proposed Sec.  1910.28 and the criteria for such fall protection
systems is found at proposed Sec.  1910.29.
Paragraph (e) Mobile Ladder Stands and Mobile Ladder Stand Platforms
(Mobile Ladder Stands and Platforms)
    Proposed paragraph (e) covers mobile ladder stands and mobile
ladder stand platforms (mobile ladder stands and platforms). The
proposed design requirements are a performance language revision of the
design specifications provided in existing paragraphs (a) and (f) of
Sec.  1910.29. All of the requirements proposed in this paragraph are
consistent with the consensus standard, ANSI A14.7-2006.
    Proposed paragraph (e)(1) addresses general design requirements for
mobile ladder stands and platforms. Proposed paragraph (e)(1)(i)
requires mobile ladder stands and platforms to have a step width of at
least 16 inches (41 cm). Proposed paragraph (e)(1)(ii) requires steps,
standing levels, and platforms of mobile ladder stands and platforms be
provided with a slip-resistant surface. This surface may be an integral
part of the structure or may be provided by a durable, secondary
process or operation, e.g., dimpling, knurling, shot-blasting, coating,
metal spraying, or slip-resistant tape. These requirements provide
employees with a reasonable level of safe footing.
    The next two proposed paragraphs are important to the stability of
the unit and the balance of the employee using it. Proposed paragraph
(e)(1)(iii) requires that wheels or casters, when under load, be
designed to support their proportional share of four times the rated
load, plus the proportional share of the unit's weight. This
requirement is consistent with the existing provision at Sec.
1910.29(a)(4).
    Proposed paragraph (e)(1)(iv) requires mobile ladder stands and
platforms, which use wheels or casters, to be equipped with a system to
impede horizontal movement. This proposed provision is written in
performance language, replacing the existing specification requirements
in Sec.  1910.29(a)(4).
    Proposed paragraph (e)(1)(v) requires that the maximum work surface
heights of mobile ladder stands and platforms not exceed four times the
least base dimension without additional support. When greater heights
are needed to prevent toppling, outriggers, counterweights, or
comparable means must be used to maintain this minimum base ratio. The
proposed paragraph would replace similar existing requirements in Sec.
1910.29(a)(3)(i) and (f)(2).
    Proposed paragraph (e)(1)(vi) requires mobile ladder stands and
platforms to be capable of supporting at least four times their
intended load. This proposed paragraph replaces a similar requirement
in existing Sec.  1910.29(f)(5), which requires a safety factor of
four.
    Proposed paragraph (e)(1)(vii) prohibits moving mobile ladder
stands and platforms when occupied. This new requirement is based on
the national consensus standard ANSI A14.7-2006, and is intended to
prevent employees from falling from a mobile ladder stand or platform
when it is being moved. When the additional weight of an employee is
added to the top of a unit, the center of gravity is raised and the
unit is less stable than when there is no weight on it. Also, an
employee may lose his or her balance when a unit moves suddenly, or
when simply riding on a unit.
    Proposed paragraph (e)(2) addresses design requirements for mobile
ladder stands. Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(i) requires that steps be
uniformly spaced and arranged with a rise of not more than 10 inches
(25 cm), and a depth of not less than 7 inches (18 cm). The slope of
the step stringer (inclined side step support) to which the steps are
attached must not be more than 60 degrees measured from the horizontal.
This proposed paragraph is essentially the same as existing Sec.
1910.29(f)(3) except that the existing provision requires the slope of
the steps section to be a minimum of 55 degrees, and a maximum of 60
degrees, measured from the horizontal.
    Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(ii) requires all ladder stands with a top
step height between 4 and 10 feet (1.2 m and 3 m) to be provided with
handrails having a vertical height of 29.5 inches (75 cm) to 37 inches
(94 cm) as measured from the front edge of a step. The use of removable
gates or non-rigid members, such as chains, is permitted for special
use applications. This proposed requirement is essentially the same as
the existing provision at Sec.  1910.29(f)(4)(ii), except that the
existing requirement does not set a maximum height.
    Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(iii) requires all ladder stands with a
top step over 10 feet high (3 m) to have the top step protected on
three sides by a handrail that has a vertical height of at least 36
inches (91 cm). The use of removable gates or non-rigid members such as
chains is permitted for special use applications. Top steps that are 20
inches (51 cm) or more, front to back, must be provided with a midrail
and toeboard.
    Proposed paragraphs (e)(2)(ii) and (e)(2)(iii) replace existing
paragraph Sec.  1910.29(f)(4)(i), which requires units to be equipped
with handrails when they have more than five (5) steps or measure 5
feet (1.5 m) in vertical height to the top step. This provision ensures
employees have a handhold to prevent falling while they climb.
    Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(iv) is new and requires the standing
areas of mobile ladder stands to be within the base frame. This
requirement enhances the stability of the unit by keeping the center of
gravity within the base frame, thus reducing the chance of tipping.
    Proposed paragraph (e)(3) addresses design requirements for mobile
ladder stand platforms. Proposed paragraph (e)(3)(i) requires steps on
a ladder stand platform to conform to paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this
section. An exception to this requirement is provided when the employer
demonstrates that conforming to paragraph (e)(2)(i) is not practicable.
Steeper slopes or vertical ladders may be used, provided the unit is
stabilized to prevent its overturning. OSHA realizes that in a few
applications the steps to a mobile ladder stand platform may have to be
greater than the required 60 degree maximum prescribed in proposed
paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this paragraph. OSHA does not seek to prohibit
the use of such units; however, this exception acknowledges that need
and still provides for employee safety.

    Proposed paragraph (e)(3)(ii) requires all mobile ladder stand
platforms with a platform height between 4 feet and 10 feet (1.2 m and
3 m) to be provided with handrails having a vertical height of 29.5
inches (75 cm) to 37 inches (94 cm) measured from the front edge of a
step. Handrails in the platform area are required to have a vertical
height of at least 36 inches (91 cm) and include a midrail to protect
employees from the fall hazard. This requirement is a clarification of
the general provision found in proposed Sec.  1910.29(b)(1). The use of
removable gates or non-rigid members, such as chains, is permitted for
special-use applications. This proposed requirement is essentially the
same as the existing provision at Sec.  1910.29(f)(4)(ii), except the
existing requirement does not set a maximum height. OSHA is proposing a
maximum height in accordance with anthropomorphic studies (Ex. OSHA-
S041-2006-0666-0004).
    Proposed paragraph (e)(3)(iii) requires all mobile ladder stand
platforms with a platform height of over 10 feet (3 m) to have
guardrails and toeboards provided on the exposed sides and ends of the
platform. The use of removable gates or non-rigid members, such as
chains, would be permitted for special-use applications. Toeboards
prevent objects from falling onto employees who may be below the unit.
The requirements in proposed paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3) are based on
ANSI A14.7-2006, American National Standard for Mobile Ladder Stands
and Mobile Ladder Stand Platforms.
Section 1910.24 Step Bolts and Manhole Steps
    Proposed Sec.  1910.24 establishes requirements for step bolts and
manhole steps. Step bolts and manhole steps are used in the
telecommunications industry, gas and electric utility industries, and
some large manufacturing plants, usually in lieu of conventional
ladders (e.g., fixed ladders). While the Agency has a number of
requirements addressing ladders, those requirements are not
consistently or directly applicable to step bolts and manhole steps.
For this reason OSHA is proposing requirements that address the design,
capacity, and strength of step bolts and manhole steps. OSHA believes
that these requirements provide for the safe use of this equipment. The
provisions include the general requirements in existing Sec.
1910.268(h) for pole steps and manhole ladders. Pole steps (normally
used on wooden utility poles) and step bolts (normally used on metal
poles or towers) are covered jointly under the proposed provisions for
step bolts, and are based upon provisions in Sec.  1910.268,
Telecommunications, and the national consensus standards, American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) C 478-07, Standard
Specification for Precast Reinforced Concrete Manhole Sections, and
ANSI/TIA/EIA 222G-1996 and 2006, Structural Standard for Antenna
Supporting Structures and Antennas.
    OSHA recognizes that many workplaces already have step bolts or
manhole steps installed, and that it could be unreasonably disruptive
and burdensome to require employers to retrofit those bolts and steps
to comply with certain provisions of the proposed standard. Therefore,
OSHA is proposing certain design changes to step bolts and manhole
steps on new installations performed 90 days after the standard's
effective date. These proposed provisions are described individually
below.
    As part of this proposal, OSHA is removing the requirements in
Sec.  1910.268(h), and instead requiring that the telecommunications
industry comply with the provisions for ladders, step bolts, and
manhole steps in subpart D. Additionally, as per Sec.  1910.269
(Electric power generation, transmission, and distribution), ladders,
step bolts, and manhole steps used in the electric power industry must
meet the requirements of subpart D. Therefore, OSHA is proposing Sec.
1910.24 as the minimum requirements necessary to ensure the safety of
employees climbing and descending step bolts and manhole steps. These
provisions are essentially the same as those in the 1990 proposed rule
(55 FR 13360).
    The rules in proposed Sec.  1910.24 are performance-based where
possible. For example, proposed paragraph Sec.  1910.24(a)(6) sets
performance-based strength requirements that do not specify the types
or sizes of materials that must be used. Where dimensions are
specified, such as in paragraphs (b)(2)(iii) and (b)(2)(iv), they are
based on anthropometrics, existing Sec.  1910.268, and current industry
practices and standards, such as the national consensus standard, ASTM
C 478-07.
Paragraph (a) Step Bolts
    Proposed paragraph (a) addresses the design, capacity, and use of
step bolts. Proposed paragraph (a)(1) requires that all step bolts
installed on or after the effective date of the final rule that are
used in corrosive environments be constructed of, or coated with, a
material that will retard corrosion of the step or bolt. This is
important to protect against deterioration, and the resultant weakening
of the step bolt.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(2) requires step bolts to be designed to
prevent the employee's foot from slipping or sliding off the end of the
step bolt, which could contribute to a fall.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(3) requires step bolts to be spaced
uniformly, 12 inches (30 cm) minimum center to center, alternately
spaced, and an 18 inches (46 cm) maximum spacing. To assist in
compliance, OSHA has included figure D-6 in the proposed regulatory
text. The proposed paragraph matches existing Sec.  1910.268(h)(2) and
the 1996 version of ANSI/EIA/TIA 222, both of which allow step bolts to
be spaced as much as 18 inches (46 cm) apart, 36 inches (91 cm) on any
one side. An exception to this requirement permits the spacing from the
entry and exit surface to the first step bolt to be different from the
spacing between the other step bolts. This exception allows the height
of the entry or exit surface to be modified without necessitating the
reinstallation of all the step bolts.
    OSHA notes that the 2006 version of ANSI/EIA/TIA 222 specifies that
the center to center spacing between alternately spaced step bolts be
10 inches (25 cm) minimum and 16 inches (41 cm) maximum as opposed to
the 12- and 18-inch (30 and 46 cm) requirements of the proposal. The
Agency requests comment on whether to adopt the language of the 2006
ANSI/EIA/TIA standard.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(4) requires that the minimum clear width of
each step bolt be 4.5 inches (11 cm). Proposed paragraph (a)(5)
requires the minimum perpendicular distance between the centerline of
the step bolt to the nearest permanent object in back of the bolt to be
at least 7 inches (18 cm). Where obstructions cannot be avoided, toe
clearances may be reduced to 4.5 inches (11 cm). Both of these
provisions ensure there is adequate room both on and behind the step
bolt to enable the employee to stand securely.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(6) requires step bolts installed before the
effective date of the final rule to be capable of supporting their
maximum intended load. All walking-working surfaces must be capable of
supporting employees and equipment, without failure. The proposed
language of (a)(6) ``grandfathers,'' or allows the continued use of,
existing step bolts that are capable of supporting their maximum
intended load.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(7) requires each step bolt installed on or
after the effective date of the final rule to be

capable of supporting, without failure, at least four times its maximum
intended load. OSHA believes that this requirement is necessary to
provide a safety factor to ensure that step bolts do not fail during
use. Common engineering practice demands that a safety factor be
provided in any product design to account for any unanticipated factors
that may stress the product beyond its designed capabilities. OSHA's
understanding is that a \5/8\-inch (1.6-cm) diameter steel step bolt is
normally expected to meet this requirement, and step bolts of this size
are currently used in the industry.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(8) requires step bolts to be visually
inspected before each use and to be maintained in accordance with
proposed Sec.  1910.22. This provision reinforces the necessity to meet
the general requirements of all walking-working surfaces. As with the
requirements in proposed Sec.  1910.22, this visual inspection is not
intended to be burdensome, and can be performed as the employee climbs
the unit.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(9) requires step bolts that are bent more
than 15 degrees from the perpendicular to be removed and replaced with
bolts that meet the requirements of this section. The proposed
requirement is intended to apply to displacement in any direction the
bolt may be bent. The intent of this provision is to replace bolts that
are bent to such a degree that an employee's foot may slip or slide off
the end of the step bolt, which may cause an employee to fall.
Paragraph (b) Manhole Steps
    Proposed paragraph (b) addresses the design, capacity, and use of
manhole steps. Proposed paragraph (b)(1) requires manhole steps
installed before the effective date of the final rule to be capable of
supporting their maximum intended load. The proposed language
``grandfathers,'' or allows the continued use of, existing manhole
steps. Under proposed Sec.  1910.22(b), employers would be obligated to
ensure that all walking-working surfaces are designed, constructed, and
maintained to support their maximum intended load. This provision is
consistent with the requirements in existing Sec.  1910.268(h) that
address steps in manholes used in the telecommunications industry.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2) sets requirements for the design of
manhole steps. The requirements apply to manhole steps installed on or
after the effective date of the final rule. Proposed paragraph
(b)(2)(i) requires that all manhole steps be provided with slip-
resistant surfaces such as corrugated, knurled, or dimpled surfaces.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(ii) requires all manhole steps that are
used in corrosive environments to be constructed of, or coated with, a
material that will retard corrosion of the step. This corrosion
resistance will help prevent deterioration that can lead to failure of
the manhole step, which may cause the employee to fall.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(iii) requires that manhole steps have a
minimum clear step width of 10 inches (25 cm). Proposed paragraph
(b)(2)(iv) requires that steps be spaced uniformly, not more than 16
inches (41 cm) apart. As in proposed paragraph (a)(3) above, an
exception to this requirement permits the spacing from the entry and
exit surface to the first manhole step to be different from the spacing
between the other steps. This exception allows for the height of the
entry or exit surface to be modified without necessitating the
reinstallation of the entire set of manhole steps.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(v) would require manhole steps to have a
minimum perpendicular distance between the centerline of the manhole
step to the nearest permanent object in back of the step of at least
4.5 inches (11 cm). Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(vi) requires the steps be
designed to prevent the employee's foot from slipping or sliding off
the end of the manhole step, which may result in a fall.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(3) requires manhole steps to be visually
inspected before each use and maintained in accordance with proposed
Sec.  1910.22. The purpose of the inspection is to ensure that no
manhole steps are damaged or missing. This proposed paragraph is
essentially a restatement of the requirements in proposed Sec.  1910.22
for inspecting and maintaining walking-working surfaces. The visual
inspection is expected to take only a few seconds before use of each
step.
Section 1910.25 Stairways
    Proposed Sec.  1910.25 provides stairway design and installation
criteria. This proposed section combines, clarifies, and updates
existing requirements, and adds new provisions for stairs and
stairways. The majority of the requirements for this section are
derived from existing Sec.  1910.24, Fixed industrial stairs, and are
consistent with American National Standard Institute (ANSI) A1264.1-
2007, Safety Requirements for Workplace Walking/Working Surfaces and
Their Access; Workplace, Floor, Wall and Roof Openings; Stairs and
Guardrail Systems, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 101-
2006, Life Safety Code, and the International Code Council's (ICC's)
International Building Code ICC-2003.
    On March 28, 2002, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
published a request for comment regarding the ``Draft Report to
Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations'' (67 FR
15014), specifically requesting nominations of rules and regulations in
need of reform. In response to this request, the Copper and Brass
Fabricators Council (CBFC) (Ex. 3) identified OSHA's subpart D as in
need of revision to permit use of ship and spiral stairs. Specifically,
CBFC requested that OSHA revise its existing rule in Sec.  1910.24(b),
which requires fixed stairs (referred to as standard stairs in this
proposal) and prohibits spiral stairs except for special limited use
and secondary access situations where it is not practical to provide a
conventional stairway. CBFC suggested that OSHA revise this standard to
permit the installation and use of ship stairs and spiral stairs in
more circumstances. In the earlier rulemaking (1990), OSHA had proposed
to allow more flexibility in the use of these stairs. In this proposed
rule, OSHA would permit the installation of spiral, ship, and
alternating tread-type stairs for limited secondary use where it is not
practical to provide a standard stairway and provides design criteria
for them. Provisions to prevent employees from falling from unprotected
sides or edges of stairway landings are provided in proposed Sec.
1910.28, Duty to have fall protection.
Paragraph (a) General Requirements
    Proposed paragraph (a) contains general requirements applicable to
all stairways. In this proposed rule, the Agency is using the term
``standard stairs'' in place of the term ``fixed industrial stairs''
which is used in the existing standard. OSHA has used the term ``fixed
industrial stair'' since 1971 because the term was used in the national
consensus standard ANSI A64.1-1968 (now ANSI A1264.1-2007) that
prescribed requirements for them. OSHA believes the term ``standard
stairs'' is clearer and easier to understand and therefore is proposing
to use the new term. The Agency is proposing to define the term
``standard stairs'' to mean a permanently installed stairway and to
make it clear that ship stairs, spiral stairs, and alternating tread-
type stairs are not standard stairs.
    OSHA's proposed change in terminology is consistent with current
industry codes and standards that use the terms ``standard stairs,''
``stairways,'' and ``fixed stairs'' interchangeably. The Life Safety
Code (NFPA 101-2006)

includes requirements for ``standard stairs'' that are similar to
OSHA's requirements for ``fixed industrial stairs,'' but does not
define ``standard stairs.'' The International Building Code (IBC-2003)
defines ``stairways,'' but not ``fixed'' or ``standard stairs,'' and
also includes requirements similar to OSHA's for ``fixed industrial
stairs.'' The consensus standard ANSI A1264.1-2007 uses the term
``fixed stairs.'' The Agency requests comment on whether this change in
terminology (from fixed industrial stairs to standard stairs) is
appropriate or whether it leaves a gap in the coverage of stairways.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(1) establishes the scope of this section,
making it clear that generally all stairs, including standard stairs,
spiral stairs, ship stairs, and alternating tread-type stairs, are
covered. Additional requirements for stairs serving as required exit
routes are located in subpart E, Means of Egress. This provision is
based on existing paragraph Sec.  1910.24(a) and is consistent with
ANSI A1264.1-2007. It also makes clear that this section does not cover
stairs serving floating roof tanks, stairs on scaffolds, stairs
designed into a machine or piece of equipment, or stairs on self-
propelled motorized mobile equipment. To ensure consistency among OSHA
standards and assist those working in both construction and general
industries, requirements for stairs on scaffolds also are provided in
the construction industry standards at Sec.  1926.451. Stairs serving
floating roof tanks, stairs designed into a machine or piece of
equipment, and stairs on self-propelled motorized mobile equipment are
not covered by recognized industry standards, and the Agency does not
have any information or sufficient evidence on how to regulate these
types of stairs. OSHA requests comments on whether there is a need to
regulate these stairs.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(2) is intended to protect employees from
falling off unprotected sides and edges. It requires that stairs be
equipped with handrails and stair rail systems that meet the
requirements of proposed Sec.  1910.28, Duty to have fall protection.
OSHA notes that the top rail of a stair rail system may also serve as a
handrail when installed in accordance with proposed Sec.  1910.29(f).
    Paragraph (a)(3) proposes that the vertical clearance above any
stair tread to an overhead obstruction must be at least 6 feet, 8
inches (1.8 m) measured from the leading edge of the tread, except as
proposed in (c)(3) below. This is a change from the existing rule,
found in Sec.  1910.24(i), where the clearance is required to be at
least 7 feet (2.1 m). This proposed change is consistent with national
consensus standards (i.e., ANSI A1264.1-2007).
    In paragraphs (a)(4) through (a)(6), OSHA proposes requirements for
riser heights and stairway landing platform widths. All three
provisions are based on requirements in existing subpart D but are
rewritten in performance-based language for ease of compliance and
enforcement. These proposed requirements are the minimum criteria OSHA
feels are necessary to ensure employee safety when traversing stairs.
    In paragraph (a)(4), OSHA proposes that stairs be installed with
uniform riser heights and tread depths between landings. This provision
is essentially the same as the existing requirement in Sec.
1910.24(f).
    OSHA proposes, in Sec.  1910.25(a)(5), that stairway landings and
platforms be no less than the width of the stair and not less than 30
inches (76 cm) in length as measured in the direction of travel. The
proposed language is essentially the same as that in existing Sec.
1910.24(g).
    In paragraph (a)(6), OSHA proposes to revise the platform width
requirements where doors or gates open directly on a stairway.
Specifically, OSHA proposes that when a door or a gate opens directly
on a stairway, a platform must be provided, and the swing of the door
or gate must not reduce the effective usable depth to less than 20
inches (51 cm) for platforms installed before 90 days after the
effective date of the final rule; and 22 inches (56 cm) for platforms
installed thereafter. The 20 or 22 inches (51 or 56 cm) is measured
beyond the swing radius of the door after the door is opened fully.
(See Figure D-7.) This change increases the effective usable depth of
the platform, required in existing Sec.  1910.23(a)(10), by 2 inches (5
cm), making OSHA's proposal consistent with the national consensus
standard, ANSI A1264.1-1995 (R2002). OSHA notes that the 2007 version
of ANSI/ASSE A1264.1, section 6.11, Door and Gate Openings, states,
``Stairs shall have landings at door openings and gate openings. During
its swing, the door shall leave not less than one-half of the required
width of the landing unobstructed. The door shall project not more than
seven inches (180 mm) into the required width of the landing when the
door is fully open.'' OSHA requests comment on how much clear,
unobstructed space is necessary on landing platforms where doors or
gates open directly onto them.
    In paragraph (a)(7), OSHA proposes that stairs be designed and
constructed to carry five times the normal anticipated live load, but
never less than a concentrated load of 1,000 pounds (454 kg) applied at
any point. This provision is nearly the same as existing Sec.
1910.24(c), which applies to fixed industrial stairs, except that the
proposed provision will apply to all stairs covered by this section. In
addition, it is consistent with ANSI/ASSE A1264.1-2007.
    In paragraph (a)(8), OSHA proposes that standard stairs be provided
for access from one walking-working surface to another where operations
necessitate regular and routine travel between levels and for access to
operating platforms for equipment. An exception allows the use of
winding stairways on tanks and similar round structures where the
diameter of the structure is five (5) feet (1.5 m) or more. OSHA
recognizes that standard stairs are the principal means of providing
safe access from one working level to another. Therefore, this
provision is designed to ensure that employees have a reasonable means
of access to different walking-working surfaces. This provision is
essentially the same as the existing requirement in Sec.  1910.24(b)
except that it has been rewritten for clarity. OSHA does not intend for
this section to preclude the use of fixed ladders for access to
elevated tanks, towers, and similar structures, or to overhead
traveling cranes, when the use of fixed ladders is common practice. The
proposed provision is consistent with the national consensus standard,
ANSI/ASSE A1264.1-2007.
    In paragraph (a)(9), OSHA proposes to limit the use of spiral
stairs, ship stairs, or alternating tread-type stairs to ``special
limited usage'' and ``secondary access'' situations when the employer
demonstrates that it is not practical to provide a standard stairway.
This is consistent with the national consensus standard, ANSI/ASSE
A1264.1-2007. ANSI does not define ``special limited usage'' or
``secondary access.'' The ICC Building Code, however, refers to
``special limited use'' as ``a space not more than 250 square feet (23
m\2\) in area and serving not more than five occupants, or from
galleries, catwalks and gridirons. * * *'' The proposal would require
employers to demonstrate that it is not practical to provide a standard
stairway before using an alternate type of stairway in ``special
limited use'' situations; therefore, it may be helpful to employers if
OSHA defines special limited usage. For the purpose of this proposed
rule, OSHA's use of the term is the same as the ICC's; however there
may be other usages that warrant inclusion. OSHA requests comment on
these points. The term ``secondary access'' is self explanatory and
refers to any stairway that is not used as a

primary means of egress. OSHA notes that where spiral stairs, ship
stairs, or alternating tread-type stairs are permitted, those stairs
must meet the general requirements in proposed Sec.  1910.25(a) and the
additional specific requirements for each stair type in paragraphs (c),
(d), or (e) of proposed Sec.  1910.25, respectively. Proposed
paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) for spiral stairways, ship stairs, and
alternating-type stairs respectively, are new and have no counterparts
in existing Sec.  1910.24.
Paragraph (b) Standard Stairs
    In paragraph (b), OSHA proposes specific requirements for standard
stairs. The proposed requirements are the minimum criteria OSHA
believes are necessary to allow adequate clearance for employees to
negotiate standard stairs safely. These requirements apply in addition
to the general requirements in proposed paragraph (a) above. All of the
proposed requirements in this paragraph are consistent with the
national consensus standard, ANSI/ASSE A1264.1-2007. For compliance
assistance, OSHA has included figures D-7 through D-10 in the
regulatory language.
    Paragraph (b)(1) proposes that standard stairs be installed at
angles between 30 and 50 degrees from the horizontal, which is
equivalent to existing Sec.  1910.24(e). However, the existing rule
allows any combination of riser height and tread depth necessary to
achieve the 30 to 50 degree angle, whereas the proposed rule sets a
maximum and minimum range, respectively. Proposed paragraphs (b)(2) and
(b)(3) set the maximum riser height and the minimum tread depth,
allowing an exception when open risers are used. In paragraph (b)(2),
OSHA proposes that standard stairs have a maximum riser height of 9.5
inches (24 cm). In paragraph (b)(3), OSHA proposes that standard stairs
have a minimum tread depth of 9.5 inches (24 cm) except when open
risers are used; that is, standard stairs having open risers can have
tread depths of less than 9.5 inches (24 cm). Proposed paragraph (b)(3)
differs from the existing rule in that it uses the term ``tread depth''
instead of ``tread run.'' OSHA believes that stairs currently used in
general industry already meet these requirements.
    In paragraph (b)(4), OSHA proposes that standard stairs have a
minimum width of 22 inches (56 cm) between vertical barriers (such as a
stair rail, guardrail, or wall). This requirement is essentially the
same as existing Sec.  1910.24(d).
    The proposed criteria for spiral stairs, ship stairs, and
alternating tread-type stairs presented below in proposed paragraphs
(c), (d), and (e), respectively, parallel the provisions provided for
standard stairs. They represent the minimum requirements OSHA believes
are necessary for employees to traverse spiral stairs, ship stairs, and
alternating tread-type stairs safely.
Paragraph (c) Spiral Stairs
    In paragraph (c), OSHA proposes specific requirements for spiral
stairs. These requirements apply in addition to the general
requirements in proposed paragraph (a) above. These provisions are
based on NFPA 101-2006.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(1) requires that spiral stairways have a
clear width not less than 26 inches (66 cm). Proposed paragraph (c)(2)
requires spiral stairways to have risers with a maximum height of 9.5
inches (24 cm). In paragraph (c)(3), OSHA proposes that spiral stairs
have a minimum amount of headroom above the spiral stairway of 6 feet,
6 inches (2 m) measured vertically from the center of the leading edge
of the tread. To maintain a safe tread depth and size for spiral
stairs, OSHA proposes in paragraph (c)(4) that spiral stair treads have
a minimum depth of 7.5 inches (19 cm) at a point 12 inches (30 cm) from
the narrowest edge. Proposed paragraph (c)(5) requires that spiral
stairs have uniform size treads.
Paragraph (d) Ship Stairs
    In paragraph (d), OSHA proposes specific requirements for ship
stairs. These requirements apply in addition to the general
requirements in proposed paragraph (a) above. Proposed paragraph (d)(1)
requires that ship stairs be installed at a slope of 50 to 70 degrees
from the horizontal. Paragraph (d)(2) proposes that ship stairs have
open risers. In paragraph (d)(3), OSHA proposes that ship stairs have
treads with a minimum depth of 4 inches (10 cm), a minimum width of 18
inches (46 cm), and a vertical rise between tread surfaces in the range
of 6.5 to 12 inches (17 to 30 cm). These provisions are based on the
national consensus standard, ANSI A1264.1-2007.
Paragraph (e) Alternating Tread-Type Stairs
    In proposed paragraph (e), OSHA proposes specific requirements for
alternating tread-type stairs. These requirements apply in addition to
the general requirements in proposed paragraph (a) above. Proposed
paragraph (e)(1) requires that alternating tread-type stairs be
installed at a slope between 50 and 70 degrees from the horizontal.
Proposed paragraph (e)(2) requires that the distance between handrails
be between 20 and 24 inches (51 to 61 cm). Proposed paragraph (e)(3)
requires that the stairs have treads with a minimum depth of 8.5 inches
(22 cm). Proposed paragraph (e)(4) requires that alternating tread-type
stairs have open risers if the depth is less than 9.5 inches (24 cm),
and proposed paragraph (e)(5) requires treads that are a minimum of 7
inches (18 cm) wide at the leading edge of the step (nosing). The
proposed requirements of this paragraph are based on ANSI A1264.1-2007,
NFPA 101-2006, and the 2003 International Building Code.
Section 1910.26 Dockboards (Bridge Plates)
    Proposed Sec.  1910.26 establishes requirements for dockboards
(bridge plates). This section relocates, updates, and clarifies
requirements for dockboards located in existing Sec.  1910.30, Other
working surfaces. In addition, two requirements in existing Sec.
1910.30(b) and (c), Forging machine and Veneer machinery, respectively,
would be revoked because the hazards addressed in those provisions are
already covered elsewhere in proposed subpart D (e.g., Sec.  1910.22)
or in other subparts in the general industry standards (e.g., subpart
O, Machinery and Machine Guarding, and in particular Sec.  1910.218,
Forging machines).
    In paragraph (a), OSHA proposes that portable and powered
dockboards be capable of supporting their maximum intended load. This
requirement essentially restates the general requirement for load
support in proposed Sec.  1910.22(b) for all walking-working surfaces,
and it is essentially the same as existing provision Sec.
1910.30(a)(1).
    In paragraph (b), OSHA proposes that dockboards put into service at
least 90 days after the effective date of the final rule be designed,
constructed, and maintained to prevent equipment (such as hand trucks
and vehicles) from running off the edge. This performance language
provision requires that where equipment is used on dockboards, the
dockboard must be provided with a means, such as edging or curbing, to
prevent equipment from running off the edge. This is a new requirement,
which is being proposed to protect employees from injury in the event
the equipment falls off the edge of the dockboard.
    OSHA proposes in paragraph (c) that portable dockboards be secured
in position, either by being anchored or equipped with devices that
will prevent their slipping. Where this is infeasible,

the employer must ensure there is substantial contact between the
portable dockboard and the unattached surface or surfaces. The
dockboard and the unattached surface or surfaces should overlap with
one another so that the dockboard does not rock, slide, or slip while
being used by employees. The provision is essentially the same as
existing provision Sec.  1910.30(a)(2) and is based on ANSI/ASME B56.1-
2000, Safety Standard for Low Lift and High Lift Trucks (sections
4.13.2 and 4.13.5).
    In paragraph (d), OSHA proposes that vehicles onto which a
dockboard has been placed must be prevented from moving (e.g., by using
wheel chocks) while the dockboard is being used by employees. If a
vehicle rolls forward when a dockboard is in use, the dockboard may
fall off the end of the vehicle and an employee may fall as well. The
provision identifies positive steps to prevent movement of vehicles
rolling forward away from the dock and is essentially the same as the
existing Sec.  1910.30(a)(5). The paragraph is consistent with ANSI
MH30.2-2005, Portable Dock Leveling Devices: Safety, Performance and
Testing.
    OSHA proposes in paragraph (e) that portable dockboards be equipped
with handholds or other means to permit safe handling. The provision is
essentially the same as existing Sec.  1910.30(a)(4) and is based on
ANSI/ASME B56.1-2000, Safety Standard for Low Lift and High Lift Trucks
(section 4.13.3).
Section 1910.27 Scaffolds (Including Rope Descent Systems)
    In Sec.  1910.27, OSHA is proposing significant revisions to the
existing general industry scaffold standards. First, OSHA is proposing
to remove all the existing scaffolding requirements now located at
Sec.  1910.28 and Sec.  1910.29, with the exception of mobile ladder
stand requirements in existing Sec.  1910.28(f). Instead, in paragraph
(a), it is proposing to require that employers comply with the
construction industry standards in Sec.  1926 subpart L, Scaffolds.
Requirements for mobile ladder stands are relocated to proposed Sec.
1910.23(e). Second, in paragraph (b) OSHA is proposing to add new
requirements for rope descent systems (sometimes called controlled
descent systems)--a type of scaffold not now regulated by either OSHA's
general industry or construction industry standards.
Paragraph (a) Scaffolds
    The primary reason for the proposed changes is to ensure
consistency among OSHA standards for scaffolds. The construction
industry scaffold standards (subpart L of 29 CFR part 1926) were
updated on August 30, 1996 (61 FR 46026), and contain requirements for
the same types of scaffolds that are now regulated by the general
industry standards. Rather than updating the part 1910 standard to
harmonize with the part 1926 standard, OSHA concluded that a better way
to ease compliance and ensure regulatory consistency, both now and in
the future, is to refer general industry employers to the construction
industry standards. OSHA believes that this will ensure consistency in
worker protection in both industries, increase understanding of the
rules, and reduce any confusion that might occur when employers are
subject to two sets of rules for scaffolds--one that applies when
general industry work (such as maintenance) is being done and another
when construction work is being done. In addition, OSHA believes that
many general industry employers who use scaffolds also perform work
covered by the construction industry standards and are, therefore,
already familiar, and in compliance, with the construction industry
scaffold standards. OSHA believes that using just one set of
regulations will simplify both compliance and enforcement of the
scaffold standards and result in greater employee protection. OSHA
notes that all 21 types of scaffolds currently regulated by the general
industry standards are also regulated by the construction industry
standards.
    The following table lists the different types of scaffolding
addressed in the existing part 1910 general industry standards, and the
corresponding paragraphs in part 1926 construction industry standards.

                    List of Comparable Scaffolding Standards in Existing Parts 1910 and 1926
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Existing 1910              Existing 1926 Subpart L
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.28 (b)..............................  Wood pole scaffolds....  .452 (a)...............  Pole scaffolds.
.28 (c)..............................  Tube and coupler         .452 (b)...............  Tube and coupler
                                        scaffolds.                                        scaffolds.
.28 (d)..............................  Tubular welded frame     .452 (c)...............  Fabricated frame
                                        scaffolds.                                        (tubular welded)
                                                                                scaffolds.
.28 (e)..............................  Outrigger scaffolds....  .452 (i)...............  Outrigger scaffolds.
.28 (g)..............................  Two-point suspension     .452 (p)...............  Two-point adjustable
                                        scaffolds.                                        suspension scaffolds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.28 (h)..............................  Stone setter's           .452 (q)...............  Multi-point adjustable
                                        adjustable multipoint                             suspension scaffolds,
                                        suspension scaffolds.                             stone setters' multi-
                                                                                point adjustable
                                                                                suspension scaffolds,
                                                                                and masons' multi-
                                                                                point adjustable
                                                                                suspension scaffolds.
.28 (f)..............................  Masons' adjustable
                                        multi-point suspension
                                        scaffolds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.28 (i)..............................  Single-point adjustable  .452 (o)...............  Single-point adjustable
                                        suspension scaffolds.                             suspension scaffolds.
.28 (j)..............................  Boatswain's chair......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.28 (k)..............................  Carpenters' bracket      .452 (g)...............  Form scaffolds and
                                        scaffolds.                                        carpenters' bracket
                                                                                scaffolds.
.28 (l)..............................  Bricklayers' square      .452 (e)...............  Bricklayers' square
                                        scaffolds.                                        scaffolds.
.28 (m)..............................  Horse scaffolds........  .452 (f)...............  Horse scaffolds.
.28 (n)..............................  Needle beam scaffolds..  .452 (u)...............  Needle beam scaffolds.
.28 (o)..............................  Plasterers',             .452 (d)...............  Plasterers',
                                        decorators', and large                            decorators', and large
                                        area scaffolds.                                   area scaffolds.
.28 (p)..............................  Interior hung scaffolds  .452 (t)...............  Interior hung
                                                                                scaffolds.
.28 (q)..............................  Ladder jack scaffolds..  .452 (k)...............  Ladder jack scaffolds.
.28 (r)..............................  Window-jack scaffolds..  .452 (l)...............  Window-jack scaffolds.
.28 (s)..............................  Roofing bracket          .452 (h)...............  Roof bracket scaffolds.
                                        scaffolds.
.28 (t)..............................  Crawling boards or       .452 (m)...............  Crawling boards
                                        chicken ladders.                                  (chicken ladders).
.28 (u)..............................  Float or ship scaffolds  .452 (s)...............  Float (ship) scaffolds.
.29 (e)..............................  Mobile work platforms..  .452 (w)...............  Mobile scaffolds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA is aware that by requiring general industry employers to
comply with the construction industry scaffold requirements, some
employers may encounter new requirements. However, the Agency
anticipates there will be minimal new compliance burdens or new costs
associated with requiring compliance with the construction industry
rules. The Agency believes that any requirements in the construction
industry scaffold standard that would be ``new'' to general industry
employers are requirements that only apply when construction work is
being done. For example, Sec.  1926.451(g)(2) requires, under certain
conditions, that employees be protected from falls while erecting and
dismantling supported scaffolds. There is no similar requirement in the
existing general industry scaffold standard. However, OSHA believes
that most work performed from supported scaffolds is construction work
that is already subject to the Sec.  1926.451(g)(2) requirement.
    OSHA requests comment on its position as discussed here. Is there
general industry work--maintenance work, for example--performed while
working from supported scaffolds that would cause employers to be
subjected to a new rule? Are there other requirements in the
construction industry rule that would impose new obligations on general
industry employers because of OSHA's proposed action to require
employers to comply with the construction scaffold rule? If so, what
are those requirements and how would general industry employers be
impacted?
Paragraph (b) Rope descent systems (RDS).
    Rope descent systems (RDS), newly covered in proposed paragraph
(b), are suspension-type devices that support one employee in a chair
(seat board) and allow the user to descend in a controlled manner,
stopping at desired points during the descent. RDS are a variation of
single-point adjustable suspension scaffolds, but operate only in a
descending direction. The use of rope descent systems is prevalent in
the United States, frequently used in building cleaning, maintenance,
and inspection. RDS are also known as ``controlled descent devices''
(CDD), and have been referred to as such in previous Federal Register
notices (see example in following paragraph). To reduce confusion, in
this notice OSHA will only use the term RDS.
    In the July 18, 1990, Federal Register, OSHA solicited comments on
regulating the use of RDS (CDD). On May 2, 2003, OSHA again raised the
issue (68 FR 23534):

    In a March 12, 1991, memorandum to its Regional Administrators,
OSHA stated that employers who use CDD to perform building cleaning,
inspection, and maintenance must do so in accordance with the
manufacturer's instructions, warnings, and design limitations. In
addition, OSHA said it expected employers using CDD to implement
eight specific safety provisions covering the following areas:
employee training, inspection of equipment, proper rigging, separate
fall arrest systems, installation of lines, rescue, prevention of
rope damage, and stabilization (Docket S-029; Ex. 1-16-3). These
eight provisions also are included in the current national consensus
standard, ANSI I-14.1-2001--Window Cleaning Safety (Docket S-029;
Ex. 1-13). The ANSI standard also limits the use of CDD, which it
refers to as rope descent systems (RDS) to window cleaning
operations performed 300 feet (91 m) or less above grade, unless the
windows cannot be safely and practicably accessed by other means
such as powered platforms.

The inclusion of these eight provisions in the ANSI standard on window
cleaning indicates industry acceptance of these specific safety
precautions. Comments to the earlier rulemaking record, both written
and in public hearings, indicate that there are basically two view
points on the RDS issue--either strongly in support of their use or
strongly opposed to their use.
    The supporting comments noted that RDS are a vital piece of
equipment for the window cleaning industry (along with powered
platforms, ladders, and other devices). Comments were made that, in
some instances, such as certain multi-level roofs, saw-tooth roof
edges, and buildings without parapets, RDS were the safest equipment to
use (Ex. OSHA-S041-2006-0666-1253, p. 489).
    Mr. Steve Powers, an owner/operator of a high-rise window cleaning
company testified:

    [T]he only solution to reducing the number of injuries and
fatalities is in proper training, not in banning or restricting
equipment. Human error and the lack of proper training is the
primary cause of injuries and fatalities in our industry, not the
equipment (Tr. 685).

    The opposing commenters discussed the advantages of powered
platforms over RDS. A window cleaning company owner expressed the
belief that most window cleaners in this country do not have the proper
training to use RDS in a safe manner (Ex. OSHA-S041-2006-0666-1254, p.
997). Many members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
also opposed the use of RDS (e.g., Ex. OSHA-S029-2006-0662-0277 through
Ex. OSHA-S029-2006-0662-0284).
    Since issuing its policy on the use of RDS over 19 years ago, OSHA
is not aware of any fatalities involving RDS when all eight of the
safety provisions outlined in the March 12, 1991, memorandum have been
followed. Therefore, at this time, OSHA believes that RDS may address a
need and can be used safely so long as proper procedures are followed.
Due to the design of some structures, the use of RDS may be the only
way to perform some maintenance work and, if RDS is the only feasible
method, OSHA believes that requirements are essential to protect
employees while they are using this equipment.
    To have the most complete information on RDS incidents, OSHA
requests comment on incidents, including fatalities, injuries, and near
misses, that have occurred while using this equipment. Additionally,
OSHA requests information regarding any other provisions that should be
included in the final rule to increase worker safety, including whether
or not RDS should be prohibited or should be allowed only when the
employer can demonstrate that other methods, such as powered platforms,
are not feasible or pose additional safety risks. Please include
comment on how such feasibility and safety risk determinations could be
made, as well as applicable rationale, costs, and benefits for all
comments on RDS.
    The specific requirements in this proposed rule are based on the
eight provisions of OSHA's 1991 memorandum and the national consensus
standard, IWCA I-14.1-2001. These provisions are described in the
following paragraphs. Additionally, although some provisions of this
section are essentially the same as provisions in proposed subpart I,
OSHA believes it is appropriate for the provisions to be presented
here, in proposed subpart D, as a complete unit for ease of compliance
and enforcement.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(1) prohibits the use of RDS at heights
greater than 300 feet (91.4 m) above grade unless the employer can
demonstrate that access cannot otherwise be attained safely and
practicably. Therefore, RDS would be permitted at heights of 300 feet
(91.4 m) or less.
    While the March 12, 1991, memorandum did not include a 300-foot
limitation, the national consensus standard, IWCA I-14.1-2001 (section
5.7.12), prescribes the limitation. OSHA uses IWCA I-14 (section
5.7.11) as the basis for this prohibition, noting that the greater the
length of rope used for a descent, the greater the adverse effects of
environmental factors such as wind gusts, microbursts, or tunneling
wind currents; these effects increase the risk

of injury to employees. For this reason, OSHA believes it is
appropriate to propose this prohibition.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2) establishes eleven requirements employers
must meet when RDS are used. Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(i) requires RDS
to be used in accordance with the instructions, warnings, and design
limitations set by manufacturers and distributors. Equipment is to be
used only as the manufacturer designed it to be used. For instance,
ropes and equipment that are designed and sold for recreational
climbing are not always rated for industrial use. OSHA is aware that
some elements of one manufacturer's system may be compatible with
elements of a different manufacturer's system; however, incompatibility
of systems can be disastrous. OSHA requests comment on whether changing
the provision to read ``set by manufacturers or qualified persons''
(using the word ``qualified'' as defined in proposed Sec.  1910.21)
would be more appropriate.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(ii) requires employee training in
accordance with proposed Sec.  1910.30. OSHA believes that RDS can be
safely used only if employees are thoroughly knowledgeable in the
equipment and its proper use. Please see the training discussion below.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(iii) requires daily inspection of all
equipment used in RDS before use. Also, any damaged equipment must be
removed from service. This inspection enables changes and defects (such
as abrasions and cracks) that occurred during the last use or during
storage to be discovered, and appropriate action taken. This provision
is reflected in a similar requirement in proposed Sec.  1910.140,
Personal fall arrest systems.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(iv) requires proper rigging, including
sound anchorages and tiebacks, with particular emphasis on providing
tiebacks when counterweights, cornice hooks, or similar non-permanent
anchorages are used. Sound anchorage and tiebacks are essential to the
safety of RDS. Emphasis is placed upon non-permanent anchorages because
of the increased possibility of damage during transport and improper
installation. The Agency requests comment on whether this provision is
sufficient to ensure the safety of anchorages, and whether OSHA should
include any specific requirements for anchorages beyond those presented
here.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(v) requires a separate, independent
personal fall arrest system meeting the requirements of subpart I of
this part to be used so that any failure in a friction device, support
seat, support line, or anchorage system will not affect the ability of
the fall arrest system to operate and quickly stop the employee's fall.
This requirement is consistent with existing Sec.  1910.66(j) and Sec.
1926.451(g), and is reflected in proposed Sec.  1910.140.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(vi) requires that all lines be capable of
sustaining a minimum tensile load of 5,000 pounds (2,268 kg). This
requirement does not preclude the use of a knot, swage, or eye splice
that reduces the tensile strength of a rope, but it does require that
when such a knot, swage, or splice is used, the rope must have a
resulting strength capable of supporting a minimum tensile load of
5,000 pounds (2,268 kg). This provision is the same as a requirement in
proposed Sec.  1910.140, Personal fall arrest systems.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(vii) requires the employer to provide for
prompt rescue of employees in the event of a fall. This provision is
the same as a requirement in proposed Sec.  1910.140.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(viii) requires ropes to be effectively
padded when they contact edges of the building, anchorage,
obstructions, or other surfaces that might cut or weaken the rope.
Padding protects ropes from abrasions that can weaken the tensile
strength of a rope.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(ix) requires stabilization at employee
work locations when descents are greater than 130 feet (39.6 m). As
required in ANSI/IWCA I-14 (section 5.7.12), stabilization at the
specific work station reduces risks imposed by sway. The Agency
requests information on stabilization methods commonly used, and other
stabilization methods not commonly used that may increase employee
safety. Please include information regarding costs and benefits of
these methods.
    The greater the length of rope used for a descent, the greater the
adverse effects of environmental factors such as wind gusts,
microbursts, or tunneling wind currents; these effects increase the
risk of injury to employees. OSHA requests information on the use of
RDS during inclement weather. Should the use of RDS be prohibited in
certain weather conditions? If so, what are those conditions? How
should an employer determine whether the conditions are severe enough
to prevent the use of RDS? The term ``excessive winds'' as used in the
consensus standard is subjective and open to differing interpretations.
How should the term be defined? Is a specific wind speed appropriate?
What speed and why? Should wind speed be monitored, and if so, how?
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(x) requires equipment, including tools,
squeegees, and buckets, to be secured to prevent equipment from
falling, thus protecting any workers below from being struck by falling
equipment. This provision is based on IWCA I-14.1-2001, which is
written for the protection of the general public. However, OSHA
believes this provision also is necessary to protect employees working
below RDS from injuries resulting from dropped equipment.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(xi) requires suspension ropes to be
protected from exposure to open flames, hot work, corrosive chemicals,
or other destructive conditions that can weaken them. This requirement
is essentially the same as existing Sec.  1910.28(a)(21).
Section 1910.28 Duty To Have Fall Protection
    This is the first of three new sections in subpart D that
consolidate requirements pertinent to fall protection. The new sections
(Sec. Sec.  1910.28, 1910.29, and 1910.30), when viewed together,
represent a comprehensive approach to managing fall hazards. OSHA
believes this revised approach will ensure a better understanding of
employer obligations; provide flexibility for employers when choosing a
fall protection system that works best for them; and most importantly,
will significantly reduce the number of falls in general industry.
    Proposed Sec.  1910.28 specifies the areas and operations where
fall protection systems are required. The criteria to be met for fall
protection systems and the training necessary to use the systems
properly are covered in proposed Sec. Sec.  1910.29 and 1910.30,
respectively. In addition, criteria to be met when personal fall
protection systems are used are covered in subpart I of this part at
Sec.  1910.140. New Sec.  1910.28 is patterned after Sec.  1926.501,
Duty to have fall protection, of the construction industry standards
and contains many similar requirements. As indicated in proposed Sec.
1910.21, Scope and application, OSHA intends that this new section will
consolidate most general industry fall protection requirements. There
are, however, some exceptions. OSHA is not proposing to relocate the
existing ``duty to have fall protection'' requirements in Sec.  1910.66
(for powered platforms), Sec.  1910.67 (for aerial lifts), Sec.
1910.268 (for telecommunications operations), or Sec.  1910.269
(electric power generation, distribution and transmission operations).
In addition, nothing in this section applies to fall hazards from the
perimeter of entertainment stages or rail

(subway) station platforms. In these contexts, the use of guardrails or
other fall protection systems could unreasonably interfere with work
operations or would create a greater hazard than would otherwise be
present. OSHA recognizes that there may be limited circumstances where
fall protection may be feasible in these occupational settings, and
encourages the use of fall protection when possible.
    The duty to have fall protection in general industry is not new.
Existing subpart D already requires employees to be protected from
falls and, in general, requires that protection be provided whenever an
employee is exposed to falling 4 feet (1.2 m) or more to a lower level.
The origin of the 4-foot rule in subpart D is the American National
Standard, ANSI A12.1-1967, Safety Requirements for Floor and Wall
Openings, Railings, and Toe Boards. Historical records indicate that,
generally, the 4-foot rule was prescribed in consensus standards as far
back as 1932 (see ANSI A12.1-1932). Therefore, it is reasonable to
conclude that providing fall protection when employees are exposed to
falls of 4 feet (1.2 m) or more has been the accepted practice in
general industry for more than 75 years.
    Furthermore, a 1978 University of Michigan study (An Ergonomic
Basis for Recommendations Pertaining to Specific Sections of OSHA
Standard 29 CFR Part 1910, Subpart D-Walking and Working Surfaces, Ex.
OSHA-S041-2006-0666-0004) supports maintaining the 4-foot rule. For
these reasons, OSHA believes it would be unreasonable to change this
trigger height. The Agency requests more recent studies or information
that support or contradict this position.
    OSHA notes that its construction industry rules require, except for
certain specific work or operations, that employees be protected
whenever the fall distance is 6 feet (1.8 m) or more to lower levels.
Comments to OSHA's 2003 Reopening Notice indicated that some members of
the public believed that the trigger height for providing fall
protection in general industry is 6 feet (1.8 m), which is the
construction industry trigger. OSHA wishes to be clear on this point:
for general industry, the trigger height for providing fall protection
has--for more than 75 years--been 4 feet (1.2 m). Exceptional trigger
heights have been established for construction, work performed on
scaffolds or fixed ladders, or utility work. Throughout its entire
history, OSHA has consistently reinforced the policy in public
statements, as well as in documents issued to clarify and interpret the
standard. For example, as far back as 1978, OSHA, in a letter of
interpretation to Mr. John Reilly (http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/
owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=18715) restated
the requirement for fall protection for open-sided surfaces more than 4
feet above adjacent levels.
    A major difference between the proposed requirements in Sec.
1910.28, and the existing requirements of subpart D, is that under the
proposed rule, employers will be able to choose from several options in
providing fall protection. The existing rule, for the most part,
mandates the use of guardrail systems (see, e.g., Sec.  1910.23),
thereby limiting the employer's ability to choose the system that works
best for the particular situation or work activity. The proposed rule
allows employers to choose from several options in providing fall
protection. These include 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), and non-conventional means. An example of non-conventional
means would be the establishment of a designated area in which an
employee is to work. An employee working in a designated area must be
trained in safe work practices specific to that area and must be
required to use those safe work practices. OSHA believes that an
important key to protecting employees is allowing employers flexibility
to select the fall protection systems or methods that will work best
for the particular work activities or operations, thereby allowing
employers to consider factors such as exposure time, availability of
attachment points, and feasibility and cost constraints.
    OSHA believes that the reorganized format presented here will
reduce confusion about fall protection requirements, as well as reduce
the need for interpretations of those requirements. As noted above, by
patterning this section after the construction industry standards, OSHA
intends to ensure that employees in both industries, when exposed to
similar fall hazards, are afforded similar protection. The proposed
subpart D fall protection requirements also reflect today's technology
and recognize the use of innovative fall protection measures, such as
working in designated areas or using travel restraint systems, as
reasonable and appropriate ways to protect employees from fall hazards.
Once an employer has chosen a system or method from the options allowed
in proposed Sec.  1910.28, that system/method would have to meet the
requirements in proposed Sec.  1910.29, and employees would have to be
trained on the use of the chosen system per proposed Sec.  1910.30.
OSHA believes the proposed fall protection requirements will allow for
a much higher level of compliance, leading to a higher level of
protection and may, at the same time, reduce employer costs.
Paragraph (a) General
    Proposed paragraph (a) of Sec.  1910.28 contains two general
requirements relating to an employer's obligation, or duty, to have
fall protection. In proposed paragraph (a)(1), OSHA establishes the
employer's obligation to provide fall protection and clarifies that all
fall protection systems used must conform to the criteria and work
practices set forth in proposed Sec.  1910.29, except that, when
personal fall protection systems are used, compliance with the criteria
and work practices of proposed Sec.  1910.140 in subpart I would be
required. Proposed Sec.  1910.28 does not apply to powered platforms
because the duty to have fall protection is already provided in Sec.
1910.66, the general industry standard for powered platforms. Proposed
Sec.  1910.28 also does not apply to aerial lifts (Sec.  1910.67),
telecommunications (Sec.  1910.268), or electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution (Sec.  1910.269) because each of these
sections, like Sec.  1910.66, already contains a requirement specifying
the employer's duty to have fall protection. OSHA notes that most of
the requirements in this proposed section allow several choices for
providing fall protection, but some requirements limit the choices. For
example, only the use of guardrail and handrail systems is permitted to
protect employees on dockboards (bridge plates). Here, OSHA believes
these systems offer the appropriate type of fall protection.
    As stated above, existing subpart D requires employers to provide
guardrails as the primary method of protecting employees from fall
hazards (for example, see proposed Sec.  1910.23(c)). The 1990 proposed
revision of subpart D (55 FR 13401) continued the concept of using
guardrails as the primary fall protection method, allowing other
alternatives in limited situations. Thus, the subpart D proposal
established a hierarchy of controls. However, in the 2003 Reopening
Notice (68 FR 23533), OSHA acknowledged that it may not always be
feasible to provide guardrails and raised this as an issue. Issue
4, Hierarchy of Fall Protection Controls, elicited comment on
whether OSHA should permit employers to provide

other fall protection systems such as personal fall arrest systems,
positioning systems, or restraint systems to protect employees from
falls. In raising the issue, OSHA noted that the final Fall Protection
rule for the construction industry did not have a hierarchy of fall
protection systems. Instead, that standard included a list of options
which employers would be permitted to follow (59 FR 40672, August 9,
1994). In the 2003 reopening, OSHA said that, to achieve consistency
between OSHA's construction standards and general industry standards,
it could abandon the hierarchy of fall protection controls that had
been proposed in 1990 in favor of a more flexible approach (68 FR
23533).
    Comments on Issue 4 overwhelmingly favored removal of the
hierarchy and promulgation of rules consistent with those already
established for the construction industry. Today's proposal reflects
those comments and removes the hierarchy in favor of provisions
establishing several fall protection systems that offer equivalent
protections, and allows employers flexibility to select among them. It
is OSHA's belief that the alternatives (or options) listed for each
work activity operation will allow employers to choose the system that
they determine is most appropriate and cost effective. OSHA has limited
the employer's choices to those systems that it believes will provide
an appropriate and equal level of safety.
    In an earlier Federal Register (59 FR 40680) document, OSHA
discussed its position that all employers are responsible for obtaining
information about the workplace hazards to which their employees may be
exposed and for taking appropriate action to protect affected employees
from any such hazards. OSHA also noted that ``[t]he [Occupational
Safety and Health Review] Commission has held that an employer must
make a reasonable effort to anticipate particular hazards to which its
employees may be exposed in the course of their scheduled work.'' (Id.
40680.) Specifically, an employer must inspect the area to determine
what hazards exist or may arise during the work before permitting
employees to work in that area, and the employer must then give
specific and appropriate instructions to prevent exposure to unsafe
conditions. This is particularly important when employees are allowed
to work in a ``designated area'' and are not protected by conventional
fall protection systems.
    Additionally, when general industry employers contract with others
to provide work at their site, OSHA expects both the host employer and
contract employer to work together to identify and address fall
hazards. One method of accomplishing this is to conduct a hazard
assessment following the guidelines in Appendix B to subpart I of part
1910, Non-Mandatory Compliance Guidelines for Hazard Assessment and
Personal Protective Equipment Selection. Another resource is consensus
standards. ANSI/ASSE Z359.2-2007, Minimum Requirements for a
Comprehensive Managed Fall Protection Program, provides procedures for
eliminating and controlling fall hazards. OSHA, of course, encourages
employers to go beyond its minimum requirements and to take additional
measures to address fall hazards in a comprehensive manner, starting
with a discussion about the elimination of fall hazards and ending with
a plan to rescue employees if they fall.
    In this proposed rule, OSHA requires employers to protect employees
performing work from fall hazards, and sets criteria for the proper
implementation of fall protection through the requirements in subparts
D and I, specifically in the requirements at Sec. Sec.  1910.28-1910.30
and Sec.  1910.140.
    In paragraph (a)(2), OSHA proposes to require that employers ensure
that any walking-working surface on which they allow employees to work
has the strength and structural integrity to support employees safely.
OSHA is proposing to add this new requirement, which is identical to
Sec.  1926.501(a)(2) of the construction fall protection standard, to
ensure that the surfaces can support the weight of employees,
equipment, and materials. OSHA's intent is that a simple inspection of
the work surface be made before work begins. If conditions warrant, a
more involved inspection will be necessary to ensure the surface is
safe for employees. OSHA is aware of incidents when employees have
fallen through floors or roofs because they were not inspected before
the work began to ensure that the surfaces would support the loads
imposed (employees, equipment, and material). OSHA believes this is
particularly true when employees are doing maintenance and servicing
work of equipment on roofs, platforms, and runways. The hazards
addressed by the proposed provision are similar to the hazards
addressed in proposed Sec.  1910.22, a revision of existing Sec.
1910.22(d), which is concerned with ensuring employees work on surfaces
that can support them so they will not fall onto or through the
walking-working surface. The provision in proposed Sec.  1910.28(a)(2),
while similar to proposed Sec.  1910.22(a) (which requires that
surfaces be designed, constructed, and maintained free of hazards), is
intended to focus the attention of the employer on the need to inspect
work surfaces (especially non-routine work surfaces) before employees
are required to walk or work on them. It is noted that while some
surfaces are not specifically designed as a walking or working surface,
employees walk on or work from them from time to time. OSHA believes
that this approach is consistent with the approach described in the
preamble to the construction rule (59 FR 40681).
Paragraph (b) Protection From Fall Hazards
    Proposed paragraph (b) contains 13 requirements that set forth the
options from which employers may choose to protect employees exposed to
fall hazards when on a walking-working surface, as defined in proposed
Sec.  1910.21. OSHA is using the term ``walking-working surfaces''
instead of the existing term ``floor'' to indicate clearly that subpart
D addresses all surfaces where employees perform work. The Agency has
always maintained that the OSHA general industry fall protection
standards cover all walking-working surfaces. In fact, although OSHA
never mentioned the term ``roof'' in the existing rule, it has
consistently held that falls from roofs are covered by the existing
rule. OSHA notes that the consensus standards on which the original
fall protection requirements were based, ANSI A12.1 and A64, now
combined at ANSI A1264.1, includes the term ``roof'' in its title. The
revised rule reaffirms the existing Agency interpretation and practice
and clarifies the language of the standards in that regard. Also, OSHA
has consistently held that subpart D addresses the hazards of falling
from a walking-working surface to any kind of lower level (e.g., solid,
liquid, or colloid).
    Under paragraph (b) of the proposal, employers are required to
select and use a fall protection system (or combination of systems) as
provided by paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(14). Each individual
paragraph addresses the fall protection needs of particular walking-
working surfaces and lists the fall protection systems that OSHA
believes are appropriate to those surfaces. Only the systems listed are
permitted to be used. The revised rule requires essentially the same
coverage as the existing rule--protection of employees from falls of 4
feet or more to lower levels, with a few exceptions. One exception is
when employees are working over dangerous equipment (see proposed
paragraph

(b)(6) below). In that situation, employees must be protected from
falls regardless of the height. On the other hand, when employees are
working on scaffolds or fixed ladders, it is reasonable to allow a
higher trigger height, hence the 10- and 24-foot (3 and 7.3 m) trigger
heights proposed. Also, as mentioned above, the proposed general
industry fall protection standards have been reorganized and formatted
to be similar to the construction industry fall protection rule to
bring consistency to the two rules.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(1) sets forth the requirements for fall
protection from unprotected sides and edges of walking-working
surfaces. It provides that employees must be protected when they are
exposed to falls from unprotected sides and edges of walking-working
surfaces which are 4 feet (1.2 m) or more above lower levels. The
options from which an employer can choose to provide this protection
include both conventional systems--guardrail systems, safety net
systems, personal fall protection systems, and travel restraint
systems--and having employees work in a ``designated area.'' OSHA
defines a ``designated area'' in proposed Sec.  1910.21(b) as a
distinct portion of a walking-working surface delineated by a perimeter
warning line in which temporary work may be performed without
additional fall protection. A ``designated area'' is similar to a
``controlled access zone'' at construction worksites. Except for the
``designated area'' option, the proposed requirements are essentially
the same as the existing general industry requirements in Sec.
1910.23(c) and are similar to the construction standard at Sec.
1926.501(b)(1).
    This proposed standard does not specify a distance from the edge
that is considered safe, i.e., a distance at which fall protection is
not required. Instead, it allows the employer to designate an area in
which employees can work without fall protection. The criteria for
designated areas and other fall protection systems are set forth in
proposed Sec.  1910.29. It is essential for authorized employees in
designated areas exposed to fall hazards to be trained in accordance
with provisions set forth in Sec.  1910.30.
    An exception to proposed paragraph (b)(1) applies to the
unprotected side or edge of the working side of platforms used in
slaughtering facilities, loading racks, loading docks, and teeming
tables used in molten metal work. The exception states that when the
employer demonstrates that use of guardrails on the working side of
these platforms is infeasible, the work may be done without guardrails
provided: (1) The work operation for which guardrails are infeasible is
in process; (2) access to the platform is limited to authorized
employees; and, (3) the authorized employees have been trained in
accordance with proposed Sec.  1910.30. Note that the exception is only
for that part of the guardrail that would normally be installed on the
working side of the platform. Employees must still be protected from
falls from the other sides and edges of the platform. When work
operations for which guardrails are infeasible are not in process, for
example, during cleaning or maintenance, the exception does not apply.
This is because OSHA is aware that, in some cases, work cannot be done
when access is blocked by guardrails, or the guardrails touch carcasses
and pose a health issue. These situations are not present during
cleaning or maintenance. The Agency requests comment regarding the
technological feasibility of requiring other means of fall protection
(e.g., travel restraint systems) in these applications. Please include
supporting rationale, as well as information on the costs and benefits
of such a provision.
    Paragraph (b)(2) proposes fall protection requirements for
employees in hoist areas of walking-working surfaces that are 4 feet
(1.2 m) or more above lower levels. Employees must be protected through
the use of guardrail systems, personal fall arrest systems, or travel
restraint systems. If guardrails (or chains or gates if they are being
used in lieu of guardrails at the hoist area) are removed to facilitate
hoisting operations, then employees who lean through the access opening
or out over the edge of the access opening to perform their duties are
at risk and must be protected by the use of personal fall arrest
systems. The proposed requirement is consistent with the existing
general industry standard in Sec.  1910.23(b)(1)(i). Except that the
trigger height for providing fall protection is 4 feet (1.2 m) in the
proposed general industry rule, the proposed requirement is also
consistent with the construction industry standard at 1926.501(b)(3).
The existing subpart D standard does not address fall protection at
hoist areas separately from other holes and wall openings. In this
proposal, holes are addressed in paragraph (b)(3) and wall openings in
paragraph (b)(7) below. The criteria for grab handles are located at
proposed Sec.  1910.29(l).
    Paragraph (b)(3) of this proposed rule requires that employees be
protected from hazards associated with holes. Employees may be injured
or killed if they step into holes, trip when caught in holes, fall
through holes, or are hit by objects falling through holes. Some
workplaces may present all of these hazards while others may have
fewer. The proposed rule specifies protective measures applicable to
each hazard.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(3)(i) requires that employees be protected
from falling into or through holes (including skylight openings) 4 feet
(1.2 m) or more above lower levels by covers over the hole, erecting a
guardrail system around the hole, or by the use of a personal fall
arrest system. Proposed paragraph (b)(3)(ii) requires that covers be
used to protect employees from tripping in or stepping into holes, and
proposed paragraph (b)(3)(iii) requires that covers be used to protect
employees from objects falling through overhead holes. The proposed
requirements are essentially the same as those in existing general
industry standards at Sec.  1910.23(a)(4), (a)(8), and (a)(9), and the
construction standard at Sec.  1926.501(b)(4) except that the trigger
height for providing fall protection for employees falling through
holes is 4 feet (1.2 m) in the proposed general industry rule.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(4) addresses fall protection from dockboards
(bridge plates). Proposed paragraph (b)(4)(i) states that each employee
on a dockboard (bridge plate) be protected from falling 4 feet (1.2 m)
or more to lower levels by guardrail or handrail systems, except as
provided by proposed (b)(4)(ii) of this section. Proposed paragraph
(b)(4)(ii) provides that no fall protection (guardrail or handrail
system) is required when motorized equipment is being used on
dockboards (bridge plates) solely for material handling operations,
provided that: (A) Employees are exposed to fall hazards of less than
10 feet (3 m); and (B) employees have been trained as provided by
proposed Sec.  1910.30. The proposed provision, in permitting employers
to rely on training rather than on the use of conventional fall
protection systems, is consistent with the proposed requirements for
repair pits and assembly pits in Sec.  1910.28(b)(8). An example of
when this situation might occur would be the transfer of material
between boxcars. Materials handling exposure is generally of limited
duration, and requires ready access to the open sides. Guardrails would
interfere with the transfer and could create a greater hazard to
employees. The 10-foot (3 m) limitation in proposed paragraph Sec.
1910.28(b)(4)(ii)(A) is consistent with similar requirements for work
on elevated surfaces such as scaffolds (see proposed Sec. Sec.
1910.27, and 1926.451(g)).

Additional requirements related to positioning and securing ramps and
bridging devices are found in proposed Sec.  1910.26, Dockboards
(bridge plates).
    In paragraph (b)(5), OSHA proposes that employees on runways and
similar walkways be protected from falling 4 feet (1.2 m) or more to
lower levels by guardrails. The proposed paragraph is essentially the
same as existing Sec.  1910.23(c)(1) and (2) and is consistent with the
construction standard at Sec.  1926.501(b)(6), except that the trigger
height for providing fall protection is 4 feet (1.2 m) in the proposed
general industry rule.
    An exception to proposed paragraph (b)(5) permits runways used for
special purposes (such as filling tank cars) to have the railing on one
side omitted when the employer demonstrates that operating conditions
necessitate such an omission. In these circumstances, the employer must
minimize the fall hazard by providing a runway that is at least 18
inches (46 cm) wide, and providing employees with, and ensuring the
proper use of, personal fall arrest systems or travel restraint
systems. This proposed exception is consistent with ANSI 1264.1-2007.
The Agency invites comment on current practices involving runways that
are used for special purposes. Where are such runways used and how are
employees who work on them protected?
    Proposed paragraph (b)(6) addresses dangerous equipment. It
proposes two requirements to protect employees from falling into or
onto dangerous equipment. Examples of dangerous equipment include
protruding objects, machinery, pickling or galvanizing tanks,
degreasing units, or similar equipment. Proposed paragraph (b)(6)(i)
addresses situations where employees are less than 4 feet (1.2 m) above
dangerous equipment, and it requires that employees be protected by the
use of guardrail systems or travel restraint systems unless the
equipment is covered or otherwise guarded to eliminate the hazard.
Proposed paragraph (b)(6)(ii) addresses situations where employees are
more than 4 feet above dangerous equipment, and it requires employees
to be protected by guardrail systems, safety net systems, personal fall
arrest systems, or travel restraint systems. OSHA is proposing
different methods for protecting employees depending on the fall
distance. The Agency does not believe the use of safety net systems or
personal fall arrest systems that meet the requirements of proposed
Sec.  1910.29 are appropriate when the fall distance is less than 4
feet (1.2 m), since there will not be sufficient distance below the
employee for the system to work and the employee could make contact
with the dangerous equipment. The proposed paragraph is essentially the
same as the existing general industry standard at Sec.  1910.23(c)(3)
and the construction standard at Sec.  1926.501(b)(8), except that the
trigger height for providing fall protection is 4 feet (1.2 m) in both
the proposed and existing general industry rules.
    Paragraph (b)(7) proposes to require protection for employees who
are exposed to the hazard of falling out or through wall openings.
Under the proposal, wall openings (defined as 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) must be
equipped with a guardrail system, safety net system, travel restraint
system, or personal fall arrest system. OSHA believes the most
practical method of compliance is the guardrail system because it
provides protection at all times and for all employees who may have
exposure at the wall opening. However, there may be cases where
employers choose to use safety net systems, travel restraint systems,
or personal fall arrest systems, which also will provide an appropriate
level of protection. For that reason the provision has been written to
permit the use of these other systems. This provision is essentially
the same as the existing general industry standard at Sec.  1910.23(b)
and also with the construction industry rule for wall openings found in
Sec.  1926.501(b)(14), except that the trigger height for fall
protection is 4 feet (1.2 m) in both the proposed and existing general
industry rules.
    The earlier (1990) proposed revision of subpart D proposed that in
addition to providing conventional fall protection, employers also
install grab handles on each side of the wall opening whenever the work
activity required employees to reach through an unprotected opening.
That requirement was based on existing Sec.  1910.23(b)(1)(i) and
(e)(10). OSHA is not including a requirement for grab handles at wall
openings in this proposal because, unlike the 1990 proposal, this
document contains a separate, specific requirement (see proposed
paragraph (b)(2) above) for hoist areas, which includes a requirement
to install grab handles. OSHA is not including the requirement for grab
handles for all wall openings because OSHA intends that, when employees
lean out and through a wall opening, that opening constitutes a ``hoist
area'' and the requirements of proposed paragraph (b)(2) apply. The use
of grab handles as a handhold is, of course, permitted at wall
openings.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(8) is a new provision, proposed to address
the specific fall hazard created by vehicle repair pits and assembly
pits. These pits are designed to provide employee access to the
underside of a vehicle without elevating the vehicle. Typically, a
vehicle is driven over the pit and the employee enters the pit via a
flight of stairs. The employee then performs work on the underside of
the vehicle.
    OSHA currently requires fall protection for these pits, and has
addressed their hazards through section 5(a)(1) (the general duty
clause) of the OSH Act. This proposal sets out specific requirements to
address this fall hazard. Under the proposal, employees exposed to
falling a distance between 4 and 10 feet (1.2 and 3 m) into a vehicle
repair pit need not be protected as required in proposed Sec.
1910.28(b)(1) for unprotected sides and edges, provided the employer
institutes the three specific work practices that OSHA believes will
provide an appropriate level of protection. The option to use work
practices is being proposed in recognition that repair and assembly
pits present a unique problem in terms of striking a balance between
protecting employees from falls and ensuring that the employees can
reach the work area and perform their work. Conventional fall
protection systems may not always be the most appropriate way to
protect employees. For example, the use of guardrails for perimeter
protection could interfere with driving vehicles over, or away from,
the pit. Likewise, the use of personal fall arrest or travel restraint
systems might prevent employees from reaching the area where the work
needs to be performed. Further, once a vehicle is placed over the pit,
the fall hazard is normally eliminated. The primary fall hazard to
employees exists when there is no vehicle over the pit, but it is
OSHA's understanding that employees are unlikely to be in the vicinity
of a repair pit when there is no vehicle over the pit.
    OSHA believes that adequate fall protection for employees can be
provided by the methods proposed in paragraph (b)(8). Access to the
edge (within 6 feet (1.8 m)) of the pit must be limited to trained,
authorized employees (proposed (b)(8)(i)); the floor must be marked
(proposed (b)(8)(ii)) to designate the unprotected area; and caution
signs must be posted to warn employees of the unprotected area
(proposed (b)(8)(iii)). OSHA believes such a well-marked designated
area, extending back 6 feet (1.8 m) from the rim of the pit, provides
sufficient early

warning to employees to protect them from unexpectedly falling into the
pit. The use of caution signs that effectively notify employees of the
presence of the fall hazard would restrict the area to authorized
employees and would further limit employee exposure to the open
perimeter. This provision only applies to pits less than 10 feet (3 m)
deep; however, where employees are exposed to falling 10 feet (3 m) or
more into a pit, conventional fall protection in accord with proposed
paragraph (b)(1) must be used. OSHA notes that caution signs must meet
the requirements of Sec.  1910.145.
    In proposed paragraph (b)(9), OSHA addresses fall hazards related
to fixed ladders. Under the proposed standard, no fall protection is
required when employees are exposed to falls from fixed ladders of less
than 24 feet (7.3 m). Proposed paragraph (b)(9)(i) requires that fixed
ladders be provided with cages, wells, ladder safety systems, or
personal fall protection systems where the length of the climb is less
than 24 feet (7.3 m) but the top of the ladder is more than 24 feet
(7.3 m) above lower levels. Proposed paragraph (b)(9)(ii) addresses
fall hazards where the total length of a climb equals or exceeds 24
feet (7.3 m). In the latter situation, additional measures also apply
when cages, wells, ladder safety systems, or personal fall protection
systems are used. If an employer chooses a personal fall protection
system, rest platforms must be installed at intervals no greater than
150 feet (45.7 m). If the employer chooses a cage or well, no ladder
sections may exceed 50 feet (15.2 m) in length, and each section must
be offset from adjacent sections with landing platforms at maximum
intervals of 50 feet (15.2 m). If an employer chooses a ladder safety
system, no additional measures are proposed.
    The existing standard imposes similar requirements but provides
fewer fall protection options. Section 1910.27(d)(1)(ii) requires that
either cages or wells be provided ``on ladders of more than 20 feet to
a maximum unbroken length of 30 feet,'' and Sec.  1910.27(d)(2)
requires landing platforms at 30-foot (9.1 m) intervals. This language,
which is based on a 1956 ANSI standard that OSHA adopted in 1971, has
widely been understood to mean that fall protection is required
whenever the length of climb is 20 feet (6.1 m) or more. The proposed
revision is consistent with the national consensus standard for fixed
ladders, ANSI A14.3-2002. Additionally, as a matter of enforcement
policy, OSHA has been allowing the use of other fall protection systems
such as those proposed herein. Thus, the proposed requirement
represents current industry practice. The proposed requirements are
also identical to the construction industry standard at Sec. Sec.
1926.1053(a)(18) and (19).
    In proposed paragraph (b)(10), OSHA addresses fall hazards in the
outdoor advertising industry. In this industry, employees often climb
both portable and fixed ladders to reach their destination on the
advertising billboard platform. OSHA is proposing seven provisions that
take into consideration the unique nature of the work wherein both
types of ladders are often used, with the portable ladder being used to
reach the fixed ladder. The requirements proposed in paragraph (b)(10)
are more flexible than those of proposed paragraph (b)(9) for fixed
ladders in that (1) the trigger height for fall protection differs for
employees engaged in outdoor advertising work and, (2) the method of
fall protection differs. The proposed requirements reflect a policy
that OSHA instituted for outdoor advertising work in 1991.
    Specifically, on March 1, 1991 (56 FR 8801), OSHA granted a
variance to one outdoor advertising employer, and later expanded this
policy to apply to all outdoor advertising employers. The policy
allowed some climbing activities to be performed without any
conventional fall protection (wells, cages, ladder safety systems),
provided that employees had received specific training and that certain
work practices (for example, wearing a rest lanyard) were followed. If
the employee's climb was above 50 feet (15.2 m), however, additional
requirements applied. These requirements apply only where employees are
engaged in climbing ladders to reach a billboard platform. Once the
employees reach the platform (that is, they are no longer climbing a
ladder), conventional fall protection is required with no exceptions.
The seven proposed requirements are listed in the following paragraphs.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(10)(i) would apply whenever the length of
the climb is 50 feet (15.2 m) or less or where the total fall distance
does not exceed 65 feet (19.8 m) above grade. In this situation, OSHA
proposes that each employee who climbs a combination of a portable and
a fixed ladder must wear a body belt or body harness equipped with an
18 inch (46 cm) rest lanyard that will enable the employee to tie off
to the fixed ladder.
    In paragraph (b)(10)(ii), OSHA proposes to require that employees
who climb a combination of a portable and a fixed ladder where the
length of the fixed ladder climb exceeds 50 feet (15.2 m), or where the
ladder ascends to heights exceeding 65 feet (19.8 m) from grade, be
protected through the installation of a ladder safety system for the
entire length of the fixed ladder climb.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(10)(iii) would require employers to ensure
that each employee who climbs fixed ladders equipped with ladder safety
systems use the systems properly and follow appropriate procedures for
inspection and maintenance of the systems. In paragraph (b)(10)(iv),
OSHA proposes that all ladder safety systems be properly maintained to
ensure employee safety. This includes all ladder safety systems,
regardless of height or date of installation.
    In paragraph (b)(10)(v), OSHA proposes that each employee who
routinely climbs fixed ladders must undergo training and demonstrate
the physical capacity to perform the necessary climbs safely. These
employees must satisfy the criteria for qualified climber found in
Sec.  1910.29(h). In the 1990 proposed rulemaking (55 FR 13364-66),
OSHA had also proposed to allow the use of a ``qualified climber''
outside of the outdoor advertising industry. In this proposal, OSHA is
limiting the use of qualified climbers to the outdoor advertising
(billboard) industry because, over the last 18 years, there has been
significant progress in protecting employees generally, and many new,
easier-to-use fall protection systems are now readily available. In
fact, anecdotal information as well as enforcement experience indicates
that there is no reasonable basis for proposing to allow the use of
qualified climbers in lieu of conventional fall protection outside of
the outdoor advertising industry.
    In paragraph (b)(10)(vi), OSHA proposes to require that employees
must have both hands free of tools or material when ascending or
descending a ladder. This provision is consistent with requirements of
the national consensus standards in the ANSI/ALI A14 series on ladders,
and with OSHA ladder standards for the construction industry at Sec.
1926.1053. The same provision is also proposed in Sec.  1910.23(b)(13)
and will be applicable, in general, to all employees on ladders to
ensure that employees keep three points of contact on the ladder at all
times while ascending or descending.
    In paragraph (b)(10)(vii), OSHA proposes to require that where
qualified climbers are used, they must be protected by an appropriate
fall protection system upon reaching their work positions.

    In paragraph (b)(11), OSHA proposes requirements to protect
employees from falling off stairway landings and from stairs. This
paragraph addresses fall hazards from both the stairway landing and the
exposed sides of the stairway. The requirements are essentially the
same as the existing requirements in Sec.  1910.24(h) to protect
employees from falls from stairways.
    In paragraph (b)(11)(i), OSHA is proposing that each employee
exposed to a fall of 4 feet or more to lower levels from an unprotected
side or edge of a stairway landing be protected by a stair rail or
guardrail system. The proposal is essentially the same as the existing
requirement in Sec.  1910.24(h) and the construction industry standard
for stairway landings in Sec.  1926.1052(c)(12). Unlike proposed Sec.
1910.28(b)(1) which addresses unprotected sides and edges in general,
and allows the use of several systems to protect employees from falls,
unprotected sides and edges of stairway landings must have stair rails
or guardrails installed. OSHA believes that limiting the fall
protection options to stair rails or guardrails is necessary because
the other options listed in proposed Sec.  1910.28(b)(1), such as
safety net systems or personal fall arrest systems, would not be
appropriate at stairway landings where employees are regularly and
routinely exposed to falls from the unprotected sides and edges. Stair
rail or guardrail systems provide for continuous protection.
    In paragraph (b)(11)(ii), OSHA is proposing that employees exposed
to falls from stairs having three treads and four or more risers be
protected by stair railing systems and hand rails. Included with the
proposed provision is a table that sets out the type/number of stair
rails and handrails required based on the stair width and configuration
of the stairway. An exception to the table is that handrails must be
provided on both sides of ship stairs and alternating-tread type
stairs. The proposed requirements are essentially the same as existing
Sec.  1910.23(d)(1).
    In proposed paragraph (b)(12), OSHA establishes requirements to
protect employees on scaffolds and rope descent systems from falls. As
discussed earlier, OSHA is proposing to remove all the scaffold
requirements from the general industry standards and require employers
to comply with the construction industry standards for scaffolds. In
view of that, OSHA is proposing in paragraph (b)(12)(i) to require that
employers protect employees from falls from scaffolds by meeting the
requirements for fall protection already set out in the construction
industry standards of subpart L, Scaffolds (29 CFR 1926). In general,
those requirements provide for fall protection whenever employees are
exposed to falls of 10 feet (3 m) or more above lower levels. The
existing requirements in subpart D already set the duty to have fall
protection from scaffolds at or above 10 feet (3 m) from grade, so
effectively there is no change.
    In proposed paragraph (b)(12)(ii), OSHA requires that employees
using a rope descent system be protected from falling 4 feet (1.2 m) or
more to lower levels by a personal fall arrest system meeting the
requirements in proposed Sec.  1910.140 of subpart I of this part. OSHA
notes that paragraph (c)(3) of proposed Sec.  1910.140 requires that
ropes used for fall protection be separate from ropes used to suspend
the rope descent system. The principle of using independent fall
protection systems is also reflected in Sec.  1926.502(d)(15).
    Proposed paragraph (b)(13) is a ``catch all'' provision applicable
to walking-working surfaces not otherwise addressed and is intended to
ensure that Sec.  1910.28 covers all fall hazards in general industry.
It sets forth clearly that all employees exposed to falls of 4 feet
(1.2 m) or more to lower levels must be protected by a guardrail
system, safety net system, personal fall arrest system, or travel
restraint system, except where otherwise provided by proposed Sec.
1910.28 or by fall protection provisions in other subparts of part
1910. This provision is intended to facilitate compliance for employers
who do not fit any of the specific categories set by proposed Sec.
1910.28. OSHA used this same approach in its fall protection
requirements for the construction industry at Sec.  1926.501(b)(15).
The proposed new language expresses the current enforcement practice of
the Agency, making it clear that employers must address all fall
hazards in the workplace.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(14) addresses fall protection for floor
holes such as stairway floor holes and ladderways, and is consistent
with existing requirements found in Sec.  1910.23(a). Accordingly, as
with existing Sec.  1910.23(a) (and ANSI A1264.1-2007, Safety
Requirements for Workplace Walking/Working Surfaces and Their Access;
Workplace, Floor, Wall and Roof Openings; Stairs and Guardrails
Systems), some, but not all, of the provisions in this proposed
paragraph require toeboards when using fixed or removable guardrail
systems. OSHA requests comment on whether toeboards should be required
as a part of the guardrail systems used for all floor holes regulated
under this proposed paragraph. If possible, the comments should provide
information regarding the need for such a requirement, current industry
practice, the effectiveness of toeboards in these situations, and the
cost associated with adding this requirement to provisions of this
paragraph not proposing to use toeboards.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(14)(i) requires stairway floor holes to be
guarded by a guardrail system. The railing must be provided on all
exposed sides except at the entrance to the stairway. For infrequently
used stairways where traffic across the hole prevents the use of a
fixed guardrail system (as when located in an aisle), the employer has
an option to use a guard that consists of a hinged floor-hole cover of
standard strength and construction and a removable guardrail system on
all exposed sides except at the entrance to the stairway.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(14)(i) differs slightly from existing Sec.
1910.23(a) in that it clarifies that use of a hinged floor-hole cover
is an alternative to using fixed guardrail systems, which is only
implied in existing Sec.  1910.23(a). The proposed provision also
defines the term ``infrequently'' in a manner that is consistent
proposed Sec.  1910.265, which defines the term ``routinely'' as ``on a
daily basis.'' OSHA believes the proposed definition will provide
employers with helpful information about when use of a hinged floor-
hole cover may be appropriate. With regard to the option to use a
hinged floor- opening cover, OSHA requests information and comment on
the use of automatically rising railings that come into position with
the opening of a load-bearing cover on some infrequently used stairways
as specified by the explanatory paragraph E3.1 of ANSI/ASSE A1264.1-
2007, Safety Requirements for Workplace Walking/Working Surfaces and
Their Access; Workplace, Floor, Wall and Roof Openings; Stairs and
Guardrails Systems. The comments should provide, if possible,
information regarding the availability of such guardrail systems, the
prevalence of their use, the cost of the systems (including
installation), and the protection such systems afford employees
compared to fixed systems.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(14)(ii) requires that ladderway floor holes
or platforms be guarded by a guardrail system with toeboards on all
exposed sides, except at the entrance opening, with passage through the
railing provided by a swinging gate or offset so that an employee
cannot walk directly into the hole.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(14)(iii) requires that hatchway and chute-
floor

holes be guarded using one of three options. The first option,
specified in proposed (b)(14)(iii)(A), provides for hinged floor-hole
covers of standard strength and construction and equipped with
permanently attached guardrails that only leave one exposed side. When
the hole is not in use, the cover must be closed, or the exposed side
must be guarded by a removable guardrail system with top and mid rails.
The second option, found in proposed paragraph (b)(14)(iii)(B),
specifies a removable guardrail system with toeboards on not more than
two sides of the hole and a fixed guardrail with toeboards on all other
exposed sides. The removable guardrail system must remain in place when
the hole is not in use. The third option, found in proposed paragraph
(b)(14)(iii)(C), provides that, when operating conditions require
feeding material through a hatchway or chute hole, employees be
protected from falling through the hole by a guardrail system or a
travel-restraint system meeting the applicable requirements of 29 CFR
part 1910, subpart I.
    OSHA requests comment on whether there are any other specific
surfaces, operations, or work activities (e.g., satellite dish
realignment, chimney cleaning, and sky light maintenance) not addressed
here in proposed paragraph (b) that should be treated separately. For
each surface, operation, or activity, please provide the types of fall
protection that OSHA should permit and provide the reasons why the
surface, operation, or activity should be treated separately.
    In paragraph (c) of Sec.  1910.28, OSHA proposes to require
employers to protect employees from injury from falling objects both by
ensuring the use of head protection, and by complying with one of the
following provisions: (1) Using toeboards, screens, or guardrail
systems; (2) erecting a canopy structure over the potential fall area
and keeping potential falling objects far enough from the edge of the
higher level so those objects are unlikely to fall, even if they are
accidentally displaced; or (3) barricading the area into which objects
could fall, prohibiting employees from entering the barricaded area,
and keeping objects far enough away from the edge of a higher level so
those objects are unlikely to fall even if they are accidentally
displaced. The proposed requirements, patterned after OSHA's
construction industry standards in Sec.  1926.501(c), clarify the
intent of the existing general industry requirements in Sec.
1910.23(b)(5) and (c)(1) pertaining to falling object hazards.
Section 1910.29 Fall Protection Systems Criteria and Practices
    This section of the proposal provides the requirements for fall
protection systems required by proposed Sec.  1910.28 and by other
subparts in part 1910 where criteria and practices are not specifically
required. However, proposed Sec.  1910.29 does not apply where another
standard in part 1910 already specifies the criteria for a required
fall protection system. For example, Sec.  1910.269(g) sets a duty to
use fall protection and also specifies the criteria for some of the
required systems.
    As explained in proposed Sec.  1910.28, Duty to have fall
protection, employers who are required by that section to provide fall
protection must choose a fall protection measure from the options
provided for the particular activity or operation. Then the employer
must ensure that the chosen system or practice meets the criteria
established in proposed Sec.  1910.29. Additionally, as required by
proposed Sec.  1910.30 and Sec.  1910.132(f), employees must be trained
in how to use the system, including, where applicable, the installation
and maintenance of the fall protection system.
    The requirements proposed here, like the requirements proposed in
Sec.  1910.28, are patterned after the requirements in OSHA's
construction industry standards. OSHA believes that this approach will
bring consistency to its fall protection standards and make it easier
for employers to comply, especially employers who perform work covered
by both the construction and general industry standards. The criteria
for personal fall protection systems are located at newly proposed
Sec.  1910.140 of subpart I, Personal Protective Equipment, which is
being published as part of this proposal.
Paragraph (a)--General Requirements.
    Proposed paragraph (a) sets general requirements applicable to all
fall protection systems covered by part 1910. In paragraph (a)(1), OSHA
proposes that all fall protection systems required throughout part 1910
conform to the requirements of this section or, where personal fall
protection systems are used, to subpart I of this part. In proposed
paragraph (a)(2), OSHA requires that employers provide and install all
fall protection systems required by this subpart and comply with all
other pertinent requirements of this subpart (including training)
before any employee begins work that necessitates the use of fall
protection. OSHA notes that under existing Sec.  1910.132(h), with few
exceptions (such as non-specialty safety-toe protective footwear),
personal protective equipment, including fall protection equipment,
must be provided by the employer at no cost to the employee.
    OSHA's intent is that fall protection systems be installed,
permanently where possible, so that the systems are in place and
available for use whenever there is a potential exposure to fall
hazards. Because most general industry employers are at fixed sites,
OSHA envisions that employers will take a proactive approach to
managing fall hazards and will want to have fall protection systems in
place at all times. That is, OSHA believes employers will anticipate
the need for employees to walk or work on surfaces where a potential
fall hazard exists and install a permanent fall protection system
(e.g., guardrail system) or attachment (tie-off) point so that fall
protection is readily available when needed. OSHA believes such
planning is part of the standard operating procedures for many
employers as they plan for overall safety at the workplace. Planning
eliminates the need to use a less protective measure, like a safe work
practice, when a more conventional method such as a guardrail system,
restraint system, or personal fall arrest system would be more
appropriate. OSHA, however, recognizes that there may be some, limited
situations where the use of less protective, but nonetheless effective,
measures may be warranted; for example, when the work to be performed
is of a short term or temporary nature. To illustrate, OSHA does not
envision that employers will put a permanent guardrail system around
the perimeter of an entire roof when work on the roof is non-routine.
When the work is non-routine, they may erect a permanent guardrail
system on one small area of the roof, or, most likely, establish a
designated area meeting the criteria in proposed paragraph (d).
Paragraph (b)--Guardrail Systems.
    In paragraph (b), OSHA proposes that all guardrail systems (except
those used on scaffolds which must comply with applicable part 1926
requirements) comply with the criteria set forth in proposed paragraphs
(b)(1) to (b)(15) of this section. The 15 proposed requirements are
essentially the same as the existing requirements in subpart D, and
they are nearly identical to the construction industry requirements for
guardrail systems found in Sec.  1926.502(b). OSHA notes that the
preamble to the final rule establishing Sec.  1926.502 (59 FR 40733)
contains

explanatory material for each of the provisions proposed for paragraph
(b) and may provide additional information to assist employers in
complying with the proposed rules.
    Existing subpart D refers to both ``standard railings'' and
``guardrails.'' In this proposal, the term ``standard railings'' will
not be used. OSHA believes that the proposed revisions to the guardrail
requirements are easier to understand, reflect current work practices,
and ensure consistency among OSHA rules applicable to guardrails.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(1) requires that the top edge of guardrail
systems be 42 inches (107 cm), plus or minus 3 inches (8 cm), above the
walking-working surface.\2\ It also states that, when conditions
warrant, the top edge of the guardrail system may exceed 45 inches (114
cm) provided all other conditions of proposed paragraph (b) have been
met to protect employees from falling through openings in the guardrail
system. The proposed provision is essentially the same as the existing
requirement in Sec.  1910.23(e)(1), except that the existing
requirement does not specifically allow for exceeding the 45-inch (114
cm) top height requirement. The new language is added because OSHA has
already adopted this approach in its construction industry standards at
Sec.  1926.502(b)(1). In the preamble to the final rule for the
construction industry standard OSHA noted that it was allowing
employers to exceed the 45-inch (114 cm) height requirement because it
was aware that there will be situations where work conditions
necessitate erecting the guardrail so the top edge height is greater
than 45 inches (114 cm). OSHA believes such conditions may also exist
in general industry; if so, exceeding the 42-inch (107 cm) height
requirement would not impact employee safety. For that reason, OSHA is
proposing the revised language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ OSHA notes that the two previous proposals on walking-
working surfaces included a ``grandfather provision'' permitting a
guardrail height of 36 inches, rather than the proposed 42 inches,
for guardrails installed within 60 days of the effective date of the
final rule. (See proposed Sec.  1910.28(b)(3), 55 FR 13360 (April
10, 1990) and 68 FR 23528 (May 2, 2003).) The 36-inch grandfather
provision is not included in this proposal, nor does OSHA consider
it to be equally safe to the ``42 inches nominal'' height currently
required under existing Sec.  1910.23(e). Therefore, to the extent
that any previous OSHA letters of interpretation characterized a 36-
inch guardrail height as a de minimis violation because of the
grandfather provision in the two previous proposals, those
interpretations are hereby superseded. (See, e.g., 08/27/2008 Letter
to Bryan Cobb and 03/08/1995 Memorandum from John Miles to Byron
Chadwick.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA is considering a new provision that would allow the use of
barriers as the functional equivalent of guardrails. This provision
would permit barriers, such as parapets, to be as low as 30 inches (76
cm) in height, provided the sum of the depth of the top of the barrier
and the height of the top edge of the barrier is at least 48 inches
(1.2 m). For example, at the minimum height of 30 inches, an 18-inch
width would be required. The Agency requests comment regarding the
technological feasibility of this proposed provision requiring other
means of fall protection (e.g., travel restraint systems) in these
applications. Please include supporting rationale, as well as
information on the costs and benefits of such a provision.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2) requires midrails, screens, mesh,
intermediate vertical members, or equivalent intermediate structural
members to be installed between the top edge of the guardrail system
and the walking-working surface when there is no wall or parapet wall
at least 21 inches (53 cm) high to keep employees from falling through
the opening. The proposed provision is essentially the same as the
existing requirements in Sec.  1910.23(e)(1) and (e)(3)(v)(c), and in
the construction industry standard at Sec.  1926.502(b)(2).
    In proposed paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iv) OSHA establishes
requirements for midrails, screens, mesh, intermediate vertical
members, and other structural members. Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(i)
specifies that when midrails are used to comply with proposed paragraph
(b)(2), they must be installed midway between the top edge of the
guardrail system and the walking-working level. Proposed paragraphs
(b)(2)(ii), (iii), and (iv) address the proper placement of screens,
mesh, intermediate vertical members, and other structural members when
they are used in lieu of midrails in the guardrail system.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(3) requires guardrail systems to be capable
of withstanding, without failure, a force of at least 200 pounds (890
N) applied within 2 inches (5 cm) of the top edge, in any outward or
downward direction at any point along the top edge. Proposed paragraph
(b)(4) requires that when the 200-pound load is applied in a downward
direction, the top edge of the guardrail must not deflect to a height
less than 39 inches (99 cm) above the walking-working level. Deflection
is specified for the top edge because that is the point an employee is
most likely to fall against and it must be high enough, at all times,
to prevent the employee from falling over the top rail. The proposed
provisions are essentially the same as the existing requirements in
Sec.  1910.23(e)(3)(v)(b). and in the construction industry standard at
Sec.  1926.502(b)(3) and (b)(4).
    Proposed paragraph (b)(5) requires midrails, screens, mesh,
intermediate vertical members, solid panels, and equivalent structural
members to be capable of withstanding, without failure, a force of at
least 150 pounds (667 N) applied in any downward or outward direction
at any point along the midrail or other member. The existing standard
does not contain a strength requirement for midrails and this omission
has caused confusion among employers. The proposed provision is nearly
identical to OSHA's construction industry standard at Sec.
1926.502(b)(5). In that rule, OSHA explained that it chose the 150
pound strength test because it had determined that midrails need not be
as strong as top rails to provide appropriate protection. OSHA also
determined that a limit on deflection was not needed for midrails and
other members.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(6) requires guardrail systems to be surfaced
to prevent injury to an employee from punctures or lacerations and to
prevent snagging of clothing. The provision is based on existing Sec.
1910.23(e)(1) and (e)(3)(v)(a) and OSHA's construction industry
standard at Sec.  1926.502(b)(6).
    Proposed paragraph (b)(7) requires employers to ensure that the
ends of all top rails and midrails do not overhang the terminal posts,
except where such overhang does not constitute a projection hazard. The
proposed provision is essentially the same as existing Sec.
1910.23(e)(1) and OSHA's construction industry standard at Sec.
1926.502(b)(7).
    Proposed paragraph (b)(8) prohibits steel banding and plastic
banding from being used as top rails or midrails. While this banding
can often withstand a 200-pound load, it can tear easily if twisted. In
addition, banding often has sharp edges which can cut a hand if seized.
This proposed requirement is similar to a requirement found in OSHA's
construction industry standard at Sec.  1926.502(b)(8).
    Proposed paragraph (b)(9) requires top rails and midrails of
guardrail systems to have at least a 0.25-inch (0.6 cm) diameter or
thickness. OSHA believes that the minimum thickness requirement is
needed to prevent the use of rope that could cause cuts or lacerations.
This requirement is based on the construction industry standard at
Sec.  1926.502(b)(9). The proposed requirement supplements the strength

requirement proposed in (b)(3), (4), and (5) of this section. The
purpose of this requirement is to assure that top rails and midrails
made of high strength materials are not so thin that a worker grabbing
a rail is injured by cuts or lacerations because of the small size of
the rail.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(10) requires that when guardrail systems are
used at hoisting areas, a chain gate or removable guardrail section
must be placed across the access opening between guardrail sections
when hoisting operations are not taking place. The proposed requirement
simply clarifies the requirements of existing Sec.  1910.23(a)(3)(ii)
and (b)(1)(i). It is identical to OSHA's construction industry standard
at Sec.  1926.502(b)(10).
    Proposed paragraph (b)(11) requires that when guardrail systems are
used at holes, they must be erected on all unprotected sides or edges
of the hole. This requirement is identical to OSHA's construction
industry standard at Sec.  1926.502(b)(11).
    Proposed paragraph (b)(12) requires that when guardrail systems are
used around floor holes used for the passage of materials, the hole
must have not more than two sides provided with removable guardrail
sections to allow for the passage of materials. When the hole is not in
use, it must either be closed over with a cover, or a guardrail system
must be provided along all unprotected sides or edges. This requirement
is based on existing Sec.  1910.23(a)(8)(ii) and is the same as the
construction industry standard at Sec.  1926.502(b)(12). It is intended
to prevent employees from falling into the hole.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(13) requires that when guardrail systems are
used around holes used as points of access (such as ladderway
openings), they must either be provided with a gate, or be offset so
that a person cannot walk directly into the hole. This requirement is
essentially the same as the existing standard at Sec.  1910.23(a)(2),
the construction industry standard at Sec.  1926.502(b)(13), and the
national consensus standard, ANSI A1264.1-2007, American National
Standard--Safety Requirements for Workplace Walking/Working Surfaces
and Their Access; Workplace, Floor, Wall and Roof Openings; Stairs and
Guardrail Systems.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(14) requires that guardrail systems used on
ramps and runways be erected along each unprotected side or edge. This
requirement is essentially the same as the construction industry
standard at Sec.  1926.502(b)(14) for ramps and runways.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(15) requires manila, plastic, or synthetic
rope being used for top rails or midrails to be inspected as frequently
as necessary to ensure that it continues to meet the strength
requirements of proposed paragraph (b)(3) of this section. OSHA
believes frequent inspection is necessary for ropes made of these
materials to ensure that they do not deteriorate and lose strength.
This requirement is the same as OSHA's construction industry standard
at Sec.  1926.502(b)(15).
    Proposed paragraph (b)(16) requires guardrail systems used on
scaffolds to meet the applicable requirements set forth in part 1926 of
this chapter. As discussed above in proposed Sec.  1910.27, Scaffolds
and rope descent systems, OSHA is proposing to remove the general
industry requirements for scaffolds, and instead require compliance
with the construction industry requirements for scaffolds. The
construction industry requirements specifying the criteria for
guardrails used on scaffolds differ from the requirements proposed for
guardrails used on other surfaces. Therefore, OSHA proposes to add new
paragraph (b)(16) for consistency, and to promote compliance and
eliminate confusion since many employers who use scaffolds perform both