6652 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: 

John Coffey, Flight Test Engineer, Boston 

Aircraft Certification Office, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; 

telephone (781) 238–7173; email: 

john.coffey@faa.gov. 

(2) For operations conducted under a 14 

CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 

14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that 

you notify your principal inspector, or 

lacking a principal inspector, the manager of 

the local flight standards district office or 

certificate holding district office, before 

operating any aircraft complying with this 

AD through an AMOC. 

(i) Additional Information 

For service information identified in this 

AD, contact Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, 

Attn: Manager, Commercial Technical 

Support, mailstop S581A, 6900 Main Street, 

Stratford, CT, telephone (203) 383–4866, 

email address tsslibrary@sikorsky.com, or at 

http://www.sikorsky.com. You may review a 

copy of the service information at the FAA, 

Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest 

Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort 

Worth, Texas 76137. 

(j) Subject 

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) 

Code: 2510 Flight Compartment Equipment. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 16, 

2015. 

Lance T. Gant, 

Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft 

Directorate Manager, Aircraft Certification 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–02283 Filed 2–5–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–C 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

17 CFR Parts 229, 230, and 232 

[Release Nos. 33–9720; 34–74194; File No. 

S7–08–10] 

Asset-Backed Securities Disclosure 

and Registration 

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange 

Commission. 

ACTION: Technical amendment. 

SUMMARY: This release makes technical 

corrections to rules that were published 

in the Federal Register on September 

24, 2014. The Commission adopted 

revisions to Regulation AB and other 

rules governing the offering process, 

disclosure, and reporting for assetbacked securities. These technical 

amendments are being published to 

reinstate language that was 

inadvertently removed and make other 

technical corrections. 

DATES: Effective February 6, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kayla M. Florio, Attorney-Advisor, at 

(202) 551–3850; Division of Corporation 

Finance, Securities and Exchange 

Commission, 100 F Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20549–3628. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

release technical amendments to 

§ 229.1100, § 230.190, and § 232.201 

that were published in the Federal 

Register on September 24, 2014 (79 FR 

57184). 

List of Subjects 

17 CFR Part 230 

Advertising, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Securities. 

17 CFR Parts 229 and 232 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Securities. 

Text of Amendments 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, Title 17, Chapter II, of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is amended 

as follows: 

PART 229—STANDARD 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING FORMS 

UNDER SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, 

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

AND ENERGY POLICY AND 

CONSERVATION ACT OF 1975— 

REGULATION S–K 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 229 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77e, 77f, 77g, 77h, 

77j, 77k, 77s, 77z–2, 77z–3, 77aa(25), 

77aa(26), 77ddd, 77eee, 77ggg, 77hhh, 777iii, 

77jjj, 77nnn, 77sss, 78c, 78i, 78j, 78j–3,78l, 

78m, 78n, 78n–1, 78o, 78u–5, 78w, 78ll, 

78mm, 80a–8, 80a–9, 80a–20, 80a–29, 80a– 

30, 80a–31(c), 80a–37, 80a–38(a), 80a–39, 

80b–11, and 7201 et seq.; and 18 U.S.C. 1350, 

unless otherwise noted. 

* * * * * 

§ 229.1100 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 229.1100 in paragraph (f) 

by removing the reference ‘‘(§§ 229.1100 

through 229.1124)’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘(§§ 229.1100 through 229.1125)’’. 

PART 230—GENERAL RULES AND 

REGULATIONS, SECURITIES ACT OF 

1933 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 230 

continues to read, in part, as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77b, 77b note, 77c, 

77d, 77d note, 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77r, 77s, 

77z–3, 77sss, 78c, 78d, 78j, 78l, 78m, 78n, 

78o, 78o–7 note, 78t, 78w, 78ll(d), 78mm, 

80a–8, 80a–24, 80a–28, 80a–29, 80a–30, and 

80a–37, and Pub. L. 112–106, sec. 201(a), 126 

Stat. 313 (2012), unless otherwise noted. 

* * * * * 

§ 230.190 [Amended] 

■ 4. Amend § 230.190 in paragraph 

(b)(5) by adding ‘‘and’’ after 

‘‘securities;’’. 

PART 232—REGULATION S–T— 

GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS 

FOR ELECTRONIC FILINGS 

■ 5. The authority citation for part 232 

continues to read, in part, as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 

77s(a), 77z–3, 77sss(a), 78c(b), 78l, 78m, 78n, 

78o(d), 78w(a), 78ll, 80a–6(c), 80a–8, 80a–29, 

80a–30, 80a–37, and 7201 et seq.; and 18 

U.S.C. 1350. 

* * * * * 

§ 232.201 [Amended] 

■ 6. Amend § 232.201 in paragraph (a) 

introductory text by adding ‘‘an 

application for an order under any 

section of the Investment Company Act 

(15 U.S.C. 80a–1 et seq.),’’ after ‘‘a Form 

D (239.500 of this chapter),’’. 

Dated: February 3, 2015. 

Brent J. Fields, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–02425 Filed 2–5–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

29 CFR Part 1952 

[Docket ID. OSHA 2014–0019] 

RIN 1218–AC92 

Arizona State Plan for Occupational 

Safety and Health 

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration, Department of Labor. 

ACTION: Rejection of State initiated plan 

change. 

SUMMARY: This document announces the 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration’s (OSHA’s) decision to 

reject Arizona’s standard for fall 

protection in residential construction. 

OSHA is deferring decision on the 

simultaneously proposed action of 

reconsidering the Arizona State Plan’s 

final approval status, pending Arizona’s 

expected repeal of the rejected standard, 

by operation of law, and subsequent 

enforcement of a standard that is at least 

as effective as OSHA’s standard on fall 

protection in residential construction. 

DATES: Effective February 6, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

For press inquiries: Francis Meilinger, 

OSHA Office of Communications, Room 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 6653 

N–3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20210; telephone (202) 693–1999; 

email: meilinger.francis2@dol.gov. 

For general and technical 

information: Douglas J. Kalinowski, 

Director, OSHA Directorate of 

Cooperative and State Programs, Room 

N–3700, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington 

DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693–2200; 

email: kalinowski.doug@dol.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Arizona State Plan 

Arizona administers an OSHAapproved State Plan to develop and 

enforce occupational safety and health 

standards for private sector and state 

and local government employers, 

pursuant to the provisions of Section 18 

of the Williams-Steiger Occupational 

Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 

667) (‘‘the Act’’). The Arizona State Plan 

received initial OSHA approval on 

November 5, 1974 (39 FR 39037), and 

the Arizona Occupational Safety and 

Health Division (ADOSH) of the 

Industrial Commission of Arizona is 

designated as the state agency 

responsible for administering the State 

Plan. Pursuant to Section 18(e) of the 

Act, OSHA granted Arizona ‘‘final 

approval’’ effective June 20, 1985 (50 FR 

25561). Final approval under Section 

18(e) requires, among other things, a 

finding by the Assistant Secretary for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

(‘‘Assistant Secretary’’) that the plan, in 

actual operation, provides worker 

protection ‘‘at least as effective as’’ that 

provided by OSHA. 

OSHA’s Residential Construction Fall 

Protection Standard 

OSHA issued its current federal 

construction fall protection standard on 

August 9, 1994 (29 CFR part 1926, 

subpart M, 59 FR 40672). In general, 

subpart M requires that an employee 

exposed to a fall hazard at a height of 

six feet or more (hereinafter referred to 

as a ‘‘trigger height’’) be protected by 

conventional fall protection, specifically 

a guardrail system, safety net system, or 

personal fall arrest system. Subpart M 

creates an exception allowing a 

residential construction employer who 

can demonstrate that it is infeasible or 

creates a greater hazard to use these 

systems, to develop and implement a 

fall protection plan instead. OSHA’s 

standard requires that fall protection 

plans conform to specific criteria, 

including that they be site-specific and 

specify the alternative measures that 

will be taken to eliminate or reduce the 

possibility of a fall. (29 CFR 

1926.502(k)(1). As set forth in subpart 

M, there is a presumption that use of 

conventional fall protection is feasible 

and implementation will not create a 

greater hazard, and the employer has the 

burden of proving otherwise. It should 

be noted that OSHA rarely encounters 

real-world situations where 

conventional fall protection is truly 

infeasible. 

In response to questions raised by the 

residential construction industry about 

the feasibility of subpart M, on 

December 8, 1995, OSHA issued interim 

fall protection procedures (STD 3.1) for 

residential construction employers that 

differ from those in subpart M. OSHA 

instruction STD 03–00–001 (a plain 

language rewrite and renumbering of 

STD 3.1) set out an interim compliance 

policy that permitted employers 

engaged in certain residential 

construction activities to use specified 

alternative procedures instead of 

conventional fall protection. OSHA 

never intended STD 03–00–001 to be a 

permanent policy; in issuing the 

Instruction, OSHA stated that the 

guidance provided therein would 

remain in effect until further notice or 

until completion of a new rulemaking 

effort addressing these concerns. 

On July 14, 1999, OSHA initiated the 

evaluation of STD 03–00–001 by 

publishing an Advanced Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) (64 FR 

38078) seeking comments and data to 

support claims that fall protection 

requirements for certain construction 

activities were infeasible. In the ANPR, 

OSHA stated that the conventional fall 

protection requirements and six foot 

trigger height set forth in subpart M 

were established as reasonably 

necessary and appropriate to protect 

workers, and as technologically and 

economically feasible for employers. 

OSHA noted that since the 

promulgation of subpart M, there had 

been additional advances in the types 

and capability of commercially available 

fall protection equipment and, therefore, 

OSHA intended to rescind STD 03–00– 

001 unless persuasive evidence of 

infeasibility or significant safety hazard 

was presented. 

After considering all comments 

submitted on the record, OSHA 

concluded that, overall, there was no 

persuasive evidence to show that 

employers in residential construction 

would be unable to find a safe and 

feasible means of protecting workers 

from falls in accordance with subpart M 

(29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13)). Therefore, on 

December 16, 2010, OSHA’s 

Compliance Guidance for Residential 

Construction (STD 03–11–002) canceled 

OSHA’s interim enforcement policy 

(STD 03–00–001) on fall protection for 

certain residential construction 

activities, and required employers 

engaged in residential construction to 

fully comply with 29 CFR 

1926.501(b)(13). This new guidance 

informed State Plans that, in accordance 

with the Act, they must each have a 

compliance directive on fall protection 

in residential construction that, in 

combination with applicable State Plan 

standards, resulted in an enforcement 

program that is at least as effective as 

OSHA’s program (75 FR 80315, Dec. 22, 

2010). 

Arizona’s Residential Construction Fall 

Protection Standard 

On June 16, 2011, ADOSH adopted 

STD 03–11–002, but on June 17, 2011, 

the Industrial Commission of Arizona 

(ICA) immediately stayed the 

enforcement of this directive. Then on 

November 30, 2011, the ICA lifted the 

stay, effective January 1, 2012. On 

March 27, 2012, a new bill, SB 1441, 

was signed into legislation, requiring 

conventional fall protection in 

residential construction whenever an 

employee is working at a height of 15 

feet or more or whenever a roof slope is 

steeper than 7:12, and creating an 

exception where implementation of 

conventional fall protection is infeasible 

or creates a greater hazard. SB 1441 was 

codified as Arizona Revised Statute, 

Title 23, Ch. 2, Art 13 (A.R.S. 23–492), 

which sets forth fall protection 

requirements for residential 

construction work in the state. ADOSH 

then adopted the requirements of A.R.S. 

23–492 as a state standard (Ariz. Admin. 

Code R20–5–601.01). In most instances, 

state standards are adopted by the 

designated state occupational safety and 

health agency, and are forwarded to 

OSHA as supplements to the State Plan 

(29 CFR 1953.4). However, in this 

instance the legislature itself provided 

the standard (Ariz. Admin. Code R20– 

5–601.01). Accordingly, the State Plan 

supplement at issue in this Federal 

Register document is referred to as the 

‘‘state statute’’ rather than ‘‘standard’’ or 

‘‘supplement,’’ the terms used in 

OSHA’s procedural regulations. 

After a series of discussions with the 

state, on March 19, 2014, OSHA sent 

Arizona a letter to show cause why a 

proceeding to reject the state statute and 

reconsider the state’s final approval 

status should not be commenced. 

OSHA’s main point of contention was 

the 15-foot trigger height for the use of 

conventional fall protection. On May 1, 

2014, Arizona submitted its response, 

pointing to the passage of SB 1307, a 

new bill signed on April 22, 2014, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
6654 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1Late comment. 

which makes certain revisions to A.R.S. 

23–492. This revised version of the state 

statute makes some relatively minor 

changes to its fall protection 

requirements, but does not alter the 15- 

foot trigger height for conventional fall 

protection. The revisions in SB 1307 do 

mandate fall protection for heights 

above six feet, but in most situations, 

allow this protection to be in the form 

of a fall protection plan and do not 

require conventional fall protection. 

Further, Arizona’s requirements for a 

fall protection plan allow employers to 

‘‘develop a single fall protection plan 

covering all construction operations,’’ 

but require that a qualified person 

develop a supplement to the general 

plan for additional fall hazards at 

specific sites, not already included in 

the plan. (A.R.S. 23–492.07(A)(1)), (SB 

1307 Secs. 5(A)(1), (5)). The Arizona 

state statute requires that the plan 

‘‘reduces or eliminates hazards,’’ but 

does not provide specific guidance on 

what measures are enough to meet this 

threshold, and allows for only a safety 

monitoring system in most situations. 

(A.R.S. 23–492.07(A)(8)). Finally, SB 

1307 also contains a conditional repeal 

provision stating that if OSHA does 

reject the state statute, and publishes 

that decision in the Federal Register 

pursuant to 29 CFR 1902.23, then A.R.S. 

23–492 is repealed by operation of law 

(SB 1307 Sec. 7). 

Comparison of OSHA Standards and 

Arizona’s Residential Construction Fall 

Protection Statute 

The OSH Act requires that State Plans 

develop and enforce standards that are 

at least as effective as OSHA’s standards 

(29 U.S.C. 667(c)(2)). OSHA’s standard 

for fall protection in residential 

construction (subpart M, 29 CFR 

1926.501(b)(13)) generally requires 

conventional fall protection (fall arrest 

systems, safety nets, or guardrails) any 

time employees are working at heights 

of six feet or greater. In contrast, 

Arizona’s state statute generally requires 

very limited, if any, fall protection for 

employees working between six and 15 

feet. The 2014 revision of the Arizona 

statute includes a mandate for fall 

protection for heights above six feet, but 

in most situations, allows for that fall 

protection to be in the form of a fall 

protection plan only. As discussed 

below in response to the comments, 

OSHA has found that conventional fall 

protection is a more effective means of 

protecting workers than implementation 

of a written plan. Arizona and OSHA’s 

requirements for a fall protection plan 

differ significantly. 

In the limited circumstances where 

conventional fall protection is infeasible 

or creates a greater hazard, OSHA 

requires the employer to implement a 

written, site-specific fall protection plan 

that specifies the alternative measures 

that will be taken to eliminate or reduce 

the possibility of a fall (29 CFR 

1926.501(b)(13); STD 03–11–002). (1307 

Sec. 2(A) and 5(A)). In contrast, the 

Arizona statute generally requires that 

the plan ‘‘reduces or eliminates 

hazards,’’ but does not provide specific 

guidance on what measures are enough 

to meet this threshold, and allows for 

only a safety monitoring system in most 

situations. (A.R.S. 23–492.07(A)(8)). In 

addition, the Arizona state statute 

allows employers to develop a single 

fall protection plan that can cover 

multiple worksites. In an apparent effort 

to make the single fall protection plan 

more site-specific, the 2014 revision of 

the Arizona statute requires that a 

qualified person develop a supplement 

to the general plan for additional fall 

hazards not already included in the 

plan. (SB 1307 Secs. 5(A)(1), (5)). 

However, the state statute contains no 

guidance about the required level of 

detail of the plan, which leaves open the 

possibility that single plans could be 

general enough to meet the statutory 

requirement for almost all situations. 

Further, there is no requirement to 

review the plan at each site to ensure 

that it meets the statutory requirement 

of eliminating or reducing the 

possibility of a fall. 

Finally, Arizona’s statute contains 

several exceptions to the general 

requirement for conventional fall 

protection that will result in many 

circumstances in which conventional 

fall protection is not required, and the 

use of other alternative methods, e.g. 

‘‘eave barriers’’ and parapet walls is 

allowed. (SB 1307 Secs. 1(6), 3(G)(2), 

4(A) and 4(B)). 

After reviewing the provisions of both 

versions of the state statute, OSHA has 

concluded that the Arizona statute is 

not at least as effective as OSHA’s 

standard, the most notable problematic 

differences being Arizona’s 15-foot 

trigger height for using conventional fall 

protection as opposed to OSHA’s sixfoot trigger height, Arizona’s single fall 

protection plan for all worksites, and 

Arizona’s exceptions to the requirement 

for conventional fall protection. On the 

basis of these concerns, OSHA is 

rejecting Arizona’s statute on fall 

protection in residential construction. 

Initial Federal Register Document and 

Discussion of Comments 

OSHA published a Federal Register 

document proposing to reject the 

Arizona fall protection statute and 

reconsider the state’s final approval on 

August 21, 2014 (79 FR 49465). The 

agency requested comments by 

September 25, 2014. OSHA received a 

total of ten comments on both rejection 

of the state statute and reconsideration 

of final approval status. OSHA has 

reviewed and considered the comments, 

and the following discussion 

summarizes the issues raised and 

OSHA’s responses. 

Comments were received from 

representatives of the American Society 

for Safety of Engineers (ASSE), National 

Safety Council (NSC), Home Builders 

Association of Central Arizona 

(HBACA), National Association of Home 

Builders (NAHB), Subcontractors 

Association of Arizona (ASA),1

members of the Arizona State Senate, 

Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, 

Safirst Corporation, Grand Canyon State 

Electric Cooperative Association, and 

the Industrial Commission of Arizona 

(ICA). Commenters provided mixed 

feedback on both the proposed rejection 

of the Arizona statute and proposed 

reconsideration of Arizona’s final 

approval status. ASSE and NSC 

supported OSHA in reconsidering final 

approval at this time, while the Greater 

Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, Safirst 

Corporation, HBACA, NAHB, ICA, ASA, 

members of the Arizona State Senate, 

and Grand Canyon State Electric 

Cooperative Association all opposed 

reconsideration of final approval. Most 

of the arguments against reconsideration 

included a request to delay the action in 

order to allow the conditional repeal 

within SB 1307 to take effect upon 

rejection of the statute. OSHA has 

agreed to defer its decision on 

reconsideration of final approval status 

and will monitor Arizona’s response to 

the rejection of the state statute and 

subsequent implementation and 

enforcement of residential fall 

protection requirements. Further 

discussion of the comments on 

reconsideration can be tabled until such 

time that OSHA decides whether or not 

to move forward on that action. 

In respect to the comments on the 

proposed rejection of Arizona’s statute, 

ASSE and NSC both generally 

supported rejection, focusing on the 

discrepancy in trigger heights and 

supporting the argument that a law 

requiring a plan for avoiding hazards 

does not ensure the same level of safety 

as a law requiring personal protective 

equipment when exposure to a hazard 

does occur. The HBACA, NAHB, ASA, 

members of the Arizona State Senate, 

and ICA all generally opposed rejection 

of the state’s statute, with many 

overlapping arguments. One common 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 6655 

contention was that the Arizona statute 

is ‘‘at least as effective’’ as OSHA’s 

standard because Arizona has a holistic 

approach to fall protection, emphasizing 

fall prevention rather than simply 

focusing on fall protection once a fall 

has occurred above certain trigger 

heights. Commenters argued that 

Arizona has a more effective fall 

protection program by requiring the 

extensive use of written fall protection 

plans to implement work practices that 

reduce exposure to fall hazards. OSHA 

agrees that preventing falls is preferable 

to arresting them. For example, STD 03– 

11–002 notes that use of guardrails, 

where feasible, is preferable to personal 

fall arrest systems or safety nets. 

However, OSHA finds that a 

requirement to have a written fall 

protection plan in place is not a 

substitute for the proactive protection 

provided by guardrails, personal fall 

arrest systems or safety nets. In general, 

OSHA has found that conventional fall 

protection is a more effective means of 

protecting workers than a written plan 

to reduce or eliminate fall hazards. 

OSHA agrees that planning plays an 

important part in preventing falls and 

acknowledges that a written fall 

protection plan contributes to ensuring 

safety at a workplace, but only if it is 

combined with the implementation of 

conventional fall protection. If a worker 

is exposed to a fall hazard despite the 

implementation of a plan, that worker 

must be protected. Moreover, the 

protection afforded needs to be at least 

as effective as what would be required 

under OSHA’s standard. Further, as 

discussed above, OSHA has concerns 

about Arizona’s fall protection plan 

requirements, on its face. In sum, the 

state statute lacks specific guidance on 

the required contents of the plan, 

essentially allows for a fall protection 

plan to be a single plan for all sites, and 

does not require review of the plan at 

each site. 

Commenters also argued that the 

exceptions to Arizona’s general 

requirement for conventional fall 

protection were greatly narrowed by SB 

1307 and do not undermine the statute. 

OSHA acknowledges that SB 1307 did 

limit the exceptions; however, in 

addition to only requiring a fall 

protection plan between six and 15 feet 

in height, there are also other exceptions 

above 15 feet in which conventional fall 

protection is not required by the 

Arizona statute, but would be required 

under OSHA’s standard. 

Another common thread among the 

comments opposing rejection is that 

differing trigger heights is not 

conclusive evidence that the state’s 

standard is not ‘‘at least as effective’’ as 

OSHA’s standard. OSHA’s rulemaking 

on subpart M concluded that a six foot 

rule was reasonably necessary and 

appropriate to protect workers and 

technologically and economically 

feasible for employers, including 

employers in residential construction. 

OSHA recognizes Congressional intent 

in allowing State Plans to promulgate 

different standards and to be more 

effective than OSHA. State Plans are not 

necessarily required to adopt an 

identical fall protection standard as long 

as workers are afforded ‘‘at least as 

effective’’ protection under the state 

standard as they would have under 

OSHA’s standard. 

Several commenters objected to 

OSHA making a determination of 

effectiveness absent a publicized 

definition of effectiveness and known 

process for making the determination. 

The OSH Act requires a State Plan to 

develop and enforce safety and health 

standards that are ‘‘at least as effective’’ 

in providing safe and healthful 

employment and places of employment 

as provided by OSHA’s standards. At 

least one commenter asserted that 

OSHA should rely on outcome 

performance measures or injury and 

illness rates as evidence that a State 

Plan is at least as effective as OSHA. 

However, OSHA regulations establish 

that effectiveness is evaluated by 

comparing state standards to OSHA’s 

standards on a provision by provision 

basis. OSHA’s regulations require that 

State Plans provide standards with 

respect to specific issues which will be 

at least as effective as the standards 

promulgated by OSHA relating to the 

same issues. (29 CFR 1902.4(b)(2)). 

OSHA’s indices of effectiveness require 

that State Plan standards are at least as 

effective in containing specific 

provisions for the protection of 

employees from exposure to hazards. As 

such, State Plan standards must include 

appropriate provisions requiring use of 

suitable protective equipment and 

control or technological procedures to 

protect against such hazards. See 29 

CFR 1902(b)(2)(vii). As explained above, 

OSHA’s main point of contention with 

the Arizona statute is that Arizona 

employers are not required to provide 

conventional fall protection to workers 

in residential construction working at 

heights between six and 15 feet on 

slopes with a pitch that is less than 7:12, 

as they would be required to provide if 

operating in a state covered by OSHA, 

and the Arizona statute fails to impose 

any additional or different requirements 

or administrative controls that entirely 

eliminate the fall hazard at those 

heights. 

Three other collateral issues raised by 

the commenters included a call for 

action with the other State Plans that 

have differing standards for fall 

protection in residential construction; a 

request for a response to NAHB’s 

previous petition for OSHA to reopen 

the rulemaking on the fall protection 

standard; and a concern about lack of 

outreach to subcontractors during 

OSHA’s discussions with Arizona. In 

respect to the first issue, OSHA is 

currently engaged in a dialogue with the 

other State Plans that have different fall 

protection trigger heights, just as OSHA 

engaged in dialogue with Arizona prior 

to beginning this formal process to reject 

the state statute. (See 79 FR 49465). 

OSHA expects these states to take steps 

in the near future to move forward 

towards ensuring they are ‘‘at least as 

effective’’ as OSHA. In respect to the 

second issue, on September 19, 2014, 

OSHA released an official denial in 

response to NAHB’s petition to reopen 

rulemaking on the fall protection 

standard. In denying the petition, OSHA 

stated, in part: 

OSHA believes that rescinding the interim 

directive, and enforcing compliance with 29 

CFR 1926.501(b)(13), has been effective in 

reducing the incidence of fatal falls among 

residential construction workers. OSHA 

believes this policy change has led to 

increasing numbers of residential 

construction employers using conventional 

fall protection, and expects that residential 

construction worksites will become even 

safer as more employers implement these fall 

protection methods. 

In respect to the third issue, OSHA 

values stakeholder input, and if OSHA’s 

discussions with other states about their 

fall protection in residential 

construction standards lead to meetings 

with industry representatives, OSHA 

will seek to welcome the involvement of 

subcontractors, their representatives, 

and other interested parties. In this 

proceeding, OSHA outlined its efforts to 

work with Arizona and other 

stakeholders in the initial Federal 

Register document (See 79 FR 49465), 

and OSHA has meet all the procedural 

requirements for this action. (See 29 

CFR 1953.6(e)). 

The public comments and questions 

submitted on the docket have all been 

addressed in this document and there 

are no substantial issues raised that 

necessitate a public hearing. Arizona 

specifically waived a hearing on the 

rejection of the state statute, and no 

other commenter requested a hearing. 

Arizona also waived the tentative 

decision by the Assistant Secretary that 

is provided in the regulations on 

rejection proceedings. (29 CFR 1902.21) 

The regulations further provide that 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
6656 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1 15 U.S.C. 6701, note. 

2 31 CFR part 50. 

3Public Law 114–1, 129 Stat. 3. 

4 31 CFR 50.7. 

5Public Law 109–144, 119 Stat. 2660. 

6Public Law 110–160, 121 Stat. 1839. 

when the state waives the tentative 

decision, the Assistant Secretary ‘‘shall 

issue a final decision.’’ (29 CFR 

1902.21(b)). 

Decision on Rejecting the State’s Statute 

Pursuant to the procedures set forth in 

29 CFR 1953.6(e) and 1902.22–23, the 

Assistant Secretary has made a final 

decision to reject the Arizona State 

Plan’s statute for fall protection in 

residential construction. Thus, the 

Assistant Secretary rejects the changes 

to Arizona’s State Plan prescribed by 

Title 23, chapter 2, article 13, section 

01, Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S. 23– 

492.01) under 29 CFR 1953.6(e) and 

1902.22, and now publishes that 

decision in the Federal Register 

pursuant to 29 CFR 1902.23. This 

rejection excludes the changes 

prescribed by A.R.S. 23–492.01 from the 

Arizona State Plan. The Assistant 

Secretary is deferring decision on the 

simultaneously proposed action of 

reconsidering the State Plan’s final 

approval. This deferral is pending 

Arizona’s expected repeal of the rejected 

statute and subsequent enforcement of a 

standard at least as effective as OSHA’s 

standard. The Assistant Secretary’s 

decision to reject the state statute is 

based upon the facts determined by 

OSHA in monitoring the Arizona State 

Plan and a comparative review of 

Arizona’s statute and OSHA’s standard, 

and was reached after opportunity for 

public comment. 

Effect of the Decision 

SB 1307 contains a conditional repeal 

provision stating that if OSHA does 

reject the state statute, and publishes 

that decision in the Federal Register 

pursuant to 29 CFR 1902.23, then A.R.S. 

23–492 is repealed by operation of law 

(SB 1307 Sec. 7). Therefore, the 

expected effect of the Assistant 

Secretary’s decision to reject Arizona’s 

statute covering fall protection in 

residential construction is that ADOSH 

will revert to enforcing 29 CFR part 

1926, subpart M. The Assistant 

Secretary will defer the decision on 

reconsideration to allow the state time 

to implement and begin enforcement of 

STD 03–11–002. OSHA will continue to 

monitor the State Plan, specifically 

enforcement activities in residential 

construction, to confirm that ADOSH is 

implementing and enforcing subpart M, 

or an at least as effective alternative, in 

an at least as effective manner. The lack 

of any such implementation or 

enforcement would leave a gap in the 

State’s enforcement program for 

construction, but if the State Plan 

retained its final approval, neither the 

State Plan nor OSHA could cover that 

gap. Any such gap in the State Plan’s 

enforcement program would serve as the 

basis for the Assistant Secretary’s 

reconsideration of 18(e) final approval 

status. At this time, the Assistant 

Secretary is deferring the decision on 

reconsideration pending the state’s 

enforcement of subpart M. 

Authority and Signature 

David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for 

Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC, authorized 

the preparation of this document. OSHA 

is issuing this document under the 

authority specified by Section 18 of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 

1970 (29 U.S.C. 667), Secretary of 

Labor’s Order No. 1–2012 (77 FR 3912), 

and 29 CFR parts 1902 and 1953. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on January 30, 

2015. 

David Michaels, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health. 

[FR Doc. 2015–02302 Filed 2–5–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

31 CFR Part 50 

Interim Guidance Concerning the 

Terrorism Risk Insurance Program 

Reauthorization Act of 2015 

AGENCY: Department of the Treasury, 

Departmental Offices. 

ACTION: Notice of interim guidance. 

SUMMARY: This notice provides interim 

guidance concerning the Terrorism Risk 

Insurance Program (Program) under the 

Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, as 

amended (TRIA). In this notice, the 

Department of the Treasury (Treasury) 

addresses issues that have arisen under 

Treasury’s regulations for the Program 

(Program regulations) due to the 

enactment of the Terrorism Risk 

Insurance Program Reauthorization Act 

of 2015 (2015 Reauthorization Act). 

DATES: February 4, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kevin K. Meehan, Policy Advisor, 

Federal Insurance Office, 202–622– 

7009; Thomas E. Scanlon, Senior 

Counsel, Office of General Counsel 

(Banking and Finance), 202–622–8170. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice provides interim guidance 

addressing the application of certain 

provisions of TRIA 1 and the Program 

regulations 2 following enactment of the 

2015 Reauthorization Act.3

Treasury expects to issue a proposal 

to amend the Program regulations; this 

interim guidance may be relied upon by 

members of the public until superseded 

by the Program regulations, as amended, 

or by subsequent guidance.4

I. Background 

TRIA was enacted following the 

attacks on September 11, 2001, to 

address disruptions in the market for 

terrorism risk insurance, to help ensure 

the continued widespread availability 

and affordability of commercial 

property and casualty insurance for 

terrorism risk, and to allow for the 

private markets to stabilize and build 

insurance capacity to absorb any future 

losses for terrorism events. Title I of 

TRIA creates the Program, requires 

insurers to ‘‘make available’’ terrorism 

risk insurance for commercial property 

and casualty losses resulting from 

certified acts of terrorism (insured 

losses), and provides for shared public 

and private compensation for such 

insured losses. Pursuant to TRIA, the 

Secretary of the Treasury administers 

the Program. The Federal Insurance 

Office assists the Secretary of the 

Treasury in administering the Program. 

The Program was originally scheduled 

to terminate on December 31, 2005; 

however, the Terrorism Risk Insurance 

Extension Act of 2005 5 extended the 

Program through December 31, 2007, 

and the Terrorism Risk Insurance 

Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 6

further extended the Program through 

December 31, 2014. On January 12, 

2015, the President signed into law the 

2015 Reauthorization Act; Section 101 

of that Act amends the Program’s 

termination date to December 31, 2020. 

II. Interim Guidance 

Treasury considers the Program 

regulations to be in effect, except to the 

extent that any provision of the Program 

regulations is inconsistent with TRIA, as 

amended by the 2015 Reauthorization 

Act. In the case of an inconsistency, the 

provision(s) of TRIA, as amended by the 

2015 Reauthorization Act, shall apply. 

Furthermore, Treasury recognizes that 

the 2015 Reauthorization Act introduces 

ambiguities regarding application of 

certain sections of the Program 

regulations. This interim guidance is 

designed to address certain 

requirements under the Program 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES