human, and environmental. Examples of
some equipment factors include improper footwear, uneven surfaces,
foreign substances on surfaces such as oil or litter, and unguarded
sides and edges of elevated platforms. Some human factors are
inattention, haste, human error, failure to follow instructions, and
fatigue. Environmental factors may include poor lighting and weather-
related conditions. The presence of multiple factors increases the
risk. For instance, a polished marble floor may not present a slipping
hazard to someone wearing rubber-soled shoes; however, when the floor
is wet from mopping or snow being tracked in from the outdoors, the
risk of slipping greatly increases. The addition of other factors such
as poor lighting, inattention, and haste are likely to further increase
the risk.
    Slips and trips can lead to falls that cause injuries such as back
strains or other injuries when individuals try to ``catch'' themselves.
Falls on the same level can cause injuries such as sprains, strains,
fractures, and contusions that may affect any area of the body and, on
occasion, can be fatal. Falling from an elevated surface increases
injury severity and the likelihood of fatalities. Falls from elevations
occur in all industries, in all occupations, and in a myriad of work
settings--from the employee washing windows from a rope descent system
40 feet from the ground, to the stock clerk retrieving goods from a
shelf using a 4-foot stepladder. These tasks represent only two of the
numerous tasks that can result in injury or death to employees caused
by failures to recognize fall hazards, to use fall protection
equipment, or to take appropriate action to abate fall hazards.
    Identifying fall hazards and deciding how best to protect employees
is the first step in reducing or eliminating the hazards. Therefore,
OSHA is proposing to expand existing Sec.  1910.132(d), Hazard
assessment and equipment selection, to apply to hazards covered in new
Sec.  1910.140--Fall protection. This expansion would require employers
to assess the workplace to identify fall hazards and select and require
the use of appropriate PPE. In addition, the employer must train (see
Sec.  1910.132(f)) the employee on the proper use of PPE. Once
employers determine that the use of PPE is the most appropriate way to
protect their employees from falls, the proposed rule requires
employers to provide equipment that meets certain strength and
performance requirements.
    Injury and fatality data. Recent employment data taken from the
U.S. Census Bureau's 2007 Statistics of U.S. Businesses and the Bureau
of Labor Statistics' (BLS) Occupational Employment Statistics indicate
that over 106 million employees work in over 6 million establishments
regulated by OSHA under its subpart D standards. Slips, trips, and
falls constitute 15 percent of all accidental deaths, and are second
only to motor vehicles as a cause of employee fatalities.
    The BLS Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI) has listed
falls as one of the leading causes of traumatic injury and death in the
workplace for many years. Fall-related injury and fatality statistics
show that employees encounter hazards associated with walking-working
surfaces at their worksites on a daily basis.
    Tables V-10 and V-11 of section V (``Preliminary Economic and
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis'') depict BLS data
from 1992 to 2004. During this time period, BLS reported an annual
average of 300 fatal falls, 213 (71%) of which resulted from falling
from a higher level. Furthermore, of an annual average of 299,404 non-
fatal falls resulting in lost-workday injuries, 79,593 (26%) were as a
result of falling from a higher level.
    An examination of more recent BLS data, shows that falls continue
to be a significant source of workplace fatalities.

                                                   Fatal Falls
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Percentage of
                                                                             Fatal falls from   fatal falls that
                                                            Fatal falls           height        were falls from
                                                                                height
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1992-2004 (Average per Year)...........................                300                213                 71
2005...................................................                320                257                 80
2006...................................................                343                285                 83
2007...................................................                357                267                 75
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to this table, the number of falls resulting in death is
increasing, although the percentage of fatal falls that are due to
falls from heights dropped in 2007.
    Significance of risk. As described more fully in section V of this
preamble, many of the falls that occur in general industry could be
prevented through the maintenance of safe conditions and the use of
safe work practices on walking-working surfaces, as well as through the
proper use of appropriate personal fall protection equipment when
necessary. The Agency estimates that compliance with the proposed
requirements in subparts D and I would prevent 20 fall-related
fatalities and 3,706 fall related lost-workday injuries annually (see
section V of this notice).
    The Agency has concluded, on a preliminary basis, that these
proposed standards address a significant risk. Furthermore, OSHA
believes that compliance with these proposed requirements is reasonably
necessary to protect employees from fall hazards and would
substantially reduce this risk.
    Basis for Agency action. In the 1990 proposed rule (55 FR 13361),
OSHA described a number of studies and investigations conducted by both
government agencies (OSHA, Consumer Product Safety Commission, the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the former National Bureau of
Standards, now called the National Institute for Standards and
Technology) and academia (University of Michigan, Texas A&M, and the
University of Texas). These studies, which are available in the earlier
rulemaking docket (S-029) or from the sources listed in Appendix C of
the 1990 proposed rule, provide useful information about the ways in
which employees fall from various surfaces, and the forces applied when
stepping on surfaces, particularly ladders and stairways. Additionally,
they provide information about the strength necessary for various
surfaces, the minimum and maximum spacing between rungs on ladders and
steps on stairways, and other similar details. They also address the
need for toe and hand clearances, the height of stair rail and
guardrail systems, and the size of openings in guardrails that would
permit passage of employees. Many of the recommendations contained in
referenced reports and studies are validated by inclusion of identical
or essentially similar requirements in the national consensus standards
applicable to the topic.
    There are various ways of protecting employees from the hazards
associated with walking-working surfaces. This proposal, in conjunction
with the criteria for personal fall protection systems in the subpart I
proposed rule, addresses conventional fall protection systems such as
guardrail systems, safety net systems, and personal fall protection
systems (travel restraint systems, fall arrest systems, and positioning
systems). The proposal also includes non-conventional means such as
allowing employees to work in a designated area (without conventional
fall protection), provided they receive specific training and use safe
work practices.
    OSHA intends to ensure that all PPE requirements for fall
protection in general industry are the same, and therefore is proposing
to replace existing requirements in other general industry standards
with references to subpart I, Personal Fall Protection Systems. This
change will facilitate compliance, since all general industry fall
protection criteria will be consolidated into subpart I.
    Additionally, the rule requires employers to take easy-to-use
measures, such as placing covers over holes in floors and using
indicators or signs to warn employees that they are approaching a fall
hazard.
    The proposed standard would also require employers to ensure that
walking-working surfaces are designed, constructed, maintained, and
used in a safe manner, and that proper work practices are used by the
employees. For example, when climbing a ladder, the employee must
always maintain three points of contact and never use the top of a
stepladder as a step. Many of the design requirements in the proposed
standard (such as those for step bolts, mobile ladder stands, and
portable ladders) reflect the manufacturing specifications prescribed
by national consensus standards. In most instances, the Agency used the
most recent version of consensus standards in writing this proposal.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Consensus standards are updated on a cyclical basis, thus
staying current with industry practice and technological advances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA proposes the requirements in subparts D and I as the minimum
necessary to protect employees from significant hazards that can cause
falls and other events which may result in serious injury and death.
OSHA believes that many employers are already in compliance with the
updated proposed rules because the majority of the proposed
requirements are either already in existing OSHA rules or are
prescribed by national consensus standards organizations in voluntary
standards on the topic. The Agency believes that codifying more current
consensus standard provisions, establishing personal fall protection
systems criteria in subpart I, and specifying training requirements
will lead to higher compliance with standards. The updated rules will
make it easier and more effective to prevent slips, trips, and falls
and other events.
    A safety or health standard is a standard ``which requires
conditions, or the adoption or use of one or more practices, means,
methods, operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate
to provide safe or healthful employment'' (29 U.S.C. 652(8)). In
addition, all standards must be highly protective (see 58 FR at 16614-
16615; International Union, UAW v. OSHA, 37 F.3d 669 (DC Cir. 1994))
and, whenever practical, standards shall ``be expressed in terms of
objective criteria and of the performance desired.'' Id. In this
preamble, OSHA discusses the hazards associated with walking and
working on elevated, slippery, or other surfaces, and explains why the
provisions of the proposed rule are reasonably necessary to protect
affected employees from those risks. The Agency estimates that
compliance with the revised walking-

working surfaces standard will reduce the risks associated with these
hazards by preventing an estimated 20 fatalities annually based upon
the 1992-2007 BLS data and 1995-2001 OSHA data. OSHA believes that this
constitutes a substantial reduction in the risk of material harm. Since
falls from heights result in more fatalities and more serious injuries
than falls on the same level, this proposed rule places emphasis on
falls from heights.

III. Issues

Issue 1--Fall Protection on Rolling Stock and Motor Vehicles

    OSHA is requesting additional comment on whether specific
regulations are needed to cover falls from rolling stock and commercial
motor vehicles. Existing subpart D does not specifically address or
exclude fall protection on rolling stock or motor vehicles from
coverage. For the purposes of this issue, the term ``rolling stock''
means any locomotive, railcar, or vehicle operated exclusively on a
rail or rails, or a trolley bus operated by electric power supplied
from an overhead wire. The term ``motor vehicle'' means commercial
buses, vans, and trucks (including tractor trailer trucks, tank trucks,
and hopper trucks). For the purposes of this rule, the term ``motor
vehicle'' does not include powered industrial trucks. OSHA is
specifically seeking comment on whether it should include requirements
specifying that when employees are exposed to falls from rolling stock
and motor vehicles at heights greater than 4 feet, protective work
practices, methods, or systems must be instituted. OSHA is also
requesting comment on how it should define ``rolling stock'' and
``motor vehicles,'' or if the terms as defined are sufficiently
inclusive.
    The 1990 ``Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Walking-Working
Surfaces'' (68 FR 23530) generated one comment on the subject. The
American Feed Industry Association said:

    The section on Scope and Applications provides that this Subpart
D does not apply to ``surfaces that are an integral part of self-
propelled, motorized mobile equipment''. [Sec.  1910.21.] This is,
obviously and correctly, meant to exclude work surfaces that are on
railroad cars, truck trailers, and barges.
    OSHA should add a line to section 1910.21(a)(1) that says:
Railroad cars, truck trailers, barges and similar equipment designed
for use with a separable source of propulsion are excluded from
coverage by this subpart even when temporarily detached from any
source of propulsion for purposes of loading or unloading.

    In 1996, OSHA was asked to clarify its fall protection rules
involving the unloading of grain from rolling stock (meaning rail
cars). In response, OSHA issued a memorandum to its Regional
Administrators on October 18, 1996 (Ex. OSHA-S029-2006-0662-0018),
directing OSHA inspectors not to cite rolling stock under subpart D.
The memorandum also said that it would not be appropriate to use the
PPE standard (29 CFR 1910.132(d)) to cite employee exposure to fall
hazards on the tops of rolling stock unless the rolling stock was
positioned inside of or contiguous to a building or other structure
where the installation of fall protection is feasible. The memorandum
did not result in clear direction to the public or to OSHA's field
staff. As a result, OSHA raised the issue of fall protection on rolling
stock and motor vehicles in a separate Federal Register notice--the
2003 Reopening Notice. In response to that notice, OSHA received a
number of comments that supported and opposed the inclusion of specific
requirements regulating fall hazards from rolling stock and motor
vehicles.
    Commenters expressed diverse views on the approach that OSHA should
pursue to regulate falls from rolling stock and motor vehicles. Some
commenters supported an exclusion of rolling stock and motor vehicles
from subpart D while other commenters supported the inclusion of new,
specific rules. Referring to advances in fall protection technology,
some of these commenters said they believed that it would be feasible
to protect employees from falls, and cited the type of equipment that
could be used to provide that protection. Other commenters simply
stated their support for the policy OSHA set forth in the 1996
memorandum. However, the understanding of the 1996 memorandum also
varied among commenters. Commenters provided little information to the
record regarding injuries and deaths associated with falls from rolling
stock and motor vehicles.
    OSHA plans to continue gathering information and evidence to
determine whether there is a need to propose specific requirements for
the protection of employees exposed to falls from rolling stock and
motor vehicles. Additionally, OSHA needs more information about what
employers are presently doing and any feasibility and cost concerns
associated with a requirement to provide protection. Therefore, OSHA is
not including any specific requirements pertinent to rolling stock and
motor vehicles in proposed Sec.  1910.28. Rather, it will wait until
the record is more fully developed to determine the appropriate course
of action. If, in response to this issue, the Agency receives
sufficient comments and evidence to warrant additional rulemaking, a
separate proposed rule will be issued.
    In an effort to collect and assemble the information needed for
OSHA to make an informed decision about the need for specific
provisions regulating fall hazards from rolling stock and motor
vehicles, the Agency requests comprehensive responses to the questions
posed below. The Agency requests that the responses be directed
specifically to individual questions and be clearly labeled with the
number of the question.
    With respect to rolling stock, OSHA is not soliciting information
relating to personal fall protection equipment used on rolling stock
involved in ``railroad operations,'' which include the movement of
equipment over rails. The Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA)
``Railroad Occupational Safety and Health Standards Policy Statement''
(the Policy Statement) sets out the respective areas of jurisdiction
between FRA and OSHA. That Policy Statement provides that FRA has
jurisdiction over railroad operations, including personal protective
equipment and walking-working surfaces on rolling stock. With regard to
FRA's jurisdiction over personal protective equipment, the FRA Policy
Statement notes, ``OSHA regulations concerning personal protective
equipment apply according to their terms, except to the extent the
general requirements might be read to require protective equipment
responsive to hazards growing out of railroad operations.'' (See 43 FR
10583, 10588 (1978).) Addressing FRA's jurisdiction over walking-
working surfaces, the FRA Policy Statement reads, ``[OSHA regulations]
would not apply with respect to the design of locomotives and other
rolling equipment used on a railroad, since working conditions related
to such surfaces are regulated by FRA as major aspects of railroad
operations.'' (Id. at 10587.) A copy of the FRA's Policy Statement can
be found on FRA's Web site. OSHA is, however, requesting comment and
information regarding rolling stock not involved in railroad
operations, such as, but not limited to, when rolling stock is being
loaded or unloaded off railroad property by non-railroad employees or
contractors to railroads, or when such rolling stock is being
retrofitted or repaired off railroad property.
    In regard to rolling stock:
    1. In your establishment and/or industry, how many or what
percentage of employees working on top of rolling stock are exposed to
fall hazards?

    2. How are these employees protected from fall hazards while
working on such equipment?
    3. If employee training on the recognition of fall hazards is
provided in your workplace, please describe the nature and frequency of
the training.
    4. If fall protection equipment is used, please provide detailed
information on the types and costs of the fall protection used on
rolling stock and please explain how it is used.
    5. If fall protection equipment is not used, please explain what
technological and/or economic obstacles to such use may be involved.
    6. Are there alternative means to protect employees from fall
hazards while working on rolling stock? Please explain.
    7. What is your safety experience with fall hazards on or from
rolling stock?
    8. Should OSHA exclude rolling stock from coverage under subpart D?
Please explain and provide data and information to support your
comments.
    In regard to motor vehicles:
    9. In your establishment and/or industry, how many or what
percentage of employees working on top of motor vehicles are exposed to
fall hazards?
    10. How are these employees protected from fall hazards while
working on such equipment?
    11. If employee training on the recognition of fall hazards is
provided in your workplace, please describe the nature and frequency of
the training.
    12. If fall protection equipment is used, please provide detailed
information on the types and costs of the fall protection used on motor
vehicles and please explain how it is used.
    13. If fall protection equipment is not used, please explain what
technological and/or economic obstacles may be involved.
    14. Are there alternative means to protect employees from fall
hazards while working on motor vehicles? Please explain.
    15. What is your safety experience with fall hazards on or from
motor vehicles?
    16. Should OSHA exclude motor vehicles from coverage under subpart
D? Please explain and provide data and information to support your
comments.

Issue 2--Fall Protection for Employees Standing or Climbing on
Stacked Materials (e.g., Steel and Precast Concrete Products)

    OSHA is seeking comment on whether there is a need to promulgate a
specific requirement in subpart D to address those situations where an
employer can demonstrate that it is infeasible or creates a greater
hazard to use conventional fall protection to protect employees exposed
to falling 4 feet (1.2 m) or more from stacked materials. Some
commenters have recommended that OSHA allow the use of safe work
practices by trained employees in lieu of conventional fall protection
for certain activities. OSHA seeks comment on the current fall
protection measures that are in use, and the degree to which
conventional fall protection is infeasible or creates a greater hazard.
    This issue was brought to OSHA's attention by the Precast Concrete
Institute (PCI) and the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI). OSHA
notes that neither the existing nor the proposed revision to subpart D
contains a specific requirement addressing fall protection for
employees who must climb onto and stand on stacked materials (e.g.,
stacks of steel or concrete products) to perform their work--for
example, rigging materials in preparation for transport. Rather, OSHA
has enforced the general fall protection rules of subpart D (Sec.
1910.23) and subpart I (Sec.  1910.132), as well as the general duty
clause (5)(a)(1) of the OSH Act, to protect workers. OSHA has
considered the comments of both PCI and AISI and has conducted an
information-gathering site visit to become more familiar with the
specific concerns raised by the commenters. At this point, OSHA is
unconvinced that its existing enforcement policy, which makes
allowances for situations where a greater hazard exists or where it is
infeasible to provide fall protection, does not adequately address the
concerns of the commenters. Nonetheless, OSHA is considering adding a
specific requirement to subpart D if sufficient information and support
is received to demonstrate the need for such a specific requirement.
Additionally, OSHA requests comment on whether there are other similar
situations where employees work on stacked materials.
    For background, the PCI, in correspondence to OSHA from 2000 to
2003, outlined its concerns regarding the feasibility of providing fall
protection for employees working at precast concrete manufacturing
plants who are working/walking on precast concrete products.
Additionally, PCI expressed concern about the feasibility of providing
fall protection for employees who are rigging precast products, placing
them on trailers, and securing them for transport to construction
sites. Specifically, in a letter dated January 3, 2000 (Ex. 1), PCI
asked for an ``interpretation and exception for riggers loading/
unloading precast concrete products on trucks * * * and for riggers
stacking, storing, loading or unloading precast concrete products in
the plant, relative to fall protection. * * *'' PCI provided the
following rationale:

    When stacking, storing, loading or unloading precast concrete
products, the need for employees to access the top of concrete
products in excess of four (4) feet, for very short periods [of]
time, to connect or disconnect lifting devices or rigging is
necessary. The use of a conventional fall protection system is a
greater hazard and in most cases infeasible because, while
installing a fall protection system, employees are exposed to a fall
hazard for an extended period of time. Since conventional fall
protection is infeasible, employees shall be given individual
instruction as well as have a mentor system hands-on process for
training.

    PCI also noted that OSHA does not require fall protection for
employees off-loading the precast concrete products at construction
sites because the definition of a walking-working surface in the
construction rule excluded ``vehicles or trailers on which employees
must be located to perform their job duties.'' PCI included the
following recommended work procedure:

    A ladder shall be used to climb onto or off the vehicle deck and
product. Employees shall not jump off [the] trailer or from product
to product. Corrective and detail work shall be completed at ground
level or from a ladder or mobile elevating work platform.

    On May 20, 2004, the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI)
raised the same concern in its response to a request for comments from
the Office of Management and Budget (67 FR 15014) on the ``Draft Report
to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations.'' (Ex. 2)
The AISI identified OSHA's subpart D as needing revision to permit
employees standing on stacks of steel to work without fall protection
when fall protection is not practical. Specifically, AISI said the
following:

    OSHA requires employers to provide either guardrails or tie-off
protection to workers who must perform their duties 48 inches or
greater above the ground (1910.23 and 1910.66). These requirements
are infeasible for operations that exist in steel and steel products
companies where individuals need to stand on ``stacks'' of product
that have a large surface area in order to rig bundles for crane
lifts and similar activities. These rules also affect the loading of
product onto truck trailers and railcars that are, with rare
exception, over 48 inches above the ground. OSHA's list of
``solutions'' are to build guardrails around the product stacks, use
magnet cranes, or provide safety lines around trailers and railcars,
but these solutions are not feasible. Use of fixed guardrails around

truck trailers and railcars is not feasible and would, additionally,
create its own serious safety hazard. The use of magnet cranes that
do not require a rigger is also infeasible because magnet [sic]
cannot connect to only a single bundle. Providing safety lines
around the stacks, trailers and railcars is infeasible because
customer orders necessitate bundles to be in varied stack heights,
based on quantity ordered. Finally, because product placement for
shipment requires traversing the trailers and railcars, it would
require product to move through required safety lines. These rules
should provide employers with some flexibility by stating that
activities that are over 48 inches above the ground should use
either guardrails or tie-off protection, ``where practical.'' In
situations where their use is not practical, the employer should be
permitted to use an alternative practice and to provide appropriate
training to the employee.

    OSHA requests comment on PCI's recommended procedures and AISI's
position. The Agency also refers readers to Issue 1 above
which also pertains to providing fall protection for employees on
vehicles and railcars.

Issue 3--Qualified Climber

    In the 1990 proposal (55 FR 13366), OSHA first introduced the
concept of a ``qualified climber.'' A qualified climber was defined as
``an employee who, by virtue of physical capabilities, training, work
experience, and job assignment is authorized by the employer to
routinely climb fixed ladders, step bolts or similar climbing devices
attached to structures.'' OSHA proposed that rather than always
providing conventional fall protection (cages, wells, ladder safety
systems, or other fall protection) to employees climbing fixed ladders
over 24 feet (7.3 m), the employer could allow qualified climbers to
climb without fall protection provided certain criteria were met.
    On March 1, 1991, OSHA granted a variance to Gannett Outdoor
Companies (56 FR 8801) permitting it to use qualified climbers as
defined in the 1990 NPRM for outdoor advertising (billboard)
applications. On January 26, 1993, OSHA issued a compliance directive
applying these conditions to all outdoor-billboard applications.
    The criteria included that the ladder be climbed two or fewer times
per year and that installing a ladder safety system, cage, or well
would create a greater hazard. The premise of the proposal was that
many fixed ladders in use at the time were not equipped with cages or
wells as required by the existing standard. In addition, installing
them would be extremely costly and the installation process itself
might pose a greater hazard to workers than simply climbing the ladder
without fall protection. Newer, anecdotal information available to OSHA
indicates just the opposite--that most fixed ladders over 24 feet (7.3
m) in height are already equipped with a well, cage, or some other type
of fall protection (ladder safety system or personal fall protection
system). OSHA notes that newer fall protection systems have emerged
that can be installed in one climb of a fixed ladder. Some ladders are
even manufactured with a ladder safety system already installed as an
integral part of the ladder. For these reasons OSHA is not proposing
the use of qualified climbers in this rule, except in the outdoor
advertising (billboard) industry. Permitting the exception for
billboard applications would codify the aforementioned 1993 variance.
However, considering the advances in fall protection since publication
of the 1990 proposed rule, OSHA requests comment on the need for the
qualified-climber provision for the outdoor advertising industry.
Removing this proposed provision would result in requiring fall
protection for this industry that is the same as on all other fixed
ladders covered by subpart D; therefore, commenters are requested to
also address the technological and economic feasibility of removing
this proposed provision. Commenters should provide supporting rationale
for all responses.
    OSHA is not proposing to impose a duty to provide fall protection
where an existing subpart D standard already requires the use of fall
protection equipment. Thus, the proposed rule would not apply to
electric power generation, transmission, or distribution work covered
by Sec.  1910.269(g)(2)(v), or to telecommunications work covered by
Sec.  1910.268(n)(7) or (n)(8). These two industry-specific standards
generally permit employees to free climb to work locations on poles,
towers, and similar structures without the use of fall protection
equipment. These standards protect employees by requiring adequate
training in climbing (Sec. Sec.  1910.268(c) and 1910.269(a)(2)(i))
and, in the case of the electric power generation standard in Sec.
1910.269, by ensuring that employees are proficient in safe climbing
techniques (Sec.  1910.269(a)(2)(vii)). OSHA invites comment on whether
Sec. Sec.  1910.268(n)(7) and (n)(8) and 1910.269(g)(2)(v), which
generally require fall protection only after the employee reaches the
working position, adequately protect employees. In addition, the Agency
requests information on the technological feasibility of requiring fall
protection for employees climbing and changing position on electric
power and telecommunications poles and structures, and the costs and
benefits of complying with such a requirement.

Issue 4--Building Anchorages for Rope Descent Systems

    Section 1910.27(b) of the proposal addresses rope descent systems
and includes a provision (in proposed Sec.  1910.27(b)(2)(iv))
requiring ``sound'' anchorages. OSHA believes that sound anchorage
points are necessary to ensure that rope descent systems can be safely
attached to the building for any type of suspended work, not just
window cleaning. The ideal solution is for anchorages to be installed
and maintained as part of the regular schedule for renovating and
inspecting commercial buildings.
    Existing subpart D does not address the installation and
maintenance of anchorages on buildings or other structures. Under the
proposed rule, separate anchorages are required for personal fall
arrest systems and for rope descent systems. The requirements for
anchorages for personal fall arrest systems are contained in proposed
subpart I, Sec.  1910.140. However, no specific requirements for
anchorages used with rope descent systems are included in this subpart
D proposal, other than to specify that they be ``sound.''
    OSHA raised this issue in the 1990 proposal (55 FR 29224, 29227-28,
July 18, 1990) and again in the 2003 Reopening Notice (68 FR 23534). In
those documents, OSHA requested comment on whether it should add an
installation and maintenance provision to subpart D for ``all
structures where it is reasonably foreseeable that employees will need
anchorage points'' to attach rope descent systems and other equipment.
OSHA raised the issue after the International Window Cleaning
Association (IWCA) and small window cleaning companies told OSHA that
quite often there were no anchorage points on rooftops for attaching
their lines. Since they did not own the building, they had no control
over the presence or location of anchorage points. They urged OSHA to
require building owners to install anchorages on rooftops or designate
existing structural members that would be strong enough to serve as
anchor points to attach scaffolds, control descent devices, and safety
lines (Ex. OSHA-S041-2006-0666-0543; Ex. OSHA-S041-2006-0666-1252, pp.
311, 313, 330-31; Ex. OSHA-S041-2006-0666-1253, pp. 483-84, 503, 543-
44, 565-66, 596-97, 629-30).
    OSHA also noted that the Building Owners and Managers Association
International (BOMA) objected to

requiring building owners to provide anchor points, stating that window
cleaners were generally able to find supports on which to tie off (Ex.
OSHA-S041-2006-0666-1255, p. 1443), but agreed that new buildings
completed two to five years after the effective date of the final rule
should be equipped with anchor points (Ex. OSHA-S041-2006-0666-1212).
    The ANSI standard for Window Cleaning Safety, ANSI I-14.1-2001 (Ex.
OSHA-S029-2006-0662-0014), in section 3.9 prescribes criteria for
anchorages used for rope descent systems and independent life lines,
specifying, ``Building owners and window cleaning contractors shall not
allow suspended work to be performed unless it has been determined that
the building has provided, identified and certified anchorages * * *.''
OSHA notes that IWCA and BOMA participated on the ANSI committee that
developed the national consensus standard addressing safety in window
cleaning operations. According to the ANSI standard, anchorages must be
capable of sustaining a 5,000 pound (2268 kg) load, or a minimum 4-to-1
safety factor, whichever is greater, in any direction that the load may
be applied, among other requirements. It should be noted that ANSI/IWCA
I-14.1 contained a recommendation in Appendix A that the requirements
be implemented within 5 years of its publication on October 25, 2001.
OSHA requests comment on whether it should include the language of the
ANSI/IWCA standard in the final rule or should it require some other
criteria for building anchorages?
    For example, under Sec.  1910.66, Powered platforms for building
maintenance, OSHA requires building owners to provide an employer with
a certification of inspection, testing, and maintenance of anchorages
for powered platforms used in building maintenance. OSHA requests
comments on whether it should require building owners to provide
employers with the same information required by Sec.  1910.66.
    OSHA is aware that some window cleaning companies are using the
powered platform certified anchorages for rope descent systems. If OSHA
were to adopt the same requirement, those building's owners would have
no additional obligation to comply with the language under
consideration.
    OSHA believes that many building owners already meet the Sec.
1910.66 requirements or the provisions of ANSI/IWCA I-14.1. For
instance, it is the Agency's understanding that the General Services
Administration (GSA) updated its policy to require building anchors to
be installed during construction or extensive remodeling of government
buildings.

Issue 5--Technological Advances in Fall Protection and Fall
Arrest

    The Agency is aware of a newer dual-mode operation self-retracting
lanyard that, in the event of a fall, arrests the fall and then
automatically lowers the worker at a controlled, slow rate of speed to
the ground or to the next lower level. These devices show promise, for
example, in rescuing some workers following a fall. OSHA requests
comment regarding the current use and effectiveness of these devices,
appropriate and inappropriate conditions of use, as well as relevant
costs and benefits.
    In addition, OSHA requests information on other new fall protection
and fall arrest equipment that is not mentioned in this proposal.
Please include a detailed explanation of the equipment, sources of
supply, costs and benefits, applications, and conditions of use.

IV. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Rule

A. Format of Proposed Changes to Subparts D and I

    OSHA's proposed revisions to subpart D include a reorganization of
the existing rule to make the rule clearer, necessitating reformatting
the entire subpart. OSHA's proposed format changes are set forth in the
following redesignation table:

                           Redesignation Table
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Existing                          Proposed rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   1910.21 Definitions.          Sec.   1910.21 Scope, application,
                                      and definitions.
Sec.   1910.22 General               Sec.   1910.22 General
 requirements.                        requirements.
Sec.   1910.23 Guarding floor and    Sec.   1910.23 Ladders.
 wall openings and holes.
Sec.   1910.24 Fixed industrial      Sec.   1910.24 Step bolts and
 stairs.                              manhole steps.
Sec.   1910.25 Portable wood         Sec.   1910.25 Stairways.
 ladders.
Sec.   1910.26 Portable metal        Sec.   1910.26 Dockboards (bridge
 ladders.                             plates).
Sec.   1910.27 Fixed ladders.        Sec.   1910.27 Scaffolds (including
                                      rope descent systems).
Sec.   1910.28 Safety requirements   Sec.   1910.28 Duty to have fall
 for scaffolding.                     protection.
Sec.   1910.29 Manually propelled    Sec.   1910.29 Fall protection
 mobile ladder stands and scaffolds   systems criteria and practices.
 (towers).
Sec.   1910.30 Other working         Sec.   1910.30 Training
 surfaces.                            requirements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency seeks comment regarding this reorganization of subpart
D, and rationale, to support any suggested modification(s). OSHA's
proposed revisions to subpart I includes the addition of a new Sec.
1910.140 and appendices C and D.

B. Proposed Changes to Subpart D

    As mentioned earlier in the Summary statement of this notice, OSHA
is publishing proposed rules for subpart D, Walking-Working Surfaces
and subpart I, Personal Protective Equipment for Fall Protection
concurrently. Proposed subpart D establishes requirements for general
industry walking-working surfaces and prescribes the use of fall
protection systems (including personal fall protection systems) to
protect employees from falls. Proposed subpart I contains performance
criteria for personal fall protection systems only. OSHA notes that
wherever subpart D makes specific reference to the requirements in
subpart I, the reference is to the pertinent provisions in the proposed
rule of subpart I (which accompanies this proposed rule), and not to
the existing subpart I requirements, unless specifically stated.
    The following discussion explains the purpose of the proposed rule,
and explains the differences between the proposed rule and existing
standards. The rulemaking history is quite lengthy; to date two
proposals have been issued, one in 1973 and one in 1990. Since the
earlier proposals, technology has advanced greatly and many of the
requirements proposed by OSHA in the two earlier rulemakings are no
longer

appropriate. Similarly, OSHA believes that many of the comments
received on those proposals are no longer relevant. Therefore, OSHA
will only discuss comments from the 1990 proposal that are pertinent to
today's proposal. However, all the comments are available for review in
Docket No. S-041, located in the OSHA Docket Office.
    References in parentheses are to exhibits in the current rulemaking
record and are available in the OSHA Docket Office under Docket No.
OSHA-2007-0072. Where references are made to the earlier proposal
(1990), and the reopening of that record (2003), both the exhibit and
docket number will be noted.
    Throughout this proposal, where possible, performance-oriented
language is used. Any employer who experiences difficulty applying
these performance-oriented standards may consult the applicable
national consensus standards for additional information.
Section 1910.21 Scope, Application, and Definitions
Paragraph (a) Scope and Application
    Proposed Sec.  1910.21 sets the scope and application for subpart D
and also lists and defines the major terms used. Existing subpart D
does not contain a scope and application section for the entire
subpart, but it does contain several separate ``application''
requirements in various sections of subpart D. For example, each of the
following existing sections contains ``application'' statements: the
introductory text to Sec.  1910.22 General requirements; paragraph (a)
of Sec.  1910.24 Fixed industrial stairs; paragraph (a) of Sec.
1910.25 Portable wood ladders; paragraph (e)(3) of Sec.  1910.27, Fixed
ladders; and paragraph (a)(1) to Sec.  1910.29 Manually propelled
mobile ladder stands and scaffolds (towers). None of the other sections
in existing subpart D address the scope or application.
    Proposed paragraph (a) provides to the public a clear understanding
of the rule and is consistent with the Agency's interpretation and
enforcement of subpart D since its inception. That is, as a whole,
existing subpart D applies to all general industry workplaces. However,
as proposed, there are some sections within subpart D that do not apply
to certain operations or activities. These exceptions are addressed in
individual sections of this subpart.
    An exclusion contained in a specific section applies to that
section only; all other sections in subpart D do apply. For example, if
an employee is working on a ladder on an entertainment stage, the
applicable requirements of proposed Sec.  1910.23, Ladders, apply, as
would Sec.  1910.22, General requirements, even though Sec.  1910.28,
Duty to have fall protection, does not apply to exposed perimeters of
entertainment stages.
Paragraph (b) Definitions
    Proposed paragraph (b) of Sec.  1910.21 lists and defines all major
terms used in the proposed standard. The existing rule defines 125
terms and, in some cases, the same term is defined differently several
times due to the context in which it is used. For example, in existing
Sec.  1910.21(a)(4) the term ``platform'' is defined as ``A working
space for persons, elevated above the surrounding floor or ground; such
as a balcony or platform for the operation of machinery and
equipment.'' In existing Sec.  1910.21(b)(4), ``platform'' is defined
as ``an extended step or landing breaking a continuous run of stairs.''
    Another example of the same term being defined differently in the
existing rule is the term ``handrail.'' In existing Sec.
1910.21(a)(3), the term is defined as ``A single bar or pipe supported
on brackets from a wall or partition, as on a stairway or ramp, to
furnish persons with a handhold in case of tripping,'' whereas Sec.
1910.21(b)(1) and (g)(8) define ``handrail'' as ``a rail connected to a
ladder stand running parallel to the slope and/or top step.''
    Likewise, the term ``toeboard'' is defined in Sec.  1910.21(a)(9)
as ``a vertical barrier at floor level erected along exposed edges of a
floor opening, wall opening, platform, runway, or ramp to prevent falls
of materials,'' whereas in Sec.  1910.21(g)(16) the term is defined as
``a barrier at platform level erected along the exposed sides and ends
of a scaffold platform to prevent falls of materials.''
    In today's proposal, all major terms are listed and defined in
paragraph (b), and the term will have the same meaning in all sections
of proposed subpart D. Many of the definitions are the same as those in
the existing standard, although some have been reworded for uniformity
or clarity.
    OSHA seeks to improve subpart D by making it easier to understand,
as well as consistent with other Agency rules regulating the same
topics. To that end, where terms used in subpart D have been defined in
other general industry, construction, or maritime standards, the Agency
has, where possible, used the same definition. OSHA believes such
consistency will lead to a better understanding of the rules, and to
greater compliance, resulting in increased employee safety. The
following terms are defined in the proposed rule: alternating tread-
type stair; authorized; cage; carrier; combination ladder; designated
area; dockboard (bridge plate); equivalent; extension ladder; failure;
fall hazard; fall protection; fixed ladder; grab bars; guardrail
system; handrail; hoist area; hole; individual rung ladder; ladder;
ladder safety system; lower level; manhole steps; maximum intended load
(designed working load); mobile; mobile ladder stand (ladder stand);
mobile ladder stand platform; open riser; opening; platform; portable
ladder; qualified; qualified climber; ramp; riser; rope descent system;
rung, step, or cleat; runway; safety factor; scaffold; ship stairs
(ship ladders); side-step ladder; single-point adjustable suspension
scaffold; spiral stairway; stair rail system; standard stairs;
stepladder; step-bolt (pole step); stepstool; through ladder; tieback;
toeboard; tread; unprotected sides and edges; walking-working surface;
and well.
    Some terms defined in the existing standard are not defined in the
proposal because they are: (1) not used in the proposal, or (2) do not
need to be defined because their meaning is clear without further
explanation. An example of a term that does not need definition is the
term ``working level.'' This term does not need to be defined because
it is obvious that the level at which the employee is working is the
working level.
    Many of the existing terms and definitions pertain to scaffolds.
Because OSHA is proposing that scaffolds used in general industry
comply with the construction industry scaffold requirements of subpart
L of part 1926 (Sec. Sec.  1926.450 through 1926.454), there is no need
to define scaffold terms in this general industry proposal. For
example, the term ``check'' refers to the lengthwise separation of wood
in scaffold planking. Because subpart D is referring to Sec.  1926 for
scaffolding requirements, there is no need for this definition in Sec.
1910.21(b).
    Although many definitions remain unchanged, the following proposed
terms have been added or revised from the existing definitions:
    Alternating tread-type stair. This term means a series of treads
usually attached to a center support in an alternating manner so that a
user of the stair normally does not have both feet on the same level at
any time whether ascending, descending, or standing. The proposed
definition is consistent with ANSI A1264.1-1995(R2002), Safety
Requirements for Workplace Floor and Wall Openings, Stairs and Railing
Systems.
    Authorized. This term describes an employee who is approved or
assigned by the employer to perform a specific

type of duty or an employee who is permitted by the employer to be at a
specific location.
    Cage. This term means a barrier mounted on the side rails of a
fixed ladder or fastened to the structure behind the fixed ladder
designed to encircle the climbing space of the ladder to safeguard the
employee while climbing the ladder. A cage may also be called a ``cage
guard'' or ``basket guard.'' The proposed definition is essentially the
same as the definition in existing paragraph (e)(11), but was revised
for clarity. This proposed definition is also consistent with ANSI
A14.3-2002, American National Standard for Ladders--Fixed--Safety
Requirements.
    Combination ladder. This term means a portable ladder that can be
used as a stepladder, single extension ladder, trestle ladder, or a
stairwell ladder. Its components may be used as a single ladder. This
definition is consistent with ANSI A14.1-2000, American National
Standard for Safety Requirements for Portable Wood Ladders; A14.2-2000,
American National Standard for Safety Requirements for Portable Metal
Ladders; and A14.5-2000, American National Standard for Safety
Requirements for Portable Reinforced Plastic Ladders.
    Designated area. This term means a distinct portion of a walking-
working surface delineated by a perimeter warning line in which
temporary work may be performed by employees without additional fall
protection. The concept of a designated area is patterned after
controlled access zones and warning line systems used in OSHA's
construction standards at subpart M of part 1926.
    Dockboard (bridge plate). This term means a portable or fixed
device for spanning the gap or compensating for the difference in level
between loading platforms and carriers.
    Equivalent. This term means alternate designs, materials, or
methods that the employer can demonstrate will provide an equal or
greater degree of safety for employees compared to the design,
material, or method specified in this subpart. The existing definition
in paragraph (g)(6) has been revised for consistency with OSHA's
construction standards at subpart M of part 1926. To be deemed
``equivalent,'' the employer would have the burden of demonstrating
that the alternate designs, materials, or methods will provide an equal
or greater degree of safety for employees than the design, material, or
method specified in this subpart.
    Extension ladder. This term means a non-self-supporting portable
ladder, adjustable in length. This proposed definition is consistent
with ANSI A14.1-2000, ANSI A14.2-2000, and ANSI A14.5-2000, and removes
the overly specific measurement criteria and is clearer and more
concise than the definition in existing paragraphs (c)(4) and (d)(4) of
Sec.  1910.21.
    Failure. This term means a load refusal, breakage, or separation of
component parts. Load refusal is the point where the ultimate strength
is exceeded. This term is consistent with OSHA's construction fall
protection standard at Sec.  1926.500(b), Definitions.
    Fall hazard. This term means any condition on a walking-working
surface that exposes an employee to injury from a fall on the same
level or to a lower level.
    Fall protection. This term means any equipment, device, or system
that prevents an employee from experiencing a fall from elevation or
that mitigates the effect of such a fall. Examples of fall protection
include, but are not limited to, guardrail systems, ladder safety
systems, and personal fall arrest systems.
    Fixed ladder. This term means a ladder, including an individual
rung ladder, which is permanently attached to a structure, building, or
equipment. It does not include ship stairs or manhole steps. This
definition is essentially the same as existing paragraph (e)(2) of
Sec.  1910.21, and clarifies that the term includes individual rung
ladders but not ship stairs or manhole steps. The proposed definition
is consistent with ANSI A14.3-2002.
    Grab bars. This term means individual handholds placed adjacent to
or as an extension of ladder side rails for the purpose of providing
access beyond the limits of a ladder.
    Guardrail system. This term means a barrier erected to prevent
employees from falling to lower levels. Existing subpart D uses the
terms ``guardrail'' and ``standard railing.'' Both terms are defined as
a barrier to prevent falls to lower levels. OSHA proposes to use one
term--guardrail system to describe this type of barrier. The proposed
definition is consistent with both subparts L--Scaffolds, and M--Fall
Protection of the construction industry standards.
    Handrail. This term means a rail used to provide employees with a
handhold for support. There are three definitions for the term
``handrail'' in existing subpart D. OSHA proposes to define the term to
be consistent with Subpart X--Stairways and Ladders of the construction
industry standards.
    Hoist area. This term means any elevated access opening to a
walking-working surface where hoisted equipment or materials are loaded
or received. The existing rule does not use the term ``hoist area,''
whereas the proposed rule does.
    Hole. This term means a gap or void 2 inches (5 cm) or more in its
least dimension, in a floor, roof, or other walking-working surface.
The existing standard defines holes and openings separately; however,
the treatment of each is essentially the same. The existing rule
defines a floor hole as an opening less than 12 inches (30 cm) but more
than 1 inch (3 cm) in its least dimension through which materials may
fall, and defines a floor opening as a hole measuring 12 inches (30 cm)
or more in its least dimension through which persons may fall. To bring
clarity to the terms and consistency with its fall protection rules in
construction industry standards, OSHA is proposing to use the term
``hole'' to describe all voids and gaps (holes and openings) in floors,
roofs, and other walking-working surfaces. Likewise, OSHA is proposing
to use the term ``opening'' to describe voids and gaps in vertical
surfaces such as walls and partitions.
    Individual rung ladder. This term means a ladder consisting of
rungs individually attached to a structure, building, or piece of
equipment. It does not include manhole steps. The proposed definition
has been editorially revised from the existing definition in paragraph
(e)(3) to clarify its meaning, and to make it clear that manhole steps
are not considered individual rung ladders.
    Ladder. This term means a device with rungs, steps, or cleats
typically used to gain access to a different elevation. This proposed
definition for the term is consistent with the definitions used in the
ANSI A14 consensus standards that are applicable to various types of
ladders. Additionally, the proposed language is more concise than the
existing definitions of the term.
    Ladder safety system. This term means a device, other than a cage
or well, designed to eliminate or reduce the possibility of falls from
ladders. A ladder safety system usually consists of a carrier (the
track of flexible cable or rigid rail), safety sleeve (moving component
which travels on the carrier), lanyard, connectors, and body belt or
harness. The term ``ladder safety system'' is not used or defined in
existing OSHA standards; however, the synonymous term ``ladder safety
device'' is defined in existing construction industry standards for
fixed ladders at subpart X. The proposed definition is consistent with
the definition in the

national consensus standard applicable to fixed ladders, ANSI A14.3-
2002.
    Lower level. This term means an area to which an employee could
fall. Such areas include ground levels, floors, roofs, ramps, runways,
excavations, pits, tanks, materials, water, equipment, and similar
surfaces. This definition is consistent with that located in the
construction industry standards in subpart M.
    Manhole steps. This term means steps individually attached or set
into the walls of a manhole structure.
    Maximum intended load. This term (also referred to as the
``designed working load'') means the total load of all employees,
equipment, tools, materials, transmitted loads, and other loads
reasonably anticipated to be applied to a walking-working surface. It
is based on and consistent with the definition in the construction
industry standards in subpart M.
    Mobile. This term means manually propelled and/or movable. This is
a clarification of existing paragraph (g)(12) which simply defines the
term as ``manually propelled.'' The proposed definition is consistent
with ANSI A14.7-2006, Safety Requirements for Mobile Ladder Stands and
Mobile Ladder Stand Platforms, and facilitates the definition of the
next two terms. OSHA requests comment on whether the term ``mobile'' is
so common that defining it in the final rule is unnecessary.
    Mobile ladder stand. This term (also known as ``ladder stand'')
means a mobile, fixed-size, self-supporting ladder consisting of wide
flat treads in the form of steps accessing a top step. The assembly may
include handrails and is intended for use by one employee. This
definition is consistent with ANSI A14.7-2006, American National
Standard for Mobile Ladder Stands and Mobile Ladder Stand Platforms.
The definition for ladder stand in existing paragraph (g)(9) of Sec.
1910.21 has been incorporated into the proposed definition of ``mobile
ladder stand.''
    Mobile ladder stand platform. This term means a mobile fixed-
height, self-supporting unit having one or more standing levels,
provided with means of access to or egress from the platform or
platforms. This definition is consistent with ANSI A14.7-2006, American
National Standard for Mobile Ladder Stands and Mobile Ladder Stand
Platforms.
    Opening. This term means a gap or void 30 inches (76 cm) or more
high and 18 inches (46 cm) or more wide in any wall or partition
through which employees can fall to a lower level. This definition is
consistent with ANSI A10.18-1996, Safety Requirements for Temporary
Floor Holes, Wall Openings, Stairways and Other Unprotected Edges--
American National Standard for Construction and Demolition Operations,
and the construction industry standard at Sec.  1926.500, and would
replace existing paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(11) of Sec.  1910.21 that
defined ``floor opening'' and ``wall opening'' (see above discussion
under ``hole''). This is another area where the Agency would harmonize
construction and general industry regulations to make them more
understandable, thereby increasing compliance and employee safety.
    Platform. This term means a walking-working surface elevated above
the surrounding area. This definition is based on and consistent with
the construction industry standard at Sec.  1926.450(b), and would
replace existing definitions in paragraphs (a)(4) and (b)(4) of Sec.
1910.21.
    Portable ladder. This term means a ladder that can readily be moved
or carried and usually consists of side rails joined at intervals by
steps, rungs, cleats, or rear braces. The definition is identical to
ANSI A14.1-2000, American National Standard for Safety Requirements for
Portable Wood Ladders, ANSI A14.2-2000, American National Standard for
Ladders--Portable Metal--Safety Requirements, and ANSI A14.5-2000,
American National Standard for Safety Requirements for Portable
Reinforced Plastic Ladders.
    Qualified. This term describes a person who, by possession of a
recognized degree, certificate, or professional standing, or who by
extensive knowledge, training, and experience has successfully
demonstrated the ability to solve or resolve problems relating to the
subject matter, the work, or the project. This definition is consistent
with proposed subpart I, the shipyard employment standards, and the
construction industry standard in Sec.  1926.32.
    Qualified climber. This term means an employee engaged in outdoor
advertising work who, by virtue of physical capabilities, training,
work experience and job assignment, is authorized by the employer to
climb fixed ladders without using fall protection.
    Rope descent system. This term means a suspension device that
supports one employee in a chair (seat board) and allows the user to
descend in a controlled manner and to stop at any time at a desired
level of descent. A rope descent system is a variation of the single-
point adjustable suspension scaffold. It is also known as a controlled
descent device, controlled descent equipment, or controlled descent
apparatus. Existing subpart D does not regulate rope decent systems,
thus there is no existing definition for the term. The proposal, on the
other hand, contains new requirements for rope decent systems since
these are widely used in general industry. The proposed definition is
based on the national consensus standard ANSI/IWCA I-14.1-2007, Window
Cleaning Safety.
    Rung, step, or cleat. This term means, when used on a ladder, a
cross-piece on which a person may step to ascend or descend. The
proposed definition combines the existing definitions for rungs, steps,
and cleats.
    Runway. This term means a passageway for employees, elevated above
the surrounding floor or ground level, such as a catwalk, a foot walk
along shafting, or a walkway between buildings. The proposed definition
is consistent with the existing definition, and has been revised for
clarity.
    Safety factor. This term means the ratio of the design load and the
ultimate strength of the material.
    Scaffold. This term means any temporary elevated or suspended
platform, and its supporting structure, including points of anchorage,
used to support employees or materials or both. The term ``scaffold''
would not include crane or derrick suspended personnel platforms. This
term is consistent with Sec.  1926.450(b), and replaces the definitions
in existing paragraphs (f)(27) and (g)(15) of Sec.  1910.21.
    Ship stairs (ship ladders). This term means a stairway that is
equipped with treads and stair rails that has a slope between 50 and 70
degrees from the horizontal and has open risers. Ship stairs are also
called ``ship ladders.''
    Spiral stairway. This term means a stairway having a helical
(spiral) structure attached to a supporting pole.
    Stair rail or stair rail system. This term means a vertical barrier
(such as rails, decorative panels, and mesh) erected along open sides
of stairways to prevent employees from falling to lower levels. The top
surface of a stair rail system may also serve as a handrail. The
proposed definition would replace existing definitions in paragraphs
(a)(8), (b)(5), and (e)(5) of Sec.  1910.21.
    Standard stairs. This term means a permanently installed stairway.
Ship stairs, spiral stairs, and alternating tread-type stairs are not
standard stairs.
    Stepladder. This term means a self-supporting portable ladder, non-
adjustable in length, with flat steps and a hinged back. The definition
would replace those found in existing paragraphs (c)(2) and (d)(2) of
Sec.  1910.21

that also contain specifications for length measurements.
    Step bolt (pole step). This term means a bolt or rung attached at
intervals along a structural member and used for foot placement during
climbing or standing. Step bolts are also called ``pole steps.'' This
definition is consistent with the one found in Sec.  1910.269.
    Stepstool. This term means a self-supporting, foldable, portable
ladder, nonadjustable in length, 32 inches (81 cm) or less in overall
size, with flat steps and without a pail shelf, designed so that the
ladder top cap, as well as all steps, can be climbed on. The side rails
may continue above the top cap. This definition is consistent with ANSI
A14.2-2000.
    Through ladder. This term means a type of fixed ladder designed to
allow a person to get off at the top by stepping through the ladder to
reach a landing. The existing term found in Sec.  1910.21(e)(15) is
revised for clarity.
    Tieback. This term means an attachment from an anchorage (e.g.,
structural member) to a supporting device. This definition is
consistent with ANSI A10.8-2001, American National Standard for
Construction and Demolition Operations--Safety Requirements for
Scaffolding.
    Toeboard. This term means a low protective barrier that will
prevent the fall of materials and equipment to lower levels and provide
protection from falls for employees. This definition is consistent with
OSHA's construction industry standards at Sec.  1926.500(b), and is
consistent with, and would replace, the existing definition in Sec.
1910.21(a)(9), (f)(31), and (g)(16).
    Unprotected sides and edges. This term means any side or edge of a
walking-working surface (except at entrances to points of access) where
there is no wall or guardrail system at least 39 inches (99 cm) high.
This definition is consistent with Sec.  1926.500(b) and replaces the
phrase ``open-sided floors, platforms, and runways'' used in existing
Sec.  1910.23(c)(1).
    Walking-working surface. This term means any surface, horizontal or
vertical, on or through which an employee walks, works, or gains access
to a workplace location. Walking-working surfaces include, but are not
limited to, floors, stairs, steps, roofs, ladders, ramps, runways,
aisles, and step bolts.
Section 1910.22 General Requirements
    OSHA proposes to revise the existing requirements contained in
Sec.  1910.22, and introduce new requirements addressing general
hazards associated with all walking-working surfaces. The existing
requirements in Sec.  1910.22 address the scope of subpart D--
housekeeping, aisles and passageways, covers and guardrails, and floor
loading protection. Where language of the existing standards
appropriately addresses surface hazards, OSHA proposes to use that
language with editorial corrections as necessary. The revised
performance-oriented provisions are designed to eliminate detailed
specifications and facilitate compliance.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(1) requires that all places of employment,
passageways, storerooms, and service rooms be kept clean and orderly,
and in a sanitary condition. Proposed paragraph (a)(2) requires that
floors of workrooms be maintained in a clean and, so far as possible,
dry condition. It also requires that, where wet processes are used,
drainage be maintained, and false floors, platforms, mats, or other dry
standing places be provided when practicable. OSHA does not expect all
surfaces to be maintained in a pristine manner; however, surfaces must
be maintained in a condition that will prevent slips, trips, falls, and
other hazards. These two provisions are identical to existing Sec.
1910.22(a)(1) and (a)(2).
    Historically, OSHA interpreted these provisions as applying to
combustible-dust accumulations associated with fire and explosion
hazards. Regarding this interpretation, one court stated that ``the
housekeeping standard is not limited to tripping and falling hazards,
but may be applied to [a] significant accumulation of combustible
dust.'' Con Agra, Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Com'n,
672 F.2d 699, 702 (8th Cir. 1982), citing Bunge Corp. v. Secretary of
Labor, 638 F.2d 831, 834 (5th Cir. 1981), which reached the same
conclusion. (See, also, Farmer's Co-op, 1982 WL 2222661 (O.S.H.R.C.);
CTA Acoustics (KY 2003), CSB Report No. 2003-09-I-KY (February 2005);
Hayes Lemmerz Int'l (Indiana 2003), CSB Report No. 2004-01-I-IN
(September 2005).)
    As these cases show, Sec.  1910.22(a) serves as one of OSHA's most
important enforcement tools for preventing combustible-dust
accumulations, and it continues to be an important element of OSHA's
enforcement strategy for this hazard; see, e.g., ``Combustible Dust in
Industry: Preventing and Mitigating the Effects of Fire and
Explosion,'' OSHA Safety and Health Information Bulletin (SHIB) 07-31-
2005, (2005, July 31), available at http://www.osha.gov/dts/shib/
shib073105.html; ``Hazard Alert: Combustible Dust Explosions,'' OSHA
Fact Sheet (2008, March), available at http://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/
data_General_Facts/OSHAcombustibledust.pdf; and OSHA Compliance
Directive CPL-03-00-008, ``Combustible Dust National Emphasis
Program,'' (March 11, 2008), (replacing CPL 03-00-006, ``Combustible
Dust National Emphasis Program,'' October 18, 2007) available at http:/
/www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_
table=DIRECTIVES&p_id=3830.
    The Agency seeks comment on whether it should include an explicit
reference to combustible dust or other hazardous material in the
regulatory language of the final rule. This language would merely
clarify OSHA's long-held interpretation: That Sec.  1910.22(a) is not
limited to the hazards of slips, trips, and falls, but also addresses
any hazard that can be created when floors and work areas are not
maintained in an orderly, clean, dry, and sanitary condition.
Therefore, OSHA is seeking comment on the following questions: (1)
Should OSHA reference combustible dust in either paragraph (a)(1) or
(a)(2), or both; and (2) should OSHA reference other types of dust or
other materials? Please explain your answers.
    On December 27, 2007, in the notice of proposed rulemaking for
General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment (FR 72:72451), OSHA
used the following language in proposed Sec.  1915.81(d):

    The employer shall ensure that the floor or deck of every work
area shall be maintained, so far as practicable, in a dry condition.
Where wet processes are used, drainage shall be maintained and the
employer shall provide false floors, platforms, mats or other dry
standing places. Where this is not practicable, the employer shall
provide appropriate waterproof footgear, such as rubber overboots,
in accordance with Sec. 1915.152.

The Agency requests comment on whether it would be appropriate to use
similar language in place of that proposed in paragraph 1910.22(a)(2).
Furthermore, OSHA requests comment on the costs and benefits of this
alternative.
    In proposed paragraph (a)(3), OSHA requires employers to ensure
that all surfaces be designed, constructed, and maintained free of
recognized hazards that can result in death or serious injury to
employees. This requirement's performance language replaces the more
specific language in existing paragraph (a)(3) of Sec.  1910.22.
    Proposed paragraph (b) sets requirements for the application of
loads. Proposed paragraph (b)(1) requires employers to ensure that all
walking-working surfaces are designed, constructed, and maintained to
support

their maximum intended load. These surfaces include, for example,
platforms used with fixed ladders, and dockboards. Proposed paragraph
(b)(2) would prohibit exceeding the maximum intended load. Proposed
paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) would replace existing paragraphs (d)(1)
and (d)(2) of Sec.  1910.22, which addressed floor and roof load
limits. The intent of the proposed provisions is to ensure that
walking-working surfaces are strong enough to support loads placed on
them to protect employees from injury. The proposed language imposes
essentially the same burden as the existing rule, but has been reworded
for clarity and ease of understanding.
    Additionally, the proposed provisions do not continue the existing
requirement that employers post plates indicating load limits of the
building/structure. This information was posted to indicate how much
weight could safely be loaded onto a walking-working surface.
Currently, this information is available from building plans, and usage
and expected loads are taken into consideration when surfaces are
designed. The proposed requirement puts the burden on the employer to
ensure walking-working surfaces are strong enough to support any loads
placed on them. OSHA believes the proposed language provides adequate
protection to employees without the added burden on employers to gather
and post information.
    Proposed paragraph (c) requires employers to provide, and ensure
use of, a safe means of access and egress from one level to another.
This provision is patterned after a similar provision in the
construction industry standards. The proposed language clearly
expresses the Agency's intent--to ensure that employees are provided
with and use appropriate, suitable means (such as stairways, ladders,
or ramps) to go from one walking-working surface to another.
    Proposed paragraph (d) is new and addresses the maintenance and
repair of walking-working surfaces in general industry. Proposed
paragraph (d)(1) requires the employer to ensure through regular and
periodic inspection and maintenance that walking-working surfaces are
in a safe condition for employee use. Proposed paragraph (d)(2)
requires the employer to ensure that all hazardous conditions are
corrected, repaired, or guarded to prevent employee use until repairs
are made. Proposed paragraph (d)(3) requires that where hazardous
conditions may affect the structural integrity of the walking-working
surface, a qualified person must perform or supervise the maintenance
or repair of that surface.
    The intent of proposed paragraph (d) is to ensure that the
employer, or the employer's designee, monitors walking-working surfaces
to identify hazards that may lead to injury or death and to address
those hazards promptly. A qualified person must perform or supervise
the repair where hazards are of such a nature that the structural
integrity of the walking-working surface may be affected. While the
provision does not require the employer to develop an inspection
schedule, or keep records of inspections, it does require the employer
to ensure that inspections are conducted frequently enough so that
hazards are corrected in a timely manner.
    OSHA notes that the existing requirements in Sec.  1910.22(b) and
(c) are not retained in proposed subpart D because they duplicate
provisions in Sec.  1910.176, or the hazards are addressed elsewhere in
the proposed rule, such as in the fall protection section.
Section 1910.23 Ladders
    Proposed Sec.  1910.23 is a revision and consolidation of existing
ladder requirements in Sec. Sec.  1910.25, 1910.26, and 1910.27, that
regulate portable wooden, portable metal, and fixed ladders,
respectively. Many of these requirements are retained in the proposed
rule as OSHA believes they provide a reasonable and appropriate level
of safety. Some requirements are revised for reasons of clarity,
consistency, or to improve safety. Requirements common to all types of
ladders are located in proposed paragraph (b), General requirements.
Requirements specific to a particular type of ladder are located in
proposed paragraphs (c), Portable ladders, or (d), Fixed ladders.
Proposed paragraph (e) regulates mobile ladder stands and mobile ladder
stand platforms. The proposed requirements have been updated and
rewritten to be consistent with OSHA's construction industry ladder
standard and the national consensus standards, i.e., the ANSI A14
series for ladders.
    Throughout this proposal, OSHA uses performance language whenever
appropriate. However, in this section, a number of specifications are
proposed with regard to clearances and rung widths for ladders. OSHA
believes the specifications in this section, which are based upon human
factors engineering (Ex. OSHA-S041-2006-0666-0004), are necessary and
reflect the requirements of the ANSI A14 series for ladders.
Paragraph (a) Application
    Proposed paragraph (a) states that Sec.  1910.23 covers all ladders
used in general industry, except ladders that are designed into (an
integral part of) a machine or piece of equipment and ladders that are
used only for firefighting or rescue operations. OSHA recognizes that
it would not be reasonable or practicable to write standards for
ladders designed into a part of a machine or piece of equipment because
of variable design restrictions such as limited space and unlimited
equipment configurations. Therefore, OSHA is exempting such equipment
from specific ladder requirements. However, OSHA reminds employers that
any surface on which employees walk or work would still have to meet
the general requirements of proposed Sec.  1910.22.
    OSHA is also proposing to exempt ladders used in firefighting or
rescue operations because such ladders are used only in emergency
situations. The Agency notes that the primary concern expressed in the
design of some of those ladders, such as single-rail ladders, is for
fast placement and access. By contrast, this proposed paragraph focuses
on the need to protect employees who use ladders routinely, in non-
emergency situations. Therefore, given the circumstance in which
firefighting and rescue operations are conducted, OSHA believes that it
would be inappropriate to regulate firefighting and rescue ladders
under proposed Sec.  1910.23. When employees are members of a company
fire brigade they must be trained as required by Sec.  1910.156 in the
use of such ladders.
Paragraph (b) General Requirements for All Ladders
    As noted above, OSHA is consolidating some of the existing
requirements for portable and fixed ladders. Requirements that apply in
general to all types of ladders are included in paragraph (b), reducing
redundancy and enhancing consistency of ladder requirements.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(1) requires ladder rungs and steps to be
parallel, level, and uniformly spaced when the ladder is in position
for use. The proposed provision is consistent with and based upon
existing Sec.  1910.25(c)(2)(i)(b) for portable wood stepladders and
existing Sec.  1910.27(b)(1)(ii) for fixed ladders. The proposed
language is consistent with the construction industry standard at Sec.
1926.1053(a)(2).
    Proposed paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) provide spacing requirements
for rungs,

cleats, and steps. Spacing is measured between the center lines of the
rungs, cleats, and steps.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2) applies to all ladders except ladders in
elevator shafts and telecommunication towers. Proposed paragraph (b)(2)
permits flexibility in rung, step, and cleat spacing, as long as the
rungs are parallel, level, and uniformly spaced, as required in the
preceding paragraph. The proposed paragraph is a revision of
requirements in existing Sec.  1910.26(a)(1)(iii) which requires rungs
to be spaced 12 inches (30 cm) apart, and existing paragraphs Sec.
1910.25(c)(2)(i)(b) and Sec.  1910.27(b)(1)(ii), which require rungs to
be spaced not more than 12 inches (30 cm) apart. The proposed
provision, which permits spacing of not less than 10 nor more than 14
inches apart, is consistent with the construction industry standard at
Sec.  1926.1053(a)(3)(i). It will not require any change to ladders
that are already in compliance with the existing standard.
    An exception to the spacing requirement in proposed paragraph
(b)(2) of this section provides that rungs and steps on ladders in
elevator shafts must be spaced no less than 6 inches (15 cm) apart, nor
more than 16.5 inches (42 cm) apart, as measured along the ladder
siderails. Another exemption is provided for fixed ladders on
telecommunication towers which sets rung or step spacing at a maximum
of 18 inches (46 cm). These exceptions are necessary due to the space
restrictions in these areas. The latter part of the provision is
consistent with the existing requirements for rungs and steps in Sec.
1910.268(h)(2).
    Proposed paragraph (b)(3) requires rungs, cleats, and steps of
stepstools to be spaced between 8 inches (20 cm) and 12 inches (30 cm)
apart, as measured between center lines of the rungs, cleats, or steps.
There is no existing requirement regulating spacing on stepstools. OSHA
is proposing this requirement because it believes that stepstools are
routinely used in general industry and they should not be treated as
portable ladders. This provision is consistent with the construction
industry standard at Sec.  1926.1053(a)(3)(ii) and is based on the
national consensus standards ANSI A14.1-2000 and ANSI A14.2-2000. OSHA
believes that virtually all stepstools currently in use already meet
the proposed requirements.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(4) requires ladder rungs and steps to have a
minimum clear width of 11.5 inches (29 cm) for portable ladders and 16
inches (41 cm) for individual rung and fixed ladders. The proposal
consolidates existing requirements in Sec.  1910.25(c)(2)(i)(c), Sec.
1910.26(a)(2)(i), and Sec.  1910.27(b)(1)(iii). The proposed revision
is consistent with both the construction industry standard at Sec.
1926.1053(a)(4)(i) and (a)(4)(ii) and the national consensus standards
in the ANSI A14 series for ladders. A note to proposed paragraph (b)(4)
explains how to measure the width when a ladder safety system is used
on a fixed ladder. An exception to the provision is provided in
(b)(4)(i) for narrow rungs that are not designed to be stepped on, such
as those on the top end of fruit pickers' ladders.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(4)(ii) provides an exception for manhole
entry ladders that are supported by manhole openings, and requires that
they have rungs or steps with a clear width of at least 9 inches (23
cm). The width would increase the available climbing space for
employees to pass through the manhole opening.
    A final exception is provided in proposed paragraph (b)(4)(iii),
which permits rolling ladders used in the telecommunication industry to
have a minimum clear step or rung width of 8 inches (20 cm). This
provision has been moved, without change, from Sec.  1910.268(h)(5).
    Proposed paragraph (b)(5) prohibits wooden ladders from being
coated or covered with any material that may obscure structural
defects. For the purposes of this paragraph, OSHA does not consider
manufacturer-applied warning and informational labels to be coverings
that obscure structural defects. This requirement is consistent with
the construction industry standard at Sec.  1926.1053(a)(12) and
national consensus standard, ANSI A14.1-2000.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(6) requires that metal ladders be protected
against corrosion. For example, ladders may be made more corrosion
resistant by painting or the ladder may be made of a material that is
inherently corrosion-resistant. The proposed requirement is essentially
the same as existing requirements in Sec.  1910.26(a)(1) and Sec.
1910.27(b)(7)(i), which require employers to take some action to
protect against corrosion.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(7) requires ladder surfaces to be free of
puncture or laceration hazards. The proposed provision is a
consolidation of similar requirements found in existing Sec.
1910.25(b)(1)(i) and (c)(2)(i)(f), Sec.  1910.26(a)(1) and
(a)(3)(viii), and Sec.  1910.27(b)(1)(iv).
    Proposed paragraph (b)(8) requires that ladders be used only for
the purposes for which they were designed. This proposed requirement is
based on requirements applicable to portable wooden ladders in existing
Sec.  1910.25(d)(2) and portable metal ladders in existing Sec.
1910.26(c)(3)(vii). The intent of this requirement is to prohibit the
use of a ladder as a scaffold plank, gangway, material hoist, brace, or
other application unless it is designed for that application. The
intent of the proposed paragraph is not to prohibit employees from
working while on ladders, for example, performing painting activities
while on a ladder. OSHA believes the requirement is reasonable for all
ladders, and no additional burden is anticipated.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(9) requires ladders to be inspected before
use to identify any visible defects that could cause employee injury.
This requirement is essentially the same as requirements in existing
Sec.  1910.25(d)(1)(x) for portable wooden ladders and Sec.  1910.27(f)
for fixed ladders. It is also consistent with requirements in the ANSI
A14 series national consensus standards for ladders.
    OSHA's intent is that a short visual inspection of the ladder be
made to ensure that it is properly set up and safe to use. The
inspection may include such things as checking for firm footing,
engagement of spreader or locking devices (if so equipped) and missing
or damaged components of the ladder. OSHA does not expect a ladder to
be inspected multiple times per work shift, unless there is a reason to
believe a ladder may have been damaged due to an event such as being
dropped. After the employee is trained to inspect ladders (see Sec.
1910.30, Training) the actual inspection process could be accomplished
as the employee sets up, approaches, or climbs the ladder.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(10) requires ladders with structural or
other defects to be tagged ``Do Not Use'' or with similar language, in
accordance with Sec.  1910.145. It also requires the ladder to be
removed from service until repaired, in accordance with Sec.
1910.22(d), or replaced. This proposed paragraph is a consolidation and
editorial revision of existing requirements in Sec.  1910.25(d)(1),
Sec.  1910.26(c)(2), and Sec.  1910.27(b).
    Proposed paragraphs (b)(11), (b)(12), and (b)(13), together, enable
employees to climb ladders safely by using proper climbing techniques
and prohibiting employers from permitting employees to carry materials
that would prevent them from having both hands free to hold onto the
ladder. The proposed paragraphs are consistent with the construction
industry standards at Sec.  1926.1053(b)(20), (b)(21), and (b)(22),

and generally consistent with the ANSI A14 series consensus standards
for ladders. OSHA's intent is for employers to ensure that employees
maintain three points of contact with the ladder when ascending or
descending. (Please note this requirement only addresses the act of
moving up or down a ladder, not working from a ladder.)
Paragraph (c) Portable Ladders
    Proposed paragraph (c) sets specific, additional requirements for
portable ladders. OSHA proposes to: (1) Remove many existing paragraphs
that contain detailed specifications for the design and construction of
portable ladders, and (2) no longer address special-purpose ladders,
such as painter's stepladders and mason's ladders, in individual
paragraphs. In this rulemaking, OSHA uses performance-oriented
language, where possible.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(1) requires that rungs and steps of portable
metal ladders be corrugated, knurled, dimpled, coated with skid-
resistant material, or otherwise treated to minimize the possibility of
slipping. This provision is nearly identical to existing Sec.  1910.26
(a)(1)(v), and has been editorially changed for clarity.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(2) requires that each stepladder or any
combination ladder that is used in a stepladder mode be designed with a
metal spreader or locking device to hold the front and back sections
securely in an open position while in use. This requirement has been
changed for clarity and is consistent with existing requirements in
Sec.  1910.25(c)(2)(i)(f) and Sec.  1910.26(a)(3)(viii).
    Proposed paragraph (c)(3) prohibits loading ladders beyond the
maximum intended load for which they were designed and tested, or
beyond the manufacturer's rated capacity. The maximum intended load, as
defined in proposed paragraph Sec.  1910.21(b), includes the weight of
the worker and all tools and supplies carried. Manufactured ladders are
designed, tested, and in most cases, load-rated and labeled.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(4) requires that ladders be used only on
stable and level surfaces unless the ladders are secured or stabilized
to prevent accidental displacement. The proposed paragraph replaces
similar language in existing Sec.  1910.25(d)(2)(iii) and Sec.
1910.26(c)(3)(iii) and is consistent with the construction industry
standard at Sec.  1926.1053(b)(6) and ANSI A14.1-2000.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(5) prohibits the use of portable single-rail
ladders. The provision is consistent with the construction industry
ladder standard at Sec.  1926.1053(b)(19). In the preamble to the final
rule of that standard (55 FR 47681, November 14, 1990), OSHA said it
was prohibiting their use because it believed ``that single-rail
ladders are inherently difficult to use and hazardous because of their
instability * * *.'' OSHA believes that single rail ladders are also
unsafe in general industry.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(6) is new and requires that ladders not be
moved, shifted, or extended while occupied by an employee. Moving a
ladder while it is occupied is unsafe, whether an employee on a ladder
``hops'' with the ladder in a lateral direction, or a ladder is
extended or moved laterally by one employee while occupied by another.
This is identical to the construction industry requirement at Sec.
1926.1053(b)(11).
    Proposed paragraph (c)(7) requires that ladders placed in any
location where they can be displaced by other activities or by traffic,
such as ladders used in passageways, doorways, or driveways, be secured
to prevent accidental displacement unless a temporary barricade, such
as a row of traffic cones, is used to keep the activities or traffic
away from the ladder. The proposed paragraph is clearer than existing
Sec.  1910.25(d)(2)(iv) and identical to the existing construction
industry requirement at Sec.  1926.1053(b)(8).
    Proposed paragraph (c)(8) is an editorial revision of existing
Sec.  1910.25(d)(2)(xii) which prohibits the top of a stepladder from
being used as a step because it may decrease stability.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(9) prohibits the use of a non-self-
supporting ladder on slippery surfaces unless it is secured and
stabilized to prevent accidental displacement. This paragraph is
consistent with existing requirements in Sec.  1910.25(d)(2)(i) and the
construction industry standard at Sec.  1926.1053(b)(7). It is based
upon ANSI A14.1-2000.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(10) requires the top of a non-self-
supporting ladder be placed with the two rails supported unless it is
equipped with a single support attachment. Such an attachment is
designed to provide greater stability. This is consistent with the
existing requirement in Sec.  1910.26(c)(3)(iv) and the construction
industry standard at Sec.  1926.1053(b)(10).
    Proposed paragraph (c)(11) requires that when portable ladders are
used to gain access to an upper landing surface, the ladder side rails
must extend at least 3 feet (0.9 m) above that upper landing surface.
This additional length enables an employee to hold onto the ladder
while stepping from the ladder onto the upper landing surface,
providing safer access. The proposed paragraph is consistent with the
existing requirement in Sec.  1910.25(d)(2)(xv) and ANSI A14.1-2000.
OSHA notes that after-market ladder extensions, such as walk-through
railing systems, may be used to increase the length of a ladder to meet
this requirement. When the ladder's top rung is level with or slightly
below the upper landing surface, and the rail extensions are securely
attached (that is, secured to the extent necessary to stabilize the
extension and not expose the employee to a falling hazard from the
extension's displacement), the rail extensions would be considered part
of the ladder itself. The use of ladder extensions would also have to
meet the requirements of proposed (c)(14) of this section which states
that ladders shall not have their reach increased by other means unless
specifically designed for the application.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(12) requires that when work is performed on
or near electrical circuits, the work practice requirements of subpart
S, Electrical, apply to protect against electrical hazards. The
proposed requirement is essentially the same as existing Sec.
1910.26(c)(3)(viii).
    Proposed paragraph (c)(13) prohibits ladders and ladder sections
from being tied or fastened together to provide a longer length unless
they are specifically designed for such use. The proposed provision is
essentially the same as existing Sec.  1910.26(c)(3)(vi), and is
intended to prevent employees from using unsafe rigging methods.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(14) prohibits ladders and ladder sections
from having their reach increased by other means (for example, placing
a box under a ladder), unless the length extension is specifically
designed for the application. This proposed requirement replaces
existing Sec.  1910.25(d)(2)(v), which explicitly lists boxes and
barrels, with more general language. This proposed paragraph is
consistent with the ANSI A14 series consensus standards.
Paragraph (d) Fixed Ladders
    In paragraph (d), OSHA proposes to revise existing Sec.  1910.27 to
eliminate unnecessary, overly specific requirements and to clarify and
update others. To assist in compliance, OSHA has included figures D-2
through D-5 in the regulatory language.
    In paragraph (d)(1), OSHA proposes that fixed ladders be capable of
supporting their maximum intended load. This provision replaces the
current specification requirement with a more

general performance requirement. The Agency requests comment on whether
the existing provisions should be maintained in lieu of the proposed
requirement.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(2) would apply to new installations,
requiring that fixed ladders installed on or after the effective date
of the final rule be designed, constructed, and maintained as proposed
in (d)(2)(i) and (ii).
    Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(i) requires that fixed ladders be capable
of supporting at least two live loads of at least 250 pounds (113 kg)
each, concentrated between any two consecutive attachments, as well as
anticipated loads caused by ice buildup, winds, rigging, and impact
loads (e.g., impact load resulting from an employee falling onto the
ladder). If it is anticipated that the ladder will be used by more than
two employees simultaneously, then the number and position of
additional concentrated live loads of 250 pounds (113 kg) must also be
included in determining the capabilities of fixed ladders. Proposed
paragraph (d)(2)(ii) requires that each step or rung be capable of
supporting at least a single concentrated load of 250 pounds (113 kg)
applied in the middle of the step or rung.
    OSHA proposes the two provisions in (d)(2)(i) and (d)(2)(ii) as a
replacement for existing requirements in Sec.  1910.27(a)(1)(i) to
(iv). Existing Sec.  1910.27(a)(1)(i) requires the ladder to support
only a single concentrated load of 200 pounds, whereas the proposal
requires the ladder to support greater loads. The proposal is
consistent with the national consensus standard, ANSI A14.3-2002, and
OSHA's construction industry standard at Sec.  1926.1053(a)(1)(iii).
The Agency notes that the ANSI requirement, which is based on loads of
250 pounds (113 kg), reflects OSHA's belief that 250 pounds (113 kg) is
the average weight of an employee with tools.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(3) requires that the minimum perpendicular
distance from the centerline of the steps and rungs, or grab bars, or
both, to the nearest permanent object in back of the ladder be 7 inches
(18 cm), except in the case of an elevator pit ladder, for which a
minimum perpendicular clearance of 4.5 inches (11 cm) is required. In
addition, the employer must ensure that grab bars do not protrude on
the climbing side beyond the rungs of the ladder which they serve. The
proposed requirement is a revision of existing Sec.  1910.27(c)(4) and
(c)(5) in which OSHA has removed the language that allows for a
reduction of the minimum clearance to account for unavoidable
obstructions. As OSHA stated in the final rule to the construction
industry standard, ``[it] believes that, in general, the minimum
clearance requirement is necessary, regardless of any obstructions, so
that employees can get safe footholds on ladders.'' (55 FR 47675.) This
change is consistent with the most recent edition of the pertinent
provisions of the national consensus standard, ANSI A14.3-2002, as well
as the construction industry standard at Sec.  1926.1053(a)(13).
    Proposed paragraphs (d)(4) through (d)(8) address ladder extensions
and grab bars. To provide safe transition from a fixed ladder to a
landing surface, fixed ladders (except those at the top of manholes)
must extend above the access or egress level or landing platform either
by the continuation of the rungs for use as horizontal grab bars or by
providing vertical grab bars. Proposed paragraph (d)(4) requires side
rails of through or side-step ladders to extend 42 inches (1.1 m) above
the top of the access level or landing platform served by the ladder.
For a parapet ladder, the access level must be the roof if the parapet
is cut to permit passage through the parapet; if the parapet is
continuous, the access level must be the top of the parapet.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(5) requires the steps or rungs of through
ladder extensions to be omitted from the extensions. In addition, the
extensions of the side rails must be flared to provide not less than 24
inches (61 cm) nor more than 30 inches (76 cm) clearance between side
rails. Where ladder safety systems are provided, the maximum clearance
between side rails of the extensions must not exceed 36 inches (91 cm).
Proposed paragraph (d)(6) requires the side rails and the steps or
rungs of side-step ladders to be continuous in the extension.
    The proposed requirements in (d)(4), (d)(5), and (d)(6) are a
revision and update of the existing requirement at Sec.  1910.27(d)(3).
The proposed provisions are consistent with OSHA's construction
industry standard at Sec. Sec.  1926.1053(a)(24) through (a)(26) and
with the national consensus standard, ANSI A14.3-2002.
    Proposed paragraphs (d)(7) and (d)(8) specify criteria for grab
bars. The proposed requirements are consistent with existing Sec.
1910.27(d)(4), but are editorially revised for clarity.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(9) addresses ladders that terminate at hatch
covers. The proposed provision requires that the opening be large
enough for the employee to pass and that it be counterbalanced to
remain open, thus preventing accidental closure. The proposed
requirement replaces the overly specific provision of existing Sec.
1910.27(c)(7) and is consistent with similar provisions in the national
consensus standard, ANSI A14.3-2002.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(10) requires fixed individual rung ladders
to be constructed to prevent the employee's feet from sliding off the
end. This requirement replaces existing Sec.  1910.27(b)(1)(v) and is
consistent with the construction industry standard at Sec.
1926.1053(a)(5).
    Proposed paragraph (d)(11) prohibits the use of fixed ladders
having a pitch greater than 90 degrees from the horizontal. The
proposed provision is a revision of the existing requirements in Sec.
1910.27(d)(1) through (d)(4). The existing requirements are overly
specific and complex, whereas the proposed provisions are easier to
understand.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(12) addresses the step-across distance from
the centerline of the steps or rungs of a fixed ladder. Proposed
paragraph (d)(12)(i) requires that the step-across distance for through
ladders be between 7 inches (18 cm) and 12 inches (30 cm) to the
nearest edge of the structure, building, or equipment accessed.
Proposed paragraph (d)(12)(ii) requires that the step-across distance
be between 15 inches (38 cm) and 20 inches (51 cm), measured from the
centerline of the ladder, at the point of access and egress to a
platform edge for side-step ladders. (See Figure D-2.) The proposed
provisions are based on existing Sec.  1910.27(c)(6), which address the
step-across distances for all fixed ladders. In the proposal, OSHA
addresses step-across distances for through ladders and side-step
ladders separately. OSHA believes the revised language allows greater
flexibility and provides the same degree of safety. It is also
consistent with the construction industry standard at Sec.
1926.1053(a)(16) and the national consensus standard for fixed ladders,
ANSI A14.3-2002.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(13) addresses fixed ladders without cages or
wells. Proposed paragraph (d)(13)(i) requires ladders without cages or
wells to have a clear width of at least 15 inches (38 cm) on each side
of the centerline of the ladder to the nearest permanent object to
allow safe climbing clearance (see Figure D-2). This proposed provision
revises existing Sec.  1910.27(c)(2) for clarity. It is also consistent
with the construction industry standard at Sec.  1926.1053(a)(17) and
the national consensus standard for fixed ladders, ANSI 14.3-2002.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(13)(ii) requires a minimum perpendicular
distance of 30 inches (76 cm) from the

center line of the steps and rungs to the nearest object on the
climbing side to allow safe climbing clearance. This proposed provision
would replace a number of specifications found at existing Sec.
1910.27(c)(1) for clearance distances based on the pitch of the ladder.
The proposed language removes the overly detailed information and
establishes a single, minimum clearance distance regardless of pitch.
This proposed provision is consistent with the construction industry
standard at Sec.  1926.1053(a)(14) and the national consensus standard
for fixed ladders, ANSI A14.3-2002. An exception is permitted when
unavoidable obstructions on the climbing side of a fixed ladder are
encountered. The minimum clearance then may be reduced to 24 inches (61
cm), as long as deflector plates are provided to protect the employee's
head. A similar exception may be found in existing Sec.  1910.27(c)(7)
and its accompanying Figure D-5. This proposed paragraph is consistent
with the construction industry standard at Sec.  1926.1053(a)(15) and
national consensus standard, ANSI A14.3-2002.
    Paragraph (d) ends with a note stating that the duty to provide
fall protection for employees working on fixed ladders is found at