Table V-21--Training Requirements Under Proposed Sec.   1920.23
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Paragraph                             Subject
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   1910.23(b)(11).....................  When ascending or descending
                                             a ladder, the user must
                                             face the ladder.
Sec.   1910.23(b)(12).....................  Each employee must use at
                                             least one hand to grasp the
                                             ladder when progressing up
                                             and down the ladder.
Sec.   1910.23(b)(13).....................  An employee must not carry
                                             any object or load that
                                             could cause the employee to
                                             lose his or her balance and
                                             fall.
Sec.   1910.23(c)(5)......................  Portable single rail ladders
                                             must be rigidly supported
                                             when used.
Sec.   1910.23(c)(6)......................  Ladders must not be moved,
                                             shifted, or extended while
                                             occupied by employees.
Sec.   1910.23(c)(10).....................  The top of a non-self-
                                             supporting ladder must be
                                             placed with the two rails
                                             supported unless it is
                                             equipped with a single
                                             support attachment. [New
                                             for wood ladders.]
Sec.   1910.23(c)(11).....................  When portable ladders are
                                             used to gain access to an
                                             upper landing surface, the
                                             ladder siderails must
                                             extend at least 3 feet (0.9
                                             m) above that upper landing
                                             surface. [New for metal
                                             ladders.]
Sec.   1910.23(c)(13).....................  Ladders and ladder sections
                                             must not be tied or
                                             fastened together to
                                             provide longer length
                                             unless they are
                                             specifically designed for
                                             such use. (New for wood
                                             ladders.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: ERG, 2007.

    In ERG's cost model, ten employees are trained per session with one
supervisor in attendance. ERG further assumed that $1 in materials cost
is incurred for handouts for each employee trained.
    Some establishments already provide regular safety training. OSHA
applied an estimate for the percentages of establishments that already
provide training from the NIOSH National Occupational Exposure Survey
(NOES) database (NIOSH, 1988). Although the data are over 20 years old,
the NIOSH NOES survey is still the primary source for such information
and covers a broad range of industries. The proportion of
establishments that already offer regular safety training is likely to
have increased in the past two decades; hence, the training costs may
be overestimated.
    The cost to train all the employees at establishments that do not
offer regular safety training is a one-time cost that is annualized
over a 10-year period at an interest rate of seven percent. Summing
across all affected employers, the total first-year cost is $11.2
million, with an annualized cost of $1.6 million.
    New employees that enter the workforce would also need training.
For the purpose of estimating the cost of the rule, ERG conservatively
assumed that training received at a prior place of employment was not
considered sufficient to meet the proposed subpart D requirement for
the new employer. Based on ERG's analysis of 2003 turnover data
collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (ERG, 2007, Ex. 6), OSHA
applied 2008 BLS industry turnover rate data to the cost analysis.
Table V-22 summarizes the data and the NAICS codes to which they are
assigned. OSHA assigned the turnover rate for manufacturing to logging
(NAICS 1133), oil and gas extraction (NAICS 2111), and information
(NAICS 51). Under these assumptions, the estimated cost is $4.3 million
per year to train new employees about ladder safety.

 Table V-22--Industry Turnover Rates Applied in OSHA's Preliminary Cost
                                Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Turnover rate
          Industry sector                NAICS codes       \a\ (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturing.....................  1133, 2111, 31-33,              24.3
                                     51.
Transportation and Public           22, 48-49...........            31.5
 Utilities.
Wholesale Trade...................  42..................            26.1
Retail Trade......................  44-45...............            47.1
Finance, Insurance, and Real        52-53...............            27.2
 Estate.
Service...........................  54-81...............            47.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Hires as a percent of total employment.
Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Directorate of Evaluation and
  Analysis, Office of Regulatory Analysis, based on ERG, 2007, and
  Bureau of Labor Statistics. Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey,
  2008.

    To estimate the costs for ensuring that mobile ladder stands and
mobile ladder stand platforms conform with the applicable ANSI
standards (see the note to proposed Sec.  1910.23(e)), OSHA's cost
formula, adopted from ERG's analysis (ERG, 2007, Ex. 6), includes the
6.74 million establishments covered in subpart D, as presented in the
industry profile earlier in this PEA. ERG assumed that a typical
lifetime for a ladder is five years; thus, one-fifth of the

establishments would purchase a ladder in any given year. Furthermore,
ERG assumed that a supervisor from each establishment would take 5
minutes to read ladder specifications to ensure the ladder about to be
purchased meets all ANSI 14 requirements for that type ladder. With
these assumptions, the estimated annual cost for proposed Sec.
1910.23(e) is $3.8 million.
Step Bolts and Manhole Steps (Sec.  1910.24)
    Step bolts. ERG identified three general cost categories for the
requirements addressing step bolts and pole steps:
     Utility poles.
     Communication structures.
     Sports and performance arenas with pole-mounted lights.
    Utility poles. According to the 2007 Utility Data Institute
Directory of Electric Power Producers and Distributors, there are
6,297,596 distribution line miles across the United States (Platts,
2007). Of these, the proposed OSHA rule would concern the overhead (as
opposed to underground) line miles. According to ERG, the most recent
estimate available for the overhead distribution system is 4.1 million
line miles in 1996, about two-thirds of total line miles (NCAMP, 1997).
Considering the maturity of the electric power industry in the United
States, ERG assumed that there has not been a significant amount of new
line miles built in the past decade, and of the new lines miles, there
probably has been a trend to build the lines underground. Assuming one
utility pole every 100 feet, ERG estimated that there are 216,480,000
utility poles across the United States. According to a recent highway
safety study, this estimate is 2.5 times the number of reported utility
poles on highways in 1999, and therefore this estimate appears to be
reasonable (NCHRP, 2004). Assuming 1 percent of the poles are climbed
each year and 1 minute is taken for inspection of the step bolts, the
estimated annual cost is $1.5 million.
    Communication structures. ERG estimates that there are roughly
190,000 fixed ladder structures in the communications industry (see
ERG, 2007, Appendix A, Ex. 6). This estimate encompasses communication
structures with fixed ladders and step bolts. Fixed ladders, however,
have an existing requirement for inspection while step bolts do not. To
narrow the estimate to fixed ladders with step bolts, ERG searched an
FCC database (Antenna Structure Registration (ASR)) and determined that
most communication structures meet at least one of the following
criteria:
     Height is 200 feet or greater.
     Height <199 feet if within 5 miles of an airport and fails
the glide calculation (part 17 requirement).
     Height of the extension (e.g., beyond the building roof)
is 20 feet or more.
    ERG assumed that these structures are more likely to have fixed
ladders rather than step bolts. As of May 2007, there were
approximately 93,000 structures in the ASR database. Communication
structures that are not in the ASR database are smaller and, thus, more
likely to have step bolts. ERG assumed that the difference between the
total number of structures (190,000) and the number in the ASR database
(93,000) would represent the number of structures that could
potentially have step bolts. ERG assumed that the 97,000 structures
with step bolts are climbed once a year and that one minute is spent
inspecting the structure before it is climbed. These unit estimates
resulted in an annual cost of $0.050 million for NAICS 51
(Information).
    Sports and performance arenas. According to a recent census, there
are 1,699 promoters of performing arts, sports, and similar events with
facilities (Census, 2002). ERG was unable to estimate the number of
step bolts at each facility, but assuming that one hour per year is
dedicated to inspecting all step bolts at each facility, ERG calculated
that annual costs would total $0.034 million for NAICS 7113 (promoters
of performing arts, sports, and similar events with facilities).
    Summing costs for utility poles, communication structures, and
sports and performance arenas, OSHA estimated that the total annual
inspection cost for step bolts would be $1.54 million. OSHA requests
comment on the extent to which visual inspection of step bolts is
currently conducted in the telecommunications and electric utility
industries, and in sports and performance arenas. OSHA, in addition,
requests comment on the assumptions underlying its analysis of costs,
as well as information on the potential impacts of the proposed
revision to the requirements to safely climb surfaces with step bolts.
    Manhole steps. ERG estimates there are between 6.6 and 13.2 million
manholes, with a mid-point estimate of 9.9 million manholes (ERG, 2007,
Ex. 6). Of these manholes, approximately 85 percent, or 8.4 million
manholes, are 20 feet or less in depth and, therefore, the majority
would use steps or portable ladders instead of fixed ladders. By way of
simplification, ERG assumed that 10 percent of all manholes 20 feet or
less would be entered once a year, on average, and that it would take
one minute to inspect the steps prior to entering the manhole. These
assumptions resulted in an annual cost of $2.1 million for the industry
that would be primarily affected, NAICS 2213 (water, sewage, and other
systems).
    Other industries also use manholes for access, such as the electric
power generation, transmission, and distribution (NAICS 2211) and
natural gas distribution (NAICS 2212). ERG, however, had no data on the
number of manholes for those industry groups, but OSHA presumes that
the costs would be proportional to the number of manholes that are
estimated for water and sewage systems. OSHA was not able to estimate
costs for NAICS 2211 and 2212, and, therefore, requests public comment
on the impact of the requirement for inspecting manhole steps on these
and any other affected industries.
    The incremental costs for the provision of slip-resistant and
corrosion-resistant manhole step surfaces would be incurred in the
future as manholes with steps are replaced at the end of their useful
life. As described above, there are 9.9 million manholes, of which 85
percent are 20 feet or less in depth and 15 percent are more than 20
feet in depth. The manholes less than 20 feet are assumed to have a
uniform distribution in the use of portable ladders, fixed ladders, and
steps, resulting in 2.9 million manholes with steps. The manholes 20
feet or more in depth are assumed to have a uniform distribution
between fixed ladders and steps, resulting in 0.7 million manholes with
steps. Therefore, 3.6 million manholes are considered as the universe
affected by the proposed requirement. The most expensive step found has
a per-unit cost of $8.50, and it is assumed that this includes a 10
percent premium to ensure the steps meet the proposed requirements
(ERG, 2007, Ex. 6).
    OSHA estimated annual step replacement costs by assuming that 10
percent of the manholes are entered each year, and of those 10 percent
have a failed rung. At the incremental cost of $0.85 each (10 percent
of $8.50 per rung), the estimated annual step replacement cost is $0.03
million. Annual manhole replacement costs are estimated assuming 5
percent of manholes need to be replaced a year and that steps are
installed every 16 inches. The estimated annual manhole replacement
cost is $1.7 million.

Scaffolds and Rope Descent Systems (Sec.  1910.27)
    Training. Cost for any training beyond what is done as a result of
the 1991 OSHA memorandum on descent control devices are attributed to
proposed Sec.  1910.30 (see below).
    Sound anchorages. To provide assurances that an anchorage is sound,
assigned costs involved: (1) A qualified/competent person who would
inspect the rigging and anchorages on buildings annually, and (2) a
professional engineer who would certify the soundness of the rigging
and anchorages every 10 years.
    According to an industry expert contacted by ERG, an estimated 3.0
million window-cleaning descents take place annually at 750,000
buildings (ERG, 2007, Ex. 6). Using data collected by the Department of
Energy (DOE) for surveys on energy use, ERG compared this estimate with
the number of commercial and residential buildings with four or more
floors. The 2003 Commercials Buildings Energy Consumption Survey
identified about 140,000 commercial buildings nationwide (DOE, 2006).
The 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey identified about 2.4
million apartment buildings with 5 to 10 floors, 0.9 million apartment
buildings with 11 to 20 floors, and an unspecified number of buildings
with more than 20 floors (DOE, 2004). Summing the three categories of
residential buildings, ERG estimated that there are approximately 3.3
million residential buildings with at least 5 or more floors.
    If it is assumed that each commercial building has its windows
cleaned annually, that would account for 140,000 of the estimated
750,000 cleanings per year. If the remaining 610,000 cleanings are
distributed over the 3.3 million residential buildings, each building
would, on average, have its windows cleaned every five to six years.
    ERG's industry expert estimated that a minimum of 20 percent of the
building owners comply with the inspection standard and that the number
is increasing. However, comments submitted to the Agency in response to
the 2003 reopening presented a wide range of perspectives on the
likelihood that building owners inspect their anchorages on a periodic
basis. Amodeo (2003) noted that some clients view ANSI I-14.1 as
voluntary and resist having inspections. Kreidenweis (2003) commented
that few buildings are inspected by an engineer. In contrast, Lebel
(2003) shared the view that many buildings have a roof plan and
identified anchorages certified by a professional engineer. Zeolla
(2003) stated that most buildings that have invested in anchors are
performing the inspections.
    If, as estimated by ERG, 75 percent of the approximately 750,000
buildings that are cleaned each year will be affected by the change
from a voluntary requirement to a mandatory requirement, then OSHA
estimates that 562,500 buildings would require annual inspections and
decennial certifications. ERG further assumed that the annual
inspections would be performed by a production supervisor ($29.73/hour)
and that it would take one hour to perform the inspection. Annual costs
for the building inspections would total $16.7 million.
    Table V-23 summarizes the range in costs for a professional
engineer to certify building anchorages; cost estimates were drawn from
comments in the record. The estimates are adjusted to 2003 dollars
using as the deflator the Consumer Price Index--All Urban Consumers
(BLS, 2007). The costs range from a low of $175 to a high of $2,500,
and probably represent the range in the size of buildings, complexity
of anchorage arrangements, and regional standards. The median value is
$1,000.

                     Table V-23--Estimated Cost for the Certification of Building Anchorages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Estimated cost          Estimated cost (2003
                                                          ---------------------------------       dollars)
                          Source                                                           ---------------------
                                                              Low        High       Year       Low        High
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bright, 2007.............................................       $300     $1,500       2006       $274     $1,369
Kreidenweis, 2003........................................      1,000      2,500       2003      1,000      2,500
Lebel, 2003..............................................        175      1,000       2003        175      1,000
Wright, 2003.............................................        400  .........       2003        400  .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: ERG, 2007.

    Assuming, as indicated earlier, that building anchorages would be
certified every ten years, OSHA estimates that 56,250 buildings (one-
tenth of 562,500 buildings certified annually) would need anchorage
certification every year. At an average cost of $1,000 for
certification, annual costs for anchorage certification would total
$56.3 million.
    Summing costs for inspecting and certifying building anchorages,
OSHA estimates that annual costs for ensuring that building anchorages
are sound, as required by proposed Sec.  1910.27(b)(2)(iv), would total
$73.0 million.
Duty To Have Fall Protection (Sec.  1910.28)
    Table V-24 lists the requirements in this proposed section that are
likely to create new cost burdens on employers. The following
discussion presents, by requirement, the details of OSHA's cost
analysis for this section.
    General protection. Proposed Sec.  1910.28(a)(2) covers all
walking-working surfaces and specifies that walking-working surfaces
must have the strength and structural integrity to support employees
safely. As discussed earlier in this cost subsection, the proposed
general requirements (Sec.  1910.22) provide for the periodic and
regular inspection of walking-working surfaces by employers to ensure
that the surfaces are in a safe condition for employees to use.
Proposed Sec.  1910.28(a)(2) provides further detail as to what should
be considered in the inspection of surfaces. Thus, OSHA believes that
the costs for the inspections required by proposed Sec.  1910.28(a)(2),
are included in the costs estimated for general inspection in proposed
Sec.  1910.22(d), described earlier.
    Dockboards (bridge plates). Proposed Sec.  1920.28(b)(4) would
require that guardrails or handrails be installed to protect employees
on dockboards from falls of four feet or more to a lower level.
Employers with dockboards having maximum heights that are less than
four feet would not incur costs under this paragraph. Dockboards
presenting a fall hazard of four feet up to ten feet are exempted from
the hand/guardrail requirement if the ramp is used exclusively for
material handling operations with motorized equipment. To qualify for
the exception, employees

need to be trained. Training costs for this provision are discussed
later in this section.

    Table V-24--New Requirements in Sec.   1910.28, Duty To Have Fall
                               Protection
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Paragraph                             Subject
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   1910.28(a)(2)..............  Employer must ensure that walking-
                                     working surfaces have the strength
                                     and structural integrity to safely
                                     support employees.
Sec.   1910.28(b)(4)(i)...........  Installation of guardrails and
                                     handrails on dockboards (bridge
                                     plates).
Sec.   1910.28(b)(4)(ii)..........  Fall protection training required
                                     for dockboards, in accordance with
                                     Sec.   1910.30, including proper
                                     placement and securing of
                                     dockboards, securing of vehicles,
                                     and proper use of material handling
                                     equipment.
Sec.   1910.28(b)(10)(iii)........  Inspection of safety systems on
                                     fixed ladders used in outdoor
                                     advertising.
Sec.   1910.28(b)(10)(v) and (vi).  Employees that routinely climb the
                                     fixed ladder portions of a
                                     billboard must be a ``qualified
                                     climber'' and must have both hands
                                     free of tools or material when
                                     ascending or descending a ladder.
                                     Costs associated with this training
                                     are assigned to proposed Sec.
                                     1910.29(h).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, 2007.

    ERG judged that a substantial proportion of dockboards would either
not incur costs due to height or be able to use the exception. Thus,
OSHA anticipates that any costs incurred under this provision are
unlikely to be substantial. OSHA requests comment on the potential
impacts associated with the duty to protect employees on dockboards
from falls.
    Outdoor advertising. Based on discussions with the Outdoor
Advertising Association of America, ERG estimated that the number of
billboards with fixed ladders over 20 feet is approximately 20,500
(ERG, 2007, Ex. 6). Billboards are climbed anywhere from one to more
than 12 times a year, whenever the copy is changed. For the purpose of
estimating costs, ERG assumes that billboards are climbed an average of
six times a year, totaling 123,000 climbs (20,500 billboards x 6
climbs). Each time a billboard is to be climbed, the employee takes two
minutes to inspect the ladder safety system (246,000 minutes or 4,100
hours). Employees who climb billboards are generally found in NAICS
5418 (Advertising and Related Services). In 2008, the average wage
including benefits for this category was $21.39/hr. Thus, the estimated
cost to comply with the provision for inspection of ladder safety
systems on billboards will total approximately $88,000 per year.
    As specified in proposed Sec.  1910.28(b)(10)(v) and (vi),
employees that routinely climb the fixed ladder portions of a billboard
must satisfy the criteria for ``qualified climbers'' found in proposed
Sec.  1910.29(h), must undergo training and demonstrate the capacity to
perform the necessary climbs safely, and must have both hands free of
tools or material when ascending or descending a ladder. For the
purpose of estimating costs, ERG assumed that all employees who climb
billboards are ``qualified climbers'' and that the training for a
qualified climber includes the instruction to have both hands free
while ascending or descending the ladder (see proposed Sec.
1910.29(h)(2)). For this preliminary cost analysis, OSHA assigned the
costs to train a qualified climber under proposed paragraphs Sec.
1910.28(b)(10)(v) to Sec.  1910.29(h).
Fall Protection Systems Criteria and Practices (Sec.  1910.29)
    For proposed Sec.  1910.29, two requirements are expected to impose
significant new burdens on employers. Below are details of OSHA's
approach to estimating costs for this section of the proposed standard.
    Inspection of manila, plastic, and synthetic rope. The proposed
regulatory text for Sec.  1910.29(b)(15), requiring the inspection of
manila, plastic, or synthetic rope being used as rails, specifies that
the inspections must be done as frequently as necessary to ensure the
strength requirement is met. The estimated inspection cost, then, would
be the product of the:
     Number of guardrail systems;
     Proportion that use manila, plastic, or synthetic rope
used as toprails or midrails;
     Number of inspections per year;
     Time required for each inspection (hours); and
     Average wage per inspector per industry ($/hr.).
    At this time, OSHA lacks data on the proportion of guardrail
systems that use manila, plastic, or synthetic rope as top rails or
midrails. However, OSHA considers it likely that the inspection of
these alternate materials for toprails and siderails would form part of
the inspections performed under proposed Sec.  1910.22, the general
inspection of walking-working surfaces for safety. That is, proposed
Sec.  1910.29(b)(15) provides a detail to be included in the inspection
for those workplaces that use manila, plastic, or synthetic rope as top
rails or midrails. Therefore, OSHA allocated no additional costs to
this provision.
    Qualified climbers. Proposed paragraph Sec.  1910.29(h) concerns
the outdoor advertising/billboard industry. ``Qualified climbers'' are
an option open only to this industry. Qualified climbers must:
     Have climbing duties as one of their routine work
activities (proposed Sec.  1910.29(h)(4));
     Be physically capable of performing the climbing duties
(proposed Sec.  1910.29(h)(1));
     Undergo training or an apprenticeship program (proposed
Sec.  1910.30(h)(2)); and
     Be retrained as necessary (proposed Sec.  1910.30(h)(2)).
    Employers are required to ensure that a qualified climber has the
skill to safely perform the climb by using (1) performance observations
throughout the training, and either formal classroom or on-the-job
training; or (2) performance observations once the climber has had
formal classroom training, or ensuring the skill of the qualified
climber through on-the-job training. In the second option, the employer
does not need to personally observe the climber. In ERG's cost model, a
combination of employer performance observation and classroom
training--as found in the first option--contributes to the proper
preparation of employees.
    For the purposes of estimating costs, ERG assumed that 90 percent
of the employees in the outdoor advertising industry who climb have
been trained as qualified climbers. Thus, there would be one-time costs
associated with qualifying the remaining ten percent of climbers. These
costs are annualized over ten years at a rate of seven percent. In
addition, the industry incurs annual costs for:
     Employer performance observation;
     Training of new employees;

     Retraining of employees as necessary; and
     Administrative costs to document training and re-training.
    For the purpose of estimating one-time costs, ERG estimated that
ten percent of the total number of employees who perform construction,
installation, maintenance, and repair operations in NAICS 5418
(advertising and related services) (or 713 out of 7,132 employees)
would need to undergo training to be qualified climbers.
    The National Association of Tower Erectors has developed a climber
training standard with varying levels of expertise (authorized,
competent, and competent rescuer), but does not offer training itself
(NATE, 2006). The OSHA Web site lists a 4-day training session in fall
arrest systems for $750. Commercial courses in fall protection searched
on the Web range from one to five days with costs ranging from $500 to
$2,500 per course (ERG, 2007, Ex. 6). The prices include materials and
the trainer's time. For the purposes of estimating costs, ERG assumed
that the requirements in the proposed standard could be met by a 4-day
training course, at a cost of $1,500 plus the employee's time ($684,
based on an average wage of $21.39/hr and 32 hours), for a total of
$2,184. Furthermore, administrative tasks to document the training are
assumed to be 15 minutes of a supervisor's time for every ten employees
trained. In all, OSHA estimates that the one-time cost to qualify the
estimated 713 climbers would be $1.56 million, and the annualized cost
is $0.22 million per year.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Employers may offer on-the-job training and would
presumably do so if the costs are less than that for commercial
training. Thus, the estimated costs presented here may be
conservatively high.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the purposes of estimating the annual costs associated with
this proposed paragraph, ERG applied the following unit estimates and
assumptions:
     A supervisor observes each of the estimated 7,132
qualified climbers for 15 minutes per quarter or 1 hour per qualified
climber per year;
     A supervisor spends 15 minutes per year per qualified
climber on administrative tasks for training and re-training;
     Ten percent of the climbers need re-training;
     Retraining consists of an 8-hour refresher course at a
cost of $500; and
     The turnover rate is 47 percent.
    Based on ERG's analysis (ERG, 2007, Ex. 6), OSHA estimates that the
annual cost would be $8.2 million, of which $7.4 million is due to the
need to train new hires.\29\ OSHA requests comment on the assumptions
and unit cost estimates applied to its analysis of costs for qualified
climber training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ OSHA presumes that a qualified climber could not bring his
or her accreditation if he or she changes companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Training Requirements (Sec.  1910.30)
    Fall hazards and equipment hazards. Proposed Sec.  1910.30(a)
addresses training with respect to fall hazards. The training must be:
     Conducted by a qualified person;
     Include the nature of fall hazards in the workplace;
     Include the correct procedures for erecting, maintaining,
disassembling, and inspecting the fall protection system used; and
     Include the use and operation of guardrail systems,
personal fall protection systems, safety net systems, warning lines
used in designated areas, and other (unspecified) protection to be
used.
    Proposed Sec.  1910.30(b) addresses training with respect to
equipment hazards. In particular, employees must be trained in the
proper:
     Care, use, and inspection of equipment covered by subpart
D before their use in accordance with recognized industry practices and
manufacturers' recommendations;
     Placement and securing of dockboards to prevent
unintentional movement; and
     Rigging and safe use of rope descent systems.
    The costs for the training allocated under proposed Sec.
1910.27(b)(2)(ii) (rope descent systems) and Sec.  1910.28(b)(4) (duty
to have fall protection: dockboards) are included in the cost estimate
for proposed Sec.  1910.30.
    In a previous analysis, ERG estimated the number and percent of
employees by industry that use personal protective equipment such as
body belts and/or body harnesses (ERG, 1999, Ex. OSHA-S042-2006-0667-
0318). ERG then applied these industry-specific percentages to the
number of at-risk employees in 2008 to estimate the number of employees
that need the type of training required under proposed Sec.  1910.30.
    Some companies already provide this training. ERG used data from
the NOES survey to estimate, by NAICS code, the level of training that
is already provided at the baseline.
    For the purpose of estimating costs, ERG assumed that all employees
that have not already been trained and use personal fall protection
systems would undergo six hours of training on fall hazards and
equipment hazards to address the requirements in proposed Sec. Sec.
1910.30(a) and 1910.30(b)(1).
    Employees in the utility, sewage, and communications industry
sectors (NAICS 2211-2213 and 5121-5191) are assumed to undergo an
additional half-day of training to specifically address the proposed
requirements for step bolts (thus, a total of 10 hours of training).
Similarly, employees in NAICS codes 4881 through 4884 (support
activities for transportation by air, rail, water, and road,
respectively) are assumed to undergo a half-day of training
specifically to address requirements for dockboards. Window washers,
found in NAICS 5617 (services to buildings and dwellings), are assumed
to have an entire day devoted to training on rope descent systems
(thus, a total of 14 hours of training).
    As specified in the proposed standard, training would be provided
by a qualified person. For the purpose of estimating costs, ERG assumed
that the trainer conducts the training at the workplace, for a fee of
$500 per day. The training fee includes instruction, travel, lodging,
and per diem expenses, as well as hand-out materials. This fee is
incurred per every 10 employees (i.e., class size is limited to 10
people). A supervisor is assumed to spend 15 minutes per employee per
year in administrative costs to maintain and update training records.
    The estimated total one-time cost for proposed Sec.  1910.30(a) and
(b) is $81.5 million. This cost is annualized over ten years at an
interest rate of seven percent. The annualized cost is $11.6 million.
There is also an annual cost due to the need to train new employees.
The BLS turnover rates are applied to estimate the annual number of new
employees that need training. The estimated annual cost is $28.1
million.
    Retraining. Proposed Sec.  1910.30(c) concerns the need to retrain
employees whenever the employer has reason to believe that retraining
is required for safety purposes. This need can occur through such
circumstances as changes in the workplace, fall protection systems, or
fall protection equipment that render previous training invalid; or the
discovery that employee knowledge or use of fall protection systems or
equipment is no longer adequate. ERG assumed that retraining already
occurs at establishments that have training programs in place. For the
remaining employees, ERG assumed that five percent require retraining
in any given year. The retraining course is assumed to be a 1-hour
supervisor-led refresher course that focuses on the areas in

which the employee is deficient. Estimated costs for retraining would
total $4.4 million.
Subpart I[horbar]Personal Protective Equipment
    PPE inspection. Proposed Sec.  1910.140(c)(18) would require that
personal fall protection systems be inspected before each use for
mildew, wear, damage, and other deterioration and that defective
components be removed from service. For the purposes of estimating
costs, ERG assumed that each employee who wears a personal fall
protection system does so at the beginning of every work week, the
employee works 50 weeks per year, and the inspection takes about one
minute. The associated inspection cost is approximately $7.3 million
per year.
    Hazard assessment. Proposed Sec.  1910.132(d) requires an employer
to assess the workplace to determine if hazards are present or are
likely to be present. ERG assumed that the amount of time needed by an
employer to walk around the establishment, assess the potential hazard,
and determine the appropriate PPE and training needed by the employees
would vary with the size of the establishment. ERG used the number of
employees as an indicator of establishment size. The time required for
the hazard assessment was estimated as:
     1 to 19 employees: 1 hour.
     20 to 99 employees: 2 hours.
     100 to 499 employees: 3 hours.
     500+ employees: 4 hours.
    Furthermore, ERG assumed that:
     All establishments in the forestry, oil and gas, utility,
manufacturing, and transportation sectors (NAICS 1131 through 3399 and
4811 through 4931) would undertake a hazard assessment because of
perceived risks;
     Half the establishments in wholesale and retail sales
(NAICS 4231 through 4543) would undertake a hazard assessment; and
     One-quarter of the establishments in the service
industries (NAICS 5111 through 8139) would undertake a hazard
assessment.
    This analysis results in a one-time cost of $79.0 million which can
also be expressed as an annualized cost of $11.3 million.
    PPE training. Proposed Sec.  1910.132(f) requires that employees be
trained prior to using PPE in the workplace. The costs for this
paragraph are included in the costs for proposed Sec.  1910.30,
described earlier.

Cost Summary

    Tables V-25 through V-27 summarize the costs by industry for each
paragraph in the proposed standard. Table V-25 lists the first-year
costs. These costs are incurred once to bring the employee population
into compliance with the new requirements. For the purpose of
evaluating impacts, these one-time costs are annualized over a 10-year
period at an interest rate of 7 percent. Total first-year costs are
$173.3 million; annualized, the costs for the first year total $24.7
million.
    Table V-26 lists the recurring costs, such as inspections and
training new employees. These costs are incurred annually and are
estimated at $148.5 million. Table V-27 lists the annual costs to
industry, that is, the sum of the recurring costs and the annualized
one-time costs. The cost to industry is estimated at $173.2 million.
    Listing annualized costs in descending order by section of the
rule, OSHA projects that the most costly provisions are associated with
scaffolds ($73.0 million), training programs ($44.1 million), and fall
protection equipment criteria ($18.5 million). For scaffolds, proposed
Sec.  1910.27(b)(2)(iv) requires that employers use proper rigging,
including sound anchorages and tiebacks. As described earlier in this
cost analysis, OSHA interpreted this provision as implying that
periodic inspections and certifications of building anchorages would be
scheduled to ensure compliance.
    Because of the inherent risk involved with cleaning windows of
office buildings and other tall structures while suspended on scaffolds
or other devices (see Table V-6 for the number of reported fatalities
in NAICS 561, Administrative and Support Services), the issue of proper
safety during window cleaning was raised by OSHA in the 2003 notice
that reopened the rulemaking record. In this notice, OSHA requested
comment on the hazards associated with window cleaning and the safe
practices that have been recommended and implemented through the use of
rope decent systems (controlled descent devices) (68 FR 23534). OSHA's
analysis of the costs of ensuring sound anchorages and rigging,
described above and in the ERG report (ERG, 2007, Ex. 6), is based upon
the experiences and observations of the industry representatives who
responded to OSHA's request for comment in 2003. In this current
rulemaking, OSHA requests that interested parties review the details of
OSHA's analysis of costs for scaffolds in this PEA and submit comments
into the record.
BILLING CODE 4510-29-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.073

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.074

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.075

BILLING CODE 4510-29-C

G. Economic Impacts
Introduction
    OSHA has determined that the costs of complying with the
requirements of the proposed revisions to subparts D and I will not
impose adverse economic impacts on employers in the industries affected
by the rule. The costs imposed by the standard are modest, and the
increased safety and reduction in injuries and fatalities associated
with the standard will ultimately reduce employers' direct and indirect
costs. This preliminary analysis of economic impacts is based on
industry data described above in section C, Profile of Affected
Industries, Firms, and Workers, the cost analysis presented in section
E, Costs of Compliance, and analysis by OSHA's contractor, ERG (ERG,
2007, Ex. 6).
    OSHA's preliminary impacts are summarized in Table V-28 for the
two-digit NAICS industry groups affected by the proposed standard.
``Minimum'' and ``Maximum'' refer to the lowest and highest costs among
the four-digit NAICS industries categorized within the two-digit group.
The following section discusses OSHA's methodology for assessing the
significance of the impacts at the aggregate level presented in Table
V-29 and at levels of greater industry detail.
Economic Screening Analysis
    To determine whether the proposed rule's projected costs of
compliance would raise issues of economic feasibility for employers in
affected industries, i.e., would adversely alter the competitive
structure of the industry, OSHA first compared compliance costs to
industry revenues and profits. OSHA then examined specific factors
affecting individual industries where compliance costs represent a
significant share of revenue, or where the record contains other
evidence that the standard could have significant impact on the
competitive structure of the industry.
    As noted, OSHA examined the potential impacts of the proposed
standards rule two ways--as a percentage of revenues and as a
percentage of profits. The estimated average receipts and profits by
establishment and industry are presented in the Table V-29. Applying
the methodology employed by ERG (ERG, 2007, Ex. 6), OSHA estimated 2006
receipts based on 2002 receipts and payroll data from U.S. Census
Bureau, Statistics of U.S. Businesses, 2002, and payroll data from U.S.
Census Bureau, Statistics of U.S. Businesses, 2006. For that
calculation, OSHA assumed that the ratio of receipts to payroll
remained unchanged between 2002 and 2006. OSHA estimated profits from
ratios of net income to total receipts as reported for 2000-2006
(seven-year average) by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, Corporation
Source Book. Profit data were not available at disaggregated levels for
all industries; therefore, profit rates at more highly aggregated
levels were used for such industries.
BILLING CODE 4510-29-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.076

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.077

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.078

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.079

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.080

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.081

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.082

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.083

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.084

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.085

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.086

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.087

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.088

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.089

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.090

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.091

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.092

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.093

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.094

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.095

BILLING CODE 4510-29-C

    OSHA compared the baseline financial data with total annualized
incremental costs of compliance by computing compliance costs as a
percentage of revenues and profits. This impact assessment for all
firms, presented in Tables V-28 and V-29, is considered a screening
analysis and is the first step in OSHA's analysis of whether the
compliance costs potentially associated with the proposed standard
would lead to significant impacts on establishments in the affected
industries. The actual impact of the proposed standard on the viability
of establishments in a given industry, in a static world, depends, to a
significant degree, on the price elasticity of demand for the services
sold by establishments in that industry.
    Price elasticity refers to the relationship between the price
charged for a service and the demand for that service; that is, the
more elastic the relationship, the less able is an establishment to
pass the costs of compliance through to its customers in the form of a
price increase and the more it will have to absorb the costs of
compliance from its profits. When demand is inelastic, establishments
can recover most of the costs of compliance by raising the prices they
charge for that service; under this scenario, profit rates are largely
unchanged and the industry remains largely unaffected. Any impacts are
primarily on those using the relevant services. On the other hand, when
demand is elastic, establishments cannot recover all the costs simply
by passing the cost increase through in the form of a price increase;
instead, they must absorb some of the increase from their profits.
Commonly, this will mean both reductions in the quantity of goods and
services produced and in total profits, though the profit rate may
remain unchanged. In general, ``when an industry is subject to a higher
cost, it does not simply swallow it, it raises its price and reduces
its output, and in this way shifts a part of the cost to its consumers
and a part to its suppliers,'' in the words of the court in American
Dental Association v. Secretary of Labor (984 F.2d 823, 829 (7th Cir.
1993)).
    The court's summary is in accordance with micro-economic theory. In
the long run, firms can only remain in business if their profits are
adequate to provide a return on investment that assures that investment
in the industry will continue. Over time, because of rising real
incomes and productivity, firms in most industries are able to assure
an adequate profit. As technology and costs change, however, the long-
run demand for some products increases and the long-run demand for
other products decreases. In the face of rising external costs, firms
that otherwise have a profitable line of business may have to increase
prices to stay viable. Commonly, increases in prices result in reduced
demand, but rarely eliminate all demand for the product. Whether this
decrease in the total production of the product results in smaller
production for each establishment within the industry, or the closure
of some plants within the industry, or a combination of the two, is
dependent on the cost and profit structure of individual firms within
the industry.
    If demand is completely inelastic (i.e., price elasticity is 0),
then the impact of compliance costs that are 1 percent of revenues for
each firm in the industry would result in a 1 percent increase in the
price of the product or service, with no decline in quantity demanded.
Such a situation represents an extreme case, but might be correct in
situations in which there are few if any substitutes for the product or
service in question, or if the products or services of the affected
sector account for only a small portion of the income of its consumers.
    If the demand is perfectly elastic (i.e., the price elasticity is
infinitely large), then no increase in price is possible and before-tax
profits would be reduced by an amount equal to the costs of compliance
(minus any savings resulting from improved employee health and/or
reduced insurance costs) if the industry attempted to keep producing
the same amount of goods and services as previously. Under this
scenario, if the costs of compliance are such a large percentage of
profits that some or all plants in the industry can no longer invest in
the industry with hope of an adequate return on investment, then some
or all of the firms in the industry will close. This scenario is highly
unlikely to occur, however, because it can only arise when there are
other goods and services that are, in the eyes of the consumer, perfect
substitutes for the goods and services the affected establishments
produce.
    A common intermediate case would be a price elasticity of one. In
this situation, if the costs of compliance amount to 1 percent of
revenues, then production would decline by 1 percent and prices would
rise by 1 percent. In this case, the industry revenues would stay the
same, with somewhat lower production, but similar profit rates (in most
situations where the marginal costs of production net of regulatory
costs would fall as well). Consumers would, however, get less of the
product or the service for their expenditures, and producers would
collect lower total profits; this, as the court described in American
Dental Association v. Secretary of Labor, is the more typical case.
    If there is a price elasticity of one, the question of economic
feasibility is complicated. On the one hand, the industry will
certainly not be ``eliminated'' with the level of costs found in this
rulemaking, since under these assumptions the change in total profits
is somewhat less than the costs imposed by the regulation. But there is
still the question of whether the industry's competitive structure will
be significantly altered. For example, given a 20 percent increase in
costs, and an elasticity of one, the industry will not be eliminated.
However, if the increase in costs is such that all small firms in an
industry will have to close, this could reasonably be concluded to have
altered its competitive structure. For this reason, when costs are a
significant percentage of revenues, OSHA examines the differential
costs by size of firm, and other classifications that may be important.
    As indicated by the impact estimates shown in Tables V-28 and V-29,
OSHA has determined that, for all affected establishments in general
industry, revenue impacts will not exceed 0.08 percent for any affected
industry group, and that profit impacts will not exceed 1.7 percent for
any affected industry group.
    The economic impact of the proposal is most likely to consist of a
small increase in prices for the goods and services provided by the
affected employers of less than 0.02 percent in the majority of cases.
It is unlikely that a price increase of the magnitude of 0.02 percent
will significantly alter the quantity of goods or services demanded by
the public or any other affected customers or intermediaries. If the
compliance costs of the proposal can be substantially recouped with
such a minimal increase in prices, there may be little effect on
profits.
    In general, for most establishments, it would be unlikely that none
of the compliance costs could be passed along in the form of increased
prices. In the event that unusual circumstances may inhibit even a
price increase of 0.02 percent, profits in the majority of affected
industries would be reduced by a maximum of about 0.1 percent.
    In profit-earning entities, compliance costs can generally be
expected to be absorbed through a combination of increases in prices or
reduction in profits. As discussed above, the extent to which the
impacts of cost increases affect prices or profits depends on the price
elasticity of demand for the

products or services produced and sold by the entity.
    In the case of cost increases that may be incurred due to the
requirements of the proposal, all businesses within each of the covered
industry sectors would be subject to the same requirements. Thus, to
the extent potential price increases correspond to costs associated
with achieving compliance with the proposed standards, the elasticity
of demand for each entity will approach that faced by the industry as a
whole.
    Given the small incremental increases in prices potentially
resulting from compliance with the proposed standards and the lack of
readily available substitutes for the products and services provided by
the covered industry sectors, demand is expected to be sufficiently
inelastic in each affected industry to enable entities to substantially
offset compliance costs through minor price increases without
experiencing any significant reduction in total revenues or in net
profits.
    For the economy as a whole, OSHA expects the economic impact of the
proposed rulemaking to be both an increase in the efficiency of
production of goods and services and an improvement in the welfare of
society. First, as demonstrated by the analysis of costs and benefits
associated with compliance with the requirements of the proposed rule,
OSHA expects that societal welfare will increase as a result of these
standards, as the benefits achieved clearly and strongly justify the
relatively small costs necessary. The impacts of the proposal involve
net benefits of over $100 million that are achieved in a relatively
cost-effective manner.
    Second, many of the costs associated with the injuries and
fatalities resulting from the risks addressed by the proposal have
until now been externalized. That is, the costs incurred by society to
protect workers exposed to falls during the production of certain goods
and services have not been fully reflected in the prices of those
products and services. The costs of production have been partly borne
by workers who suffer the consequences associated with the activities
causing the risks. To the extent that fewer of these costs are
externalized, the price mechanism will enable the market to result in a
more efficient allocation of resources. It should be noted that
reductions in externalities by themselves do not necessarily increase
efficiency or social welfare unless the costs of achieving the
reductions are outweighed by the associated benefits.
    OSHA concludes that compliance with the requirements of the
proposal is economically feasible in every affected industry sector.
This conclusion is based on the criteria established by the OSH Act, as
interpreted in relevant case law. In general, the courts have held that
a standard is economically feasible if there is a reasonable likelihood
that the estimated costs of compliance ``will not threaten the
existence or competitive structure of an industry, even if it does
portend disaster for some marginal firms'' (United Steelworkers of
America v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1272 (DC Cir. 1980)). As
demonstrated by the PEA and the supporting evidence, the potential
impacts associated with achieving compliance with the proposal fall far
within the bounds of economic feasibility in each industry sector.
    OSHA does not expect compliance with the requirements of the
proposal to threaten the viability of entities, or the existence or
competitive structure of any of the affected industry sectors. In
addition, based on an analysis of the costs and economic impacts
associated with this rulemaking, OSHA preliminarily concludes that the
effects of the proposal on international trade, employment, wages, and
economic growth for the United States would be negligible.

H. Voluntary Initial Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended in 1996 (SBA, 1996),
requires the preparation of an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) for certain proposed rules (5 U.S.C. 601-612). Under the
provisions of the law, each such analysis shall contain:
    1. A description of the impact of the proposed rule on small
entities;
    2. A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being
considered;
    3. A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for,
the proposed rule;
    4. A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number
of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
    5. A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an
estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the
requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record;
    6. An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant
Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the
proposed rule; and
    7. A description and discussion of any significant alternatives to
the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable
statutes and which minimize any significant economic impact of the
proposed rule on small entities, including
    a. The establishment of differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into account the resources
available to small entities;
    b. The clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small
entities;
    c. The use of performance rather than design standards;
    d. An exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for
such small entities.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act further states that the required
elements of the IRFA may be performed in conjunction with, or as part
of, any other agenda or analysis required by any other law if such
other analysis satisfies the relevant provisions.
    To determine the need for an IRFA, OSHA conducted a voluntary
initial regulatory flexibility screening analysis to assess the
potential impacts of the proposed standard on affected small entities.
On the basis of the screening analysis, presented below, OSHA certifies
that the proposed standard will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
1. Impact of the Proposed Rule on Small Entities
    Based on analysis by ERG (ERG, 2007, Ex. 6), OSHA estimated
compliance costs and economic impacts for small entities affected by
the proposed rule. Tables V-2 and V-3 in section C presented,
respectively, the profiles for general industry entities classified as
small according to Small Business Administration (SBA) criteria and for
entities with fewer than 20 employees. ERG assigned costs to small
entities by first determining the per-employee compliance costs for
those cost items that are a function of the number of affected
employees at a facility, and the per-establishment cost for those items
that do not vary with establishment size. ERG then calculated, by
industry, the average number of employees for each of the two classes
of small entities, multiplied these averages by per-employee compliance
cost, and then added the establishment-based cost to determine the
average compliance cost for each type of small entity. These
statistics, multiplied by the numbers of small entities, produced the
total compliance costs in each industry incurred by small entities.

    Table V-30 shows the resultant annualized compliance costs by
industry sector for SBA-defined small entities, while Table V-31 shows
the costs for entities with fewer than 20 employees. Compliance costs
for small entities totaled $125.0 million, compared to $173.2 million
for all establishments. Compliance costs for the smallest entities
totaled $96.0 million.
    OSHA calculated the economic impacts of these costs by comparing
average compliance costs with average receipts and profits. These
calculations are shown in Tables V-32 and V-33, presenting OSHA's
preliminary assessment of impacts on small entities and very small
entities (fewer than 20 employees). Among SBA-defined small entities,
impacts of project compliance costs on profits were less than five
percent for all industries, and these impacts were larger than 0.5
percent for only two industries: NAICS 2213, Water, Sewage and Other
Systems (0.57 percent); and NAICS 5617, Services to Buildings and
Dwellings (1.87 percent). For entities with fewer than 20 employees,
compliance costs as a percent of profits were also less than five
percent for all industries, and these impacts were larger than one
percent for only two industries: NAICS 2213, Water, Sewage and Other
Systems (1.24 percent); and NAICS 5617, Services to Buildings and
Dwellings (3.34 percent).
BILLING CODE 4510-29-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.096

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.097

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.098

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.099

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.100

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.101

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.102

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.103

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.104

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.105

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.106

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.107

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.108

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.109

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.110

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.111

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.112

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.113

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.114

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.115

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.116

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.117

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.118

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.119

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.120

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.121

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.122

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.123

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.124

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.125

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.126

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.127

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.128

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.129

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.130

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.131

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.132

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.133

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.134

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.135

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.136

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.137

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.138

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.139

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.140

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.141

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.142

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.143

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.144

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.145

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.146

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.147

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.148

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.149

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.150

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.151

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.152

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.153

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.154

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.155

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.156

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.157

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.158

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.159

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.160

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.161

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.162

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.163

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.164

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.165

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.166

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.167

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MY10.168

BILLING CODE 4510-29-C

2. A Description of the Reasons Why Action by the Agency Is Being
Considered
    Employees in general industry performing construction,
installation, maintenance, and repair tasks are exposed to a range of
significant slip, trip, and fall hazards that can and do cause serious
injury and death. OSHA estimates that approximately 300,000 serious
injuries and 300 fatalities occur annually among these employees.
Although some of these incidents may have been prevented with better
compliance with existing safety standards, research and analyses
conducted by OSHA have found that many preventable injuries and
fatalities would continue to occur even if full compliance with the
existing standards were achieved. Without counting incidents that would
potentially have been prevented with compliance with existing
standards, an estimated 3,706 additional injuries and 20 fatalities
would be prevented annually through full compliance with the proposed
standards.
    As explained above, additional benefits associated with this
rulemaking involve providing updated, clear, and consistent safety
standards regarding fall protection in general industry to the relevant
employers, employees, and interested members of the public. The
existing OSHA standards for walking-working surfaces in general
industry are over 30 years old and inconsistent with the more recently
promulgated standards addressing fall protection in construction. OSHA
believes that the proposed updated standards are easier to understand
and to apply and will benefit employers and employees by facilitating
compliance while improving safety.
3. Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Proposed
Rule
    The primary objective of the proposed standards is to provide an
increased degree of occupational safety for employees in general
industry performing construction, installation, maintenance, and repair
tasks. As stated above, an estimated 3,706 injuries and 20 fatalities
would be prevented annually through compliance with the proposed
standards in addition to those that may be prevented through compliance
with existing standards. Another objective of the proposed rulemaking
is to provide updated, clear, and consistent safety standards regarding
fall protection in general industry to the relevant employers,
employees, and interested members of the public. The proposed updated
standards are easier to understand and to apply, and they will benefit
employers by facilitating compliance while improving safety.
    The legal basis for the proposed rule is the responsibility given
the Department of Labor through the Occupational Safety and Health
(OSH) Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 561 et seq.). The OSH Act authorizes and
obligates the Secretary of Labor to promulgate mandatory occupational
safety and health standards as necessary ``to assure so far as possible
every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working
conditions and to preserve our human resources.'' 29 U.S.C. 651(b). The
legal authority can also be cited as 29 U.S.C. 655(b).
4. Description of and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rule Will Apply
    OSHA has completed a preliminary analysis of the impacts associated
with this proposal, including an analysis of the type and number of
small entities to which the proposed rule would apply. The proposed
standards would primarily impact workers performing construction,
installation, maintenance, and repair tasks throughout general
industry. To determine the number of small entities potentially
affected by this rulemaking, OSHA used the definitions of small
entities developed by the Small Business Administration for each
industry. In section C of this PEA, OSHA discussed its methodology for
determining the number of affected small entities and presented its
estimates in Table V-2. As shown in that table, OSHA estimates that 5.1
million small entities, employing 43.5 million employees, including 9.3
million employees directly exposed to slip, trip, and fall hazards,
would be covered by the scope of the proposed standard. Industries
expected to have the highest number of affected at-risk employees
include wired telecommunications carriers (606,000 employees);
automotive repair and maintenance (480,000 employees); and lessors of
real estate (231,000 employees).
5. Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other
Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule
    OSHA is proposing to revise the standards addressing the work
practices to be used, and other requirements to be followed, for the
activities in general industry that expose workers to slip, trip, and
fall hazards. The existing standards in subpart D deal with the hazards
of walking and working surfaces and are part of the initial package of
standards promulgated by OSHA in 1971 under section 6(a) of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the Act) (29 U.S.C.
655(a)). During the period since OSHA promulgated subpart D, interested
parties have suggested changes in these regulations. The majority of
the existing OSHA standards for walking-working surfaces are over 30
years old and inconsistent with numerous national consensus standards
and more recently promulgated OSHA standards addressing fall protection
elsewhere in general industry and construction.
    Section E, Costs of Compliance, described, for categories of
employee training, the administrative costs that are expected to
present a new burden for affected employers. The costs to document the
training and re-training of employees are not considered by OSHA to be
recordkeeping, but rather are seen as typical administrative expenses
in a safety program.
6. Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rule
    OSHA has not identified any Federal rules which may duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with the proposal, and requests comments from the
public regarding this issue.
7. Alternatives to the Proposed Rule Which Accomplish the Stated
Objectives of Applicable Statutes and Which Minimize Any Significant
Economic Impact of the Proposed Rule on Small Entities
    OSHA evaluated several alternatives to the proposed standards to
ensure that the proposed requirements would accomplish the stated
objectives of applicable statutes and would minimize any significant
economic impact of the proposal on small entities. In developing the
proposal, and especially in establishing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that affect small entities, the resources
available to small entities were taken into account. Compliance and
reporting requirements under the proposal that are applicable to small
entities were clarified, consolidated, and simplified to the extent
practicable. Wherever possible, OSHA has proposed the use of
performance rather than design standards. An exemption from coverage of
the rule for small entities was not considered to be a viable option
because the safety and health of the affected employees would be unduly
jeopardized.
    Many other specific alternatives to the proposed requirements were

considered. Section IV of the notice, Summary and Explanation of the
Proposed Rule, provides discussion and explanation of the particular
requirements of the proposal.
    OSHA has made every effort to provide maximum flexibility in the
choice of controls that are permitted under the proposed rule. To
demonstrate the relative economic efficiency (i.e., cost effectiveness)
of the proposed standard, OSHA has selected eight provisions in
proposed subpart D where alternative control strategies were considered
but rejected as inefficient from a cost-effectiveness perspective. For
these eight provisions, the table below presents OSHA's evaluation of
the potential impacts associated with alternatives to the proposed
requirements.

    Table V-34--Impacts Associated With Regulatory Alternatives for Selected Provisions in Proposed Subpart D
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Alternative         Potential impacts of
          Provision               Primary-choice control(s)        control(s)         alternative control(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1910.23 Ladders......  Covers all ladders except for    All ladders in    Probably not significant in
                                machine-integrated or fire       scope.            costs, but not justified with
                                fighting/rescue ladders.                           respect to benefits.
Section 1910.24 Step bolts     Design changes to step bolts     Eliminate         Requirement to ensure that all
 and manhole steps.             and manhole steps on new         grandfathering    step bolts and manhole steps
                                installations must be            of older          meet the strength and design
                                performed 90 days after the      structures.       criteria in proposed subpart
                                standard's effective date.                         D would demand technical
                                                                                resources that could exceed
                                                                                the capacity of affected
                                                                                industries in the near term,
                                                                                given the need to inspect all
                                                                                existing manholes and make
                                                                                changes to many.
Section 1910.25 Stairways....  Where ship stairs and spiral     Prohibit ship     Potentially large costs with
                                stairs are used as primary       stairs and        few benefits.
                                means of egress, they must       spiral stairs
                                meet the requirements            in all new
                                specified by the standard.       installations.
Section 1910.26 Dockboards     In paragraph (b), OSHA proposes  Specify the       Probably modest costs but with
 (bridge plates).               that dockboards put into         means of          few benefits.
                                service at least 90 days after   achieving the
                                the effective date of the        desired
                                final rule be designed,          performance.
                                constructed, and maintained to
                                prevent equipment (such as
                                hand trucks and vehicles) from
                                running off the edge.
Section 1910.27 Scaffolds and  Proposed paragraph (b)(1)        Allow use of RDS  OSHA states earlier in this
 rope descent systems.          prohibits the use of a rope      at all heights.   PEA that impacts of the
                                descent system (RDS) at                            primary choice would be minor
                                heights greater than 300 feet                      due to current availability
                                (91.4 m) above grade unless                        of powered platforms or other
                                access cannot otherwise be                         systems for washing windows
                                attained safely and                                on tall buildings. OSHA
                                practicably.                                       requests comment on this
                                                                                assessment.
Section 1910.28 Duty to have   The proposed rule allows         Specify, surface  Depending on specifications,
 fall protection.               employers to choose from         by surface, the   costs could be substantial
                                several options in providing     means of          with modest benefits.
                                fall protection. These include   achieving the
                                conventional fall protection     desired
                                systems such as guardrail        performance.
                                systems, safety net systems,
                                and personal fall protection
                                systems (restraint systems,
                                personal fall arrest systems,
                                and positioning systems) and,
                                in some instances, non-
                                conventional means. An example
                                of non-conventional means
                                would be the establishment of
                                a designated area in which an
                                employee is to work.
Section 1910.28 Duty to have   Proposed paragraph (b)(8) is a   Require           Potentially significant costs
 fall protection.               new provision, proposed to       conventional      with feasibility/
                                address the specific fall        fall protection   practicability concerns.
                                hazard created by vehicle        systems:
                                repair pits and assembly pits.   guardrails,
                                Access to the edge (within 6     personal fall
                                feet (1.8 m)) of the pit must    arrest or
                                be limited to trained,           travel
                                authorized employees             restraint
                                ((b)(8)(i)); the floor must be   systems.
                                marked ((b)(8)(ii)) to
                                designate the unprotected
                                area; and caution signs must
                                be posted to warn employees of
                                the unprotected area
                                ((b)(8)(iii)).
Section 1910.28 Duty to have   In proposed paragraph (b)(9),    For fixed         Major costs and modest
 fall protection.               OSHA addresses fall hazards      ladders,          benefits; tens of thousands
                                related to fixed ladders.        require that      of fixed ladders would need
                                Under the proposed standard,     cages, wells,     cages, wells, and landing
                                no fall protection is required   and landing       platforms.
                                when employees are exposed to    platforms be
                                falls from fixed ladders of 24   provided, but
                                feet (7.3 m) in length or less.  disallow the
                               If the employer chooses a cage    use of ladder
                                or well, no ladder sections      safety systems.
                                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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Directorate of Evaluation and Analysis, Office of Regulatory Analysis.

    Non-regulatory alternatives were also considered in determining the
appropriate approach to reducing occupational hazards associated with
work on elevated or slippery surfaces in general industry. These
alternatives were discussed in the section of this PEA entitled
``Examination of Alternative Approaches.''

I. References

American National Standard Institute/International Window Cleaning
Association. (ANSI/IWCA, 2001.) Window Cleaning Safety. IWCA I-14.1-
2001, October 2001.
Amodeo, Linda. (Amodeo, 2003.) Comments submitted to OSHA Docket
S029, Exhibit 3-14, Linda Amodeo, Vice President, City Wide Building
Services, Inc., July 24, 2003.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (BLS, 2007.) Consumer Price Index, All
Urban Consumers, U.S. City Average, June 15, 2007. ftp://
ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (BLS, 2008.) Occupational Employment
Statistics, 2008. http://www.bls.gov/oes/home.htm.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (BLS, 2008.) Job Openings and Labor
Turnover Survey, 2008.
Cohen, Alexander and Michael Colligan. (Cohen and Colligan, 1998.)
Assessing Occupational Safety and Health Training: A Literature
Review. DDHS (NIOSH) Publication 98-145, June 1998.
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. (CTBUH, 2006.) Web
Site: http://www.ctbuh.org/. Accessed 23 August 2006. Database
hosted by Emporis. http://buildings.emporis.com/
?nav=theplatformconcept&lng=3. Accessed by ERG on August 23, 2006.
Department of Energy. (DOE, 2006.) 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy
Consumption Survey. Table B10: Number of Floors, Number of Buildings
and Floorspace for Non-Mall Commercial Buildings. Energy Information
Administration, 2006. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/cbecs2003/
detailed_tables_2003/detailed_tables_2003.html.
Department of Energy. (DOE, 2004.) 2001 Residential Energy
Consumption Surveys. 2001 Housing Characteristics Tables. Table HC1-
1a. Housing Unit Characteristics by Climate Zone, Million U.S.
Households, (2001). Energy Information Administration, 2004. http://
www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/detail_tables.html.
DiChacho, Rosita. (DiChacho. 2006.) Personal communication between
Rosita DiChacho, New York Department of Labor, Division of Safety &
Health, Engineering Services Unit and Maureen F. Kaplan, Eastern
Research Group, August 23, 2006.
Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG, 2007.) Technical and Analytical
Support and Docket Review for OSHA's Preliminary Analysis of Costs,
Benefits, and Economic Impacts for OSHA's Proposed Standard for
Walking and Working Surfaces. Final Report. Prepared under Contract
No. GS10F0125P for the U.S. Dept. of Labor, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, Directorate of Evaluation and Analysis,
Office of Regulatory Analysis, July 27, 2007. (Ex. 6.)
Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG, 1999.) PPE Cost Survey: Final
Report. Prepared under Contract No. J-9-F-9-0010 for the U.S. Dept.
of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Office of
Regulatory Analysis, June 23, 1999. Docket No. S-042, Exhibit 14
(Ex. OSHA-S042-2006-0667-0318).
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. (IEEE, 2006.)
IEEE Standard for Fall Protection for Utility Work. IEEE Standard
1307-2004. http://standards.ieee.org/reading/ieee/std/
numerical.html. Accessed by ERG on July 24, 2006.
Kreidenweis, Andy. (Kreidenweis, 2003.) Comments submitted to OSHA
Docket S-029, Exhibit 3-126, Andy Kreidenweis, Braco Window Cleaning
Service Inc., July 30, 2003.
Lebel, Marc. (Lebel, 2003.) Comments submitted to OSHA Docket S-029,
Exhibit 3-1. Marc Lebel, Pro-Bel Enterprises Limited, July 18, 2003.
National Association of Tower Erectors. (NATE, 2006.) Web site:
http://www.natehome.com/MemberBenefitsServices/
NATECLIMBERTRAININGSTANDARD/Index.cfm). Accessed by ERG on July 24,
2006.
National Coalition Against the Misuses of Pesticides. (NCAMP, 1997.)
Poison Poles--A Report About Their Toxic Trail and Safer
Alternatives. Estimate of Pole Miles and Distribution Poles by
State, 1997. http://www.ncamp.org/poisonpoles/tables/table2.html.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program. (NCHRP, 2004.) NCHRP
Report 500: Guidance for Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic
Highway Safety Plan. Volume 8: A Guide for Reducing Collisions
Involving Utility Poles. Transportation Research Board, 2004. http:/
/safety.transportation.org/htmlguides/utl_pole/exec_sum.htm.
National Fire Protection Association. (NFPA, 2006.) Standard 101.
Life Safety Code. 2006 Edition. <IP_ADDRESS>.3 Spiral stairs. http://
www.nfpa.org/freecodes/free_access_document.asp. Accessed by ERG
on July 24, 2006.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (NIOSH,
1988.) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Centers for
Disease Control. National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health. National Occupational Exposure Survey. Volume III: Analysis
of Management Interview Responses, March 1988.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (OSHA, 2009.)
Analysis of OSHA Integrated Management Information System inspection
data, 1995-2001. January 2009.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (OSHA, 2007.)
Accident Investigation Search, 2007. http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/
accidentsearch.html.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (OSHA, 2006a.)
Accident Investigation Search, 2006. http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/
accidentsearch.html.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (OSHA, 2006b.)
Standard Interpretations: 2/10/2006--The use of ship's stairs
instead of fixed stairs in general industry. http://www.osha.gov/
pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_
id=25301. Accessed by ERG on July 24, 2006.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (OSHA, 2006c.)
Standard Interpretations: 2/10/2006--Circumstances under which
installation of fixed industrial stairs with a slope between 50
degrees and 70 degrees from the horizontal would be considered a de
minimis violation. http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_
document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=25299. Accessed by ERG on
July 24, 2006.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (OSHA, 2006d.) OSHA
Web site. Resource Center Loan Program. Materials by subject. http:/
/www.osha.gov/dcsp/ote/resource-center/loan.html. Accessed by ERG on
July 28.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (OSHA, 2003.)
Standard Interpretations: 05/05/2003--Standards applicable to step
bolts and manhole steps; load requirements for step bolts. http://
www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_
table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24564 corrected 4/4/2005. Accessed by
ERG on July 24, 2006.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (OSHA, 2003.) 29 CFR
Part 1910 Walking and Working Surfaces; Personal Protective
equipment (Fall Protection Systems); Proposed Rule. Federal Register
68: 23528-23568, May 2, 2003.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (OSHA, 1996.) 29 CFR
Part 1926. Safety Standards for Scaffolds Used in the Construction
Industry; Final Rule. Federal Register 61: 46026-46126, August 30,
1996.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (OSHA, 1994.)
Background Document to the Regulatory Impact and Regulatory
Flexibility Assessment for the PPE Standard. Office of Regulatory
Analysis, March 15, 1994. Docket S-060, Exhibit 56.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (OSHA, 1993.) Fixed
Ladders Used on Outdoor Advertising Structures/Billboards in the
Outdoor Advertising Industry. OSHA Instruction STD 1-1.14, January
26, 1993. http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_
table=DIRECTIVES&p_id=1756. Accessed by ERG on August 25, 2006.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (OSHA, 1991a.)

December 5, 1989, letter from Mr. Thomas J. Shepich to Mr. Carl
Pedersen regarding Descent Control Devices. Memorandum to Regional
Administrators from Patricia K. Clark, Director, Directorate of
Compliance Programs, March 12, 1991. OSHA Docket S-029, Exhibit 1-
18.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (OSHA, 1991b.) Grant
of Variance. Federal Register 56: 8801, March 1, 1991. http://
www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=FEDERAL_
REGISTER&p_id=13148. Accessed by ERG on August 26, 2006.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (OSHA, 1990a.)
Preliminary Regulatory Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of
Proposed Subparts D and I of 29 CFR Part 1910 Walking and Working
Surfaces. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Office of
Regulatory Analysis, March 6, 1990. OSHA Docket S-029, Exhibit 4.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (OSHA, 1990a.)
Application of Gannett Outdoor Companies for a Variance Concerning
Fixed Ladders. Federal Register 55: 26796-26797, June 29, 1990.
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_
table=FEDERAL_REGISTER&p_id=13085. Accessed by ERG on August 25,
2006.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (OSHA, 1981.)
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Standard
Interpretations: 12/02/1981. Alternating tread type stair is
approved as safe for use. http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/
owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=18983.
Accessed by ERG on July 24, 2006.
Office of Management and Budget. (OMB, 2005.) Regulatory Reform of
the U.S. Manufacturing Sector. http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/
inforeg/reports/manufacturing_initiative.pdf. Accessed by ERG on
July 24, 2006.
Office of Management and Budget. (OMB, 2003.) Regulatory Analysis.
Circular A-4, September 17, 2003. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
circulars/a004/a-4.pdf.
Office of Management and Budget. (OMB, 2002.) North American
Industry Classification System--2002. Executive Office of the
President, 2002.
Platts.com. (Platts, 2007.) 2007 UDI Directory of Electric Power
Producers and Distributors. 115th Edition of the Electrical World
Directory. The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2007.
Small Business Administration. (SBA, 1996.) Regulatory Flexibility
Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354), amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121).
Small Business Administration. (SBA, 2006.) Table of Small Business
Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification
System Codes, 2006. http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/
sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf.
U.S. Census Bureau. (Census Bureau, 2002/2006.) Statistics of U.S.
Businesses, 2002/2006. http://www.census.gov/csd/susb/index.html.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (U.S. EPA, 2000.) Guidelines
for Preparing Economic Analyses. EPA 240-R-00-003, September 2000.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/Guidelines.html;
Chapter 7 also available in OSHA Docket No. H-054a, Exhibit 35-334.
U.S. Internal Revenue Service. (IRS, 2003.) Corporation Source Book,
2003. http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/bustaxstats/article/
0,,id=149687,00.html.
Viscusi, Kip and Joseph Aldy. (Viscusi and Aldy, 2003.) ``The Value
of a Statistical Life: A Critical Review of Market Estimates
Throughout the World.'' The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 27-1
(2003): 5-76.
Workers' Compensation Research Institute. (WCRI, 1993.) ``Income
Replacement in California.'' WCRI Research Brief; Special Edition.
Volume 9, number 4S, Cambridge, MA, December 1993. Also available in
OSHA Docket S-777, Exhibit 26-1608.
Wright, Michael C. (Wright, 2003.) Comments submitted to OSHA Docket
S-029, Exhibit 4-19, Michael C Wright, LJB, Inc., July 23, 2007.
Zeolla, Robert J. (Zeolla, 2003) Comments submitted to OSHA Docket
S-029, Exhibit 4-6, Robert J. Zeolla, Jr., President, Sunset Window
Cleaning Company. June 5, 2003.

VI. Applicability of Existing National Consensus Standards

    Section 6(b)(8) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
(``the Act''; 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(8)) requires OSHA to explain ``why a
rule promulgated by the Secretary differs substantially from an
existing national consensus standard,'' by publishing ``a statement of
the reasons why the rule as adopted will better effectuate the purposes
of the Act than the national consensus standard.'' The Agency is not
proposing to adopt any of the 34 national consensus standards listed in
the Reference section of the proposal because the Agency believes that
it is too difficult and costly for employers, especially employers in
small businesses, to determine which of these national consensus
standards apply to their workplaces, and then to collate and organize
the relevant standards for compliance purposes. In this regard, no
single, national consensus standard would fully address all of the fall
hazards found in most of these workplaces.

VII. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The proposed Walking-Working Surfaces and Personal Protective
Equipment (Fall Protection PPE) Standard contains collection of
information (paperwork) requirements that are subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (``PRA-95''), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and OMB's regulations
at 5 CFR part 1320. The Paperwork Reduction Act defines a ``collection
of information'' as ``the obtaining, causing to be obtained,
soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third parties or the public
of facts or opinions by or for an agency regardless of form or format''
(44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)). OSHA has OMB approval for the existing
paperwork requirements contained in both the Walking and Working
Surfaces Standard, and in the Personal Protective Equipment Standard in
two separate Information Collection Requests (ICRs) titled, Standard on
Walking-Working Surfaces (29 CFR part 1910, subpart D) OMB control
number 1218-0199, and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for General
Industry (29 CFR part 1910, subpart I), OMB Control number 1218-2005.
    OSHA has submitted both ICRs addressing the collection of
information requirements identified in this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) to OMB for review (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). OSHA solicits
comments on the collection of information requirements and the
estimated burden hours associated with these collections, including
comments on the following:
     Whether the proposed collection of information
requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's
functions, including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
cost) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply,
for example, by using automated or other technological techniques for
collecting and transmitting information.

    The title, a description of the need for and proposed use of the
information, a description of the likely respondents, and the proposed
frequency of response to the information collections are described
below for the collection of information requirements in the proposed
revisions to subparts D and I,

along with an estimate of the annual reporting burden and cost.
     For proposed 29 CFR part 1910, subpart D:
    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Standard on Walking-Working Surfaces (29 CFR part 1910,
subpart D).
    OMB Control Number: 1218-0199.
    Description and Proposed Use of the Collections of Information: The
proposed standard would impose new information collection requirements
for purposes of PRA-95 and removes collection of information
requirements in the existing standard (see 1218-0199). The collection
of information requirements in the proposed standard have not been
approved by OMB. These two proposed requirements are described in the
following paragraphs.
    Proposed Sec.  1910.23(b)(10) requires employers to place ``Do Not
Use'' or similar language on signs on ladders with structural or other
defects in accordance with Sec.  1910.145 (Specifications for accident
prevention signs and tags). This provision is necessary to protect
workers from defective ladders.
    Under proposed Sec.  1910.28(b)(8), employers need not provide fall
protection to employees who are exposed to falling into automotive,
repair, or assembly pits provided certain conditions are met, including
a requirement to post a caution sign stating ``Caution--Open Floor'' or
similar legend to warn of the fall hazard. (See proposed Sec.
1910.28(b)(8)(iii)). These signs provide warning to employees who are
exposed to fall hazards in repair, service, and assembly pits.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.
    Number of Respondents: 62,310.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Average Time per Response: 3 minutes.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 3,116 hours.
    Estimated Costs (Operation and Maintenance): $0.
     For proposed 29 CFR part 1910, subpart I:
    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for General Industry (29
CFR part 1910, subpart I).
    OMB Control Number: 1218-0205.
    Description and Proposed Use of the Collections of Information: The
proposed standard would expand the burden of the currently approved
information collection requirements (see 1218-0205) because the
proposed standard would impose new information collection requirements
for purposes of PRA-95. The two collection of information requirements
in the proposed standard, described in the following paragraphs, have
not been approved by OMB.
    Paragraph (d) of existing Sec.  1910.132 requires employers to
conduct a hazard assessment of the workplace to determine if there are
certain hazards from which employees can be protected through the use
of PPE; namely eye and face, foot, head, and hand hazards. Under the
proposal, this provision would be expanded to add fall hazards to the
list of hazards covered by the workplace assessment, thus requiring
employers to determine if there are any fall hazards from which
employees can be protected by the use of fall protection PPE. This
provision is necessary to protect workers from fall hazards.
    Likewise, under existing Sec.  1910.132(f), employers must provide
training for each employee who was identified in the hazard assessment
as needing to use fall protection. The proposed revision would expand
the current requirement to include training employees who would be
using fall protection PPE. Also, under existing Sec.  1910.132(f)(3),
employers must provide retaining when there is reason to believe that
any previously trained employee does not have the understanding and
skill to use PPE properly, and existing paragraph (f)(4) of Sec.
1910.132 requires that employers certify that employees have received
and understood the required PPE training. The training certification
must include the name of the employee(s) trained, the date(s) of
training, and the subject of the certification (i.e., a statement
identifying the document as a certification of training in the use of
PPE). The proposed revision would expand the certification record to
include employees who have been trained in the use of PPE for fall
protection.
    The proposed revisions would result in the initial (first year)
burden outlined below. After the first year, however, the burden will
be significantly lower.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.
    Number of Respondents: 1.3 million establishments.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Average Time per Response: Ranges from three minutes to document
and maintain training records, to four hours for larger establishments
to do a hazard assessment to include identification of fall hazards.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 5.1 million burden hours.
    Estimated Costs (Operation and Maintenance): $0.
    Submitting comments. Members of the public who wish to comment on
the paperwork requirements in this proposal must send their written
comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn:
OSHA Desk Officer (RIN 1218-AB80), Office of Management and Budget,
Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. The Agency
encourages commenters to also submit their comments on these paperwork
requirements to the rulemaking docket (Docket Number OSHA-2007-0072),
along with their comments on other parts of the proposed rule. For
instructions on submitting these comments to the rulemaking docket, see
the sections of this Federal Register notice titled DATES and
ADDRESSES. Comments submitted in response to this notice are public
records; therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about submitting personal
information such as Social Security numbers and date of birth.
    Docket and inquiries. To access the docket to read or download
comments and other materials related to this paperwork determination,
including the complete Information Collection Request (ICR) (containing
the Supporting Statement with attachments describing the paperwork
determinations in detail), use the procedures described under the
section of this notice titled ADDRESSES. You also may obtain an
electronic copy of the complete ICR by visiting the Web page at http://
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, scroll under ``Currently Under
Review'' to ``Department of Labor (DOL)'' to view all of the DOL's
ICRs, including those ICRs submitted for proposed rulemakings. To make
inquiries, or to request other information, contact Ms. Theda Kenney,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, Room N-3609, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Department notes that a Federal agency cannot conduct or
sponsor a collection of information unless it is approved by OMB under
the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB control number, and the
public is not required to respond to a collection of information unless
it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Also, not
withstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall be subject to
penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the
collection of information does not display a currently valid OMB
control number.

VIII. Federalism

    OSHA reviewed this NPRM in accordance with the Executive Order on
Federalism (Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), which
requires that Federal agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from
limiting State policy options, consult with States prior to taking any
actions that would restrict State policy options, and take such actions
only when clear constitutional authority exists and the problem is
national in scope. Executive Order 13132 provides for preemption of
State law only with the expressed consent of Congress. Any such
preemption must be limited to the extent possible.
    Under section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
(``OSH Act''; U.S.C. 651 et seq.), Congress expressly provides that
States may adopt, with Federal approval, a plan for the development and
enforcement of occupational safety and health standards; States that
obtain Federal approval for such a plan are referred to as ``State-Plan
States.'' (29 U.S.C. 667.) Occupational safety and health standards
developed by State-Plan States must be at least as effective in
providing safe and healthful employment and places of employment as the
Federal standards. Subject to these requirements, State-Plan States are
free to develop and enforce their own requirements for occupational
safety and health standards.
    While OSHA drafted this NPRM to protect employees in every State,
section 18(c)(2) of the Act permits State-Plan States and Territories
to develop and enforce their own standards for walking-working surfaces
and personal fall protection provided these requirements are at least
as effective in providing safe and healthful employment and places of
employment as the final requirements that result from this proposal.
    In summary, this NPRM complies with Executive Order 13132. In
States without OSHA-approved State Plans, any standard developed from
this proposal would limit State policy options in the same manner as
every standard promulgated by OSHA. In States with OSHA-approved State
Plans, this rulemaking would not significantly limit State policy
options.

IX. State Plan States

    Section 18(c)(2) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
(29 U.S.C. 667(c)(2)) requires State-Plan States to adopt mandatory
standards promulgated by OSHA. Accordingly, the 25 States and 2
Territories with their own OSHA-approved occupational safety and health
plans would have to adopt provisions comparable to the provisions in
this proposed rule within 6 months after the Agency publishes the final
rule that it develops from this proposal. The Agency believes that the
proposed rule would provide employers in State-Plan States and
Territories with critical information and methods necessary to protect
their employees from falls and other hazards associated with walking-
working surfaces. The 25 States and 2 Territories with State Plans are:
Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland,
Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto
Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington,
and Wyoming. Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and the
Virgin Islands have OSHA-approved State Plans that apply to State and
local government employees only. Until a State-Plan State/Territory
promulgates its own comparable provisions based on the final rule
developed from this proposal, Federal OSHA will provide the State/
Territory with interim enforcement assistance, as appropriate.

X. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    OSHA reviewed this proposed rule according to the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA''; 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) and Executive
Order 12875 (58 FR 58093). As discussed above in section V. of this
preamble (``Preliminary Economic Analysis and Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Screening Analysis''), the Agency estimates that compliance
with this proposed rule would require private-sector employers to
expend about $159.2 million each year. However, while this proposed
rule establishes a federal mandate in the private sector, it is not a
significant regulatory action within the meaning of section 202 of the
UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1532).
    Under voluntary agreement with OSHA, some States enforce compliance
with their State standards on public sector entities, and these
agreements specify that these State standards must be equivalent to
OSHA standards. Thus, although OSHA has included compliance costs for
the affected public-sector entities in its analysis of the expected
impacts associated with the proposal, the proposal would not involve
any unfunded mandates being imposed on any State or local government
entity. Consequently, this proposed rule does not meet the definition
of a ``Federal intergovernmental mandate'' (see section 421(5) of the
UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5))). Therefore, for the purposes of the UMRA, the
Agency preliminarily certifies that this proposed rule does not mandate
that State, local, and tribal governments adopt new, unfunded
regulatory obligations.

XI. Public Participation

    OSHA invites comments on all aspects of the proposed rule.
Throughout this document OSHA has invited comment on specific issues
and requested information and data about practices at establishments
and industries affected by this proposal. OSHA will carefully review
and evaluate these comments, information, and data, as well as all
other information in the rulemaking record, to determine how to
proceed.
    Comments. The Agency invites interested parties to submit written
data, views, and arguments concerning this proposal. In particular, the
Agency welcomes comments on its determination of the economic or other
regulatory impacts of the proposed rule on the regulated community.
When submitting comments, follow the procedures specified above in the
sections titled DATES and ADDRESSES. The comments must clearly identify
the provision of the proposal being addressed, the position taken with
respect to each issue, and the basis for that position. Comments, along
with supporting data and references, received by the end of the
specified comment period will become part of the proceedings record,
and will be available electronically for public inspection at the
Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov), or may be read
at the OSHA Docket Office, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington. (See the section of this Federal Register notice titled
ADDRESSES for additional information on how to access these documents.)
    Informal Public Hearings. Requests for a hearing should be
submitted to the Agency as set forth above under the sections of this
notice titled DATES and ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910

    Falls; Fall arrest; Fall protection; Fall restraint; Ladders;
Occupational safety and health; Scaffolds; Stair; Walking-working
surfaces; Window cleaning.

XII. Authority and Signature

    This document was prepared under the authority of David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20210.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on April 29, 2010.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.

Proposed Regulatory Text

    Pursuant to sections 4, 6, and 8 of the OSH Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C.
653, 655, 657), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2007 (72 FR 31159),
and 29 CFR part 1911, it is hereby amending subparts D and I of 29 CFR
part 1910 as set forth below.

PART 1910--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS

    1. Subpart D is revised to read as follows:
Subpart D--Walking-Working Surfaces
Sec.
1910.21 Scope, application, and definitions.
1910.22 General requirements.
1910.23 Ladders.
1910.24 Step bolts and manhole steps.
1910.25 Stairways.
1910.26 Dockboards (bridge plates).
1910.27 Scaffolds (including rope descent systems).
1910.28 Duty to have fall protection.
1910.29 Fall protection systems criteria and practices.
1910.30 Training requirements.

    Authority:  Secs. 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), Secretary of Labor's
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), and 9-83 (48 FR
35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), or 5-2007 (72 FR
31159), as applicable. Subpart D is also issued under 29 CFR part
1911.

Subpart D--Walking-Working Surfaces

Sec.  1910.21  Scope, application and definitions.

    (a) Scope and application. This subpart applies to all general
industry workplaces. It covers all walking-working surfaces unless
specifically excluded by individual sections of this subpart.
    (b) Definitions.
    Alternating tread-type stair means a series of steps (treads)
usually attached to a center support in an alternating manner so that a
user of the stair normally does not have both feet on the same level.
    Authorized describes an employee who is approved or assigned by the
employer to perform a specific type of duty or an employee who is
permitted by the employer to be at a specific location.
    Cage means a barrier mounted on the side rail of a fixed ladder or
fastened to the structure behind the fixed ladder and which is designed
to enclose the climbing space of the ladder to safeguard the employee
while climbing the ladder. A cage may also be called a ``cage guard''
or ``basket guard.''
    Carrier means a track of a ladder safety system consisting of a
flexible cable or rigid rail which is secured to the ladder or
structure by mountings.
    Combination ladder means a portable ladder that can be used as a
stepladder, single extension ladder, trestle ladder, or stairwell
ladder. Its components may be used as a single ladder.
    Designated area means 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.
    Dockboard (bridge plate) means a portable or fixed device for
spanning the gap or compensating for the difference in level between
loading platforms and carriers.
    Equivalent means alternate designs, materials, or methods that the
employer can demonstrate will provide an equal or greater degree of
safety for employees compared to the method or item specified in this
subpart.
    Extension ladder means a non-self-supporting portable ladder
adjustable in length.
    Failure means a load refusal, breakage, or separation of component
parts. Load refusal is the point where the ultimate strength is
exceeded.
    Fall hazard means any condition on a walking-working surface that
exposes an employee to injury from a fall on the same level or to a
lower level.
    Fall protection means any equipment, device, or system that
prevents an employee from experiencing a fall from elevation or that
mitigates the effect of such a fall.
    Fixed ladder means a ladder, including an individual rung ladder,
which is permanently attached to a structure, building, or equipment.
It does not include ship stairs or manhole steps.
    Grab bars means individual handholds placed adjacent to or as an
extension of ladder side rails for the purpose of providing access
beyond the limits of the ladder.
    Guardrail system means a barrier erected to prevent employees from
falling to lower levels.
    Handrail means a rail used to provide employees a handhold for
support.
    Hoist area means any elevated access opening to a walking-working
surface where hoisted equipment or materials are loaded or received.
    Hole means a gap or void 2 inches (5 cm) or more in its least
dimension, in a floor, roof, or other walking-working surface.
    Individual rung ladder means a ladder consisting of rungs
individually attached to a structure, building, or piece of equipment.
It does not include manhole steps.
    Ladder means a device with rungs, steps, or cleats typically used
to gain access to a different elevation.
    Ladder safety system means a device, other than a cage or well,
designed to eliminate or reduce the possibility of falls from ladders.
A ladder safety system usually consists of a carrier (the track of
flexible cable or rigid rail), safety sleeve (moving component which
travels on the carrier), lanyard, connectors, and body belt or harness.
    Ladder stand (see ``Mobile ladder stand'').
    Lower level means an area to which an employee could fall. Such
areas include ground levels, floors, roofs, ramps, runways,
excavations, pits, tanks, materials, water, equipment, and similar
surfaces.
    Manhole steps means steps individually attached or set into the
walls of a manhole structure.
    Maximum intended load (designed working load) means the total load
of all employees, equipment, tools, materials, transmitted loads, and
other loads reasonably anticipated to be applied to a walking-working
surface.
    Mobile means manually propelled and/or movable.
    Mobile ladder stand (ladder stand) means a mobile, fixed-size,
self-supporting ladder consisting of flat treads in the form of steps
accessing a top step. The assembly may include handrails and is
intended for use by one employee.
    Mobile ladder stand platform means a mobile, fixed-height, self-
supporting unit having one or more standing levels, provided with means
of access or egress to the platform or platforms.
    Open riser means the gap between the treads of stairways without
upright members (risers).
    Opening means a gap or void 30 inches (76 cm) or more high and 18
inches (46 cm) or more wide in any wall or partition through which
employees can fall to a lower level.
    Platform means a walking-working surface elevated above the
surrounding area.
    Portable ladder means a ladder that can readily be moved or carried
and usually consists of side rails joined at intervals by steps, rungs,
cleats, or rear braces.
    Qualified describes a person who, by possession of a recognized
degree, certificate, or professional standing, or who by extensive
knowledge, training, and experience has successfully

demonstrated the ability to solve or resolve problems relating to the
subject matter, the work, or the project.
    Qualified climber means an employee engaged in outdoor advertising
who, by virtue of physical capabilities, training, work experience, and
job assignment, is authorized by the employer to climb fixed ladders
without using fall protection.
    Ramp means an inclined surface between different elevations that is
used for the passage of employees, vehicles, or both.
    Riser means the upright member of a step situated at the back of a
lower tread and near the leading edge of the next higher tread.
    Rope descent system means a suspension device that supports one
employee in a chair (seat board) and allows the user to descend in a
controlled manner and to stop at any time at a desired level of
descent. A rope descent system is a variation of the single-point
adjustable suspension scaffold. Also known as a controlled descent
device, controlled descent equipment, or controlled descent apparatus.
    Rung, step, or cleat means, when used on a ladder, a cross-piece on
which a person may step to ascend or descend.
    Runway means a passageway for persons, elevated above the
surrounding floor or ground level, such as a catwalk, a foot walk along
shafting, or a walkway between buildings.
    Safety factor means the ratio of the design load and the ultimate
strength of the material.
    Scaffold means any temporary elevated or suspended platform, and
its supporting structure, including points of anchorage, used to
support employees or materials or both. The term ``scaffold'' does not
include crane or derrick suspended personnel platforms.
    Ship stairs (ship ladders) means a stairway that is equipped with
treads and stair rails, has a slope between 50 and 70 degrees from the
horizontal, and has open risers.
    Side-step ladder means a ladder from which an employee getting off
at the top must step sideways from the ladder to reach the landing.
    Single-point adjustable suspension scaffold means a suspension
scaffold consisting of a platform suspended by a single rope from an
overhead support and equipped with means to permit the movement of the
platform to desired work levels.
    Spiral stairway means a stairway having a helical (spiral)
structure attached to a supporting pole.
    Stair rail or stair rail system means a vertical barrier (such as
rails, decorative panels, and mesh) erected along open sides of
stairways to prevent employees from falling to lower levels. The top
surface of a stair rail system may also be a handrail.
    Standard stairs means a permanently installed stairway. Ship
stairs, spiral stairs, and alternating tread-type stairs are not
standard stairs.
    Stepladder means a self-supporting portable ladder, non-adjustable
in length, with flat steps and a hinged back.
    Step-bolt (pole step) means a bolt or rung attached at intervals
along a structural member and used for foot placement during climbing
or standing.
    Stepstool means a self-supporting, foldable, portable ladder,
nonadjustable in length, 32 inches (81 cm) or less in overall size,
with flat steps and without a pail shelf, designed so that the ladder
top cap, as well as all steps, can be climbed on. The side rails may
continue above the top cap.
    Through ladder means a type of fixed ladder designed to allow a
person to get off at the top by stepping through the ladder to reach a
landing.
    Tieback means an attachment from an anchorage (e.g., structural
member) to a supporting device.
    Toeboard means a low protective barrier that is designed to prevent
the fall of materials and equipment to lower levels and provide
protection from falls for employees.
    Tread means the horizontal member of a step.
    Unprotected sides and edges means any side or edge of a walking-
working surface (except at entrances to points of access) where there
is no wall or guardrail system at least 39 inches (99 cm) high.
    Walking-working surface means any surface horizontal or vertical,
on or through which an employee walks, works, or gains access to a
workplace location. Walking-working surfaces include, but are not
limited to, floors, stairs, steps, roofs, ladders, ramps, runways,
aisles, and step bolts.
    Well means a permanent, complete enclosure around a fixed ladder.
Proper clearances for a well provide the person climbing the ladder the
same protection as a cage.

Sec.  1910.22  General requirements.

    (a) Surface conditions. (1) All places of employment, passageways,
storerooms, and service rooms shall be kept clean and orderly, and in a
sanitary condition.
    (2) The floor of every workroom shall be maintained in a clean and,
so far as possible, a dry condition. Where wet processes are used,
drainage shall be maintained and false floors, platforms, mats, or
other dry standing places shall be provided where practicable.
    (3) Employers must ensure that all surfaces are designed,
constructed, and maintained free of recognized hazards that can result
in injury or death to employees.
    (b) Application of loads. Employers must ensure that walking-
working surfaces are:
    (1) Designed, constructed, and maintained to support their maximum
intended load; and
    (2) Not loaded beyond their maximum intended load.
    (c) Access and egress. The employer must ensure employees are
provided with and use a safe means of access to and egress from one
walking-working surface to another.
    (d) Maintenance and repair. (1) The employer must ensure through
regular and periodic inspection and maintenance that walking-working
surfaces are in a safe condition for employee use.
    (2) The employer must ensure that all hazardous conditions are
promptly corrected or repaired. If the repair can not be made
immediately, the hazard must be guarded to prevent employee use.
    (3) Where hazardous conditions may affect the structural integrity
of the walking-working surface, a qualified person must perform or
supervise the maintenance or repair of that surface.

Sec.  1910.23  Ladders.

    (a) Application. This section covers all ladders, except those used
only for firefighting or rescue operations and ladders that are
designed into (an integral part of) a machine or piece of equipment.
    (b) General requirements for all ladders. (1) Ladder rungs and
steps must be parallel, level, and uniformly spaced when the ladder is
in position for use.
    (2) Rungs, cleats, and steps of ladders must be spaced not less
than 10 inches (25 cm) nor more than 14 inches (36 cm) apart, as
measured between the center lines of the rungs, cleats, and steps,
except that:
    (i) Rungs and steps on ladders in elevator shafts must be spaced no
less than 6 inches (15 cm) apart, nor more than 16.5 inches (42 cm)
apart, as measured along the ladder side rails; and
    (ii) Rungs and steps on fixed ladders on telecommunication towers
must be installed no more than 18 inches (46 cm) apart.
    (3) Rungs, cleats, and steps of stepstools must be not less than 8
inches

(20 cm) apart, nor more than 12 inches (30 cm) apart, as measured
between the center lines of the rungs, cleats, and steps.
    (4) Except as provided below, ladder rungs and steps must have a
minimum clear width of 11.5 inches (29 cm) for portable ladders and 16
inches (41 cm) for individual rung and fixed ladders.
    (i) Narrow rungs that are not designed to be stepped on, such as
those located on the tapered end of fruit pickers' ladders and similar
ladders, are exempt from the minimum rung width requirement.
    (ii) Manhole entry ladders that are supported by manhole openings
must have rungs or steps that have a clear width of at least 9 inches
(23 cm).
    (iii) Rolling ladders used in telecommunication centers must have a
clear width of at least 8 inches (20 cm).

    Note to paragraph (b)(4) of this section:  When ladder safety
systems meeting the requirements of Sec.  1910.29 are used on fixed
or individual-rung ladders, the clear width is measured before the
installation of the ladder safety system.

    (5) Wooden ladders must not be coated or covered with any material
that may obscure structural defects.
    (6) Metal ladders must be protected against corrosion.
    (7) Ladder surfaces must be free of puncture or laceration hazards.
    (8) Ladders must be used only for the purposes for which they were
designed.
    (9) Ladders must be inspected before use to identify any visible
defects that could cause employee injury.
    (10) Ladders with structural or other defects must immediately be
tagged ``Do Not Use'' or with similar language in accordance with Sec.
1910.145 and must be removed from service until repaired in accordance
with Sec.  1910.22(d), or replaced.
    (11) Employers shall ensure that, when ascending or descending a
ladder, employees face the ladder.
    (12) Employers shall ensure that employees use at least one hand to
grasp the ladder when progressing up and down the ladder.
    (13) Employers shall ensure that employees do not carry any object
or load that could cause employees to lose balance and fall.
    (c) Portable ladders. (1) Rungs and steps of portable metal ladders
must be corrugated, knurled, dimpled, coated with skid-resistant
material, or otherwise treated to minimize the possibility of slipping.
    (2) Each stepladder or any combination ladder that is used in a
stepladder mode must be designed with a metal spreader or locking
device to hold the front and back sections securely in an open position
while in use.
    (3) Ladders must not be loaded beyond the maximum intended load for
which they were designed and tested, or beyond the manufacturer's rated
capacity. The maximum intended load, as defined in Sec.  1910.21(b),
includes the worker and all tools and supplies carried.