7114	Agents and Managers for Artists, Athletes, Entertainers, and Other
Public Figures	$10.19 	$14.53 	NA	$22.87[a]

7115	Independent Artists, Writers, and Performers	$13.21 	$18.84 	$22.42
	$31.98

7121	Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions	$12.42 	$17.72
$18.98 	$27.07

7131	Amusement Parks and Arcades	$12.33 	$17.58 	$20.66 	$29.47

7132	Gambling Industries	$10.62 	$15.15 	$14.73 	$21.01

7139	Other Amusement and Recreation Industries	$10.87 	$15.50 	$19.09
$27.23

7211	Traveler Accommodation	$9.35 	$13.34 	$13.46 	$19.21

7212	RV (Recreational Vehicle) Parks and Recreational Camps	$9.46
$13.49 	$14.73 	$21.01

7213	Rooming and Boarding Houses	$9.63 	$13.74 	$12.56 	$17.92

7221	Full-Service Restaurants	$8.91 	$12.71 	$15.50 	$22.11

7222	Limited-Service Eating Places	$7.82 	$11.16 	$13.52 	$19.28

7223	Special Food Services	$10.54 	$15.04 	$17.94 	$25.59

7224	Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages)	$8.27 	$11.79 	$12.82 	$18.29

8111	Automotive Repair and Maintenance	$13.60 	$19.39 	$21.79 	$31.08

8112	Electronic and Precision Equipment Repair and Maintenance	$16.05
$22.89 	$25.36 	$36.18

8113	Commercial and Industrial Machinery and Equipment (except
Automotive and Electronic) Repair and Maintenance	$15.87 	$22.64 	$24.38
	$34.78

8114	Personal and Household Goods Repair and Maintenance	$13.45 	$19.18
$22.55 	$32.17

8121	Personal Care Services	$8.17 	$11.66 	$15.16 	$21.63

8122	Death Care Services	$11.16 	$15.92 	$19.14 	$27.31

8123	Dry-cleaning and Laundry Services	$9.63 	$13.74 	$17.38 	$24.80

8129	Other Personal Services	$10.09 	$14.39 	$17.69 	$25.23

8131	Religious Organizations	$10.41 	$14.84 	$17.93 	$25.57

8132	Grantmaking and Giving Services	$11.27 	$16.07 	$18.53 	$26.43

8133	Social Advocacy Organizations	$10.03 	$14.31 	$15.90 	$22.67

8134	Civic and Social Organizations	$10.06 	$14.35 	$15.54 	$22.16

8139	Business, Professional, Labor, Political, and Similar Organizations
$12.36 	$17.63 	$17.52 	$25.00

Sources: BLS Occupational Employment Statistics Survey, 2003; BLS,
Employer Costs for Employee Compensation- March 2006.

[a] Value imputed from 3-digit NAICS averages.

.SECTION THREE

COST ANALYSIS

This cost analysis begins with a discussion of the assumptions used in
the analysis (Section 3.1). The discussion focuses on what constitutes
the regulatory baseline (i.e., current conditions) from which the costs,
impacts, and benefits of the draft rule are measured. The role of
consensus standards and the compliance rates for the existing rule are
also discussed for their impact on the cost analysis (i.e., where
codification of existing consensus standards result in no incremental
costs for the draft rule.)

Section 3.2 reviews the draft rule on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis for
those paragraphs that potentially could result in costs to industry.
Table 3-4 provides a summary of the paragraphs that need further
examination for the cost analysis.

Section 3.3 examines one-time costs to bring the existing employees in
industry into compliance with the draft rule as well as the annual costs
for training new employees and retraining existing employees that
require it. ERG estimates costs for each industry affected under a
specific paragraph. Tables 3-10 through 3-12 summarize the costs for
each section and aggregate them to estimate the cost of the draft rule.

COST METHODOLOGY

This section addresses the methodology for assessing compliance cost
implications of national consensus standards for the equipment,
training, and hazard assessment requirements specified in the OSHA
standard. In some cases, OSHA has used the consensus standards in
developing its own equipment requirements. In most cases, OSHA has
included a grandfather clause exempting employers from the need to
immediately upgrade noncompliant equipment. The questions addresses are:

What is the appropriate baseline for estimating incremental compliance
costs?

When does “grandfathering” result in “future” compliance costs
as employers replace equipment covered by the grandfather clauses?

If such future compliance costs do result, how should they be
calculated?

Section 3.1.1 discusses the regulatory baseline (“baseline”) and its
relationship to national consensus standards. This relationship affects
if and how certain types of costs are considered. Section 3.1.2 examines
the relationship between national consensus standards and compliance
costs for OSHA standards. Section 3.1.3 considers compliance costs when
OSHA requirements are equivalent to national consensus standards, while
Section 3.1.4 discusses the case where the OSHA standard is more
stringent than the consensus standard. Section 3.1.5 addresses the
compliance costs issues associated with grandfather clauses. Section
3.1.6 discusses current compliance rates and section 3.1.7 presents the
compliance met by least cost method.

OMB Guidance and National Consensus Standards

OMB’s guidance on regulatory analysis (OMB, 2003) recommends
developing a baseline against which to measure the costs of a rule. The
baseline should be the best assessment of the way the world would look
absent the proposed regulation and it is frequently assumed to resemble
the present. The present includes existing national consensus standards.
For example, American National Standards Institute (ANSI) publishes
consensus standards on portable ladders (ANSI, 2000 and 2002). Although
these standards are voluntary, virtually all domestic ladder
manufacturers design and fabricate ladders that meet these standards.

The baseline as defined by these consensus standards evolves over time,
as these standards are revised and new versions published. For example,
the ANSI standard for fixed ladders that was in place when the existing
Subpart D standards were promulgated in the early 1970s was revised and
updated in 1984. To be consistent with OMB guidance on estimating costs,
the point against which to measure costs is the present (or, more
precisely, when the rule goes into effect) including the national
consensus standards in effect at that time. That is, compliance costs
should mirror common practice as reflected in these consensus standards
and consider the extent to which existing equipment is likely to conform
to the associated specifications.

This baseline is illustrated by a hypothetical example in Figure 3-1.
The y-axis is measured in terms of increased worker protection, while
the x-axis shows the time in years. The first worker protection level is
that set by the first OSHA regulation promulgated in 1971. In this
example, three voluntary standards have been adopted, each providing an
increased level of worker protection. The stair-step line is the OMB
baseline where each increase in worker protection corresponds to the
adoption of a revised voluntary standard. The baseline remains level
from the present into the future because the requirements in future
voluntary standards are not known and cannot be incorporated into the
forecast baseline.

The star on the left-hand side of the figure represents an establishment
that exceeded OSHA requirements at the time its equipment was installed.
In the intervening period, however, voluntary standards have increased
the level of worker protection beyond that provided in the
establishment. The star on the right-hand side of the figure is that
establishment at the time the OSHA revised standard takes effect. This
establishment will incur a cost if the standard requires retrofit to
meet the OSHA requirement. These retrofit costs, however, are avoided,
in the present at least, through the inclusion of a “grandfather”
clause. Whenever the employer replaces this equipment in the future, it
must be upgraded to meet the OSHA standard and thus would incur costs
necessary to meet the worker protection level associated with the OSHA
standard as shown in the figure. Grandfather clauses are discussed in
more detail in Section 3.1.5.

In the example shown in Figure 3-1, two possibilities are shown for the
level of protection afforded by the OSHA standard. One level is
equivalent to the national consensus standard, while the second requires
a higher level of safety. When the OSHA standard is equivalent to a
national consensus standard, there may be a cost associated with the
change from a voluntary standard to a mandatory one, but it is the same
cost that would be incurred if the employer otherwise complied with the
consensus standard. This is discussed in Section 3.1.3. When the OSHA
requirement is stricter than the national consensus standard (i.e., the
baseline), there is an incremental cost that will be borne by the entire
regulated community beyond what would be required if all employers
conformed to the consensus standards (see Section 3.1.4 for further
discussion).

While a grandfather clause relieves an establishment from having to
immediately upgrade or retrofit its equipment, the employer will
rebuild, refurbish, or re-equip at a time of his/her own choosing,
depending on when the equipment was purchased or installed and the
equipment lifetime. Whenever this happens, the appropriate baseline, we
argue, is the national consensus currently in place at that time. For an
employer to incur a cost attributable to the OSHA standard depends on
whether it is possible not to comply with the standard. In the example
given above, an employer has no option other than buying a portable
ladder built to an ANSI standard.

Figure 3-1.	Regulatory Baseline Through Time

OSHA Standards and Existing Consensus Standards

Background

OSHA has used consensus standards extensively as a basis for its
mandatory safety and health standards since the earliest days of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act). Under section 6(a)
of the OSH Act, OSHA was given the authority for a period of two years
to adopt both national consensus standards and establish Federal
standards as OSHA standards without following notice-and-comment
rulemaking procedures. Using Section 6(a), the Agency adopted many
consensus standards as OSHA standards.

If a national consensus standard exists, it is the “baseline”
reflecting current national consensus standards against which
incremental costs and benefits of the regulation are measured. If the
new regulatory language requires a level of safety equivalent to that in
an existing consensus standard, then there is no difference between the
proposed regulatory language and the baseline. What has changed,
however, is that the requirement is not mandatory rather than voluntary.
Thus, the costs are those associated with the change from a voluntary
standard to a mandatory standard. These are only incurred by that part
of the population that currently does not comply with voluntary
standards. If, however, the standard is more stringent than the
consensus standard, all employers incur compliance costs solely
attributable to the OSHA regulation.

Feasibility of Not Complying with Consensus Standards

As we have noted, future compliance costs may be incurred by employers
whose equipment as currently installed is grandfathered under the OSHA
standard. Even though no retrofitting is required, the employer is
required to upgrade this equipment (e.g. fixed ladders) to meet OSHA’s
standard whenever that equipment is replaced in the future. As we argue,
in many (perhaps most) cases, the employer has no choice but to upgrade
his equipment to meet the OSHA standard, as equipment designers,
engineers and architects will require the upgrades to meet the same
consensus standards that the OSHA regulation are based on. In this case,
when the OSHA standard and the consensus standard are identical, we say
that noncompliance is unlikely. If, however, the OSHA standard is more
stringent than the consensus standard or no comprehensive consensus
standard exists, then employers might incur upgrade costs that are
higher than they would otherwise incur in the absence of the regulation.
In this case, noncompliance is possible and might be the preferred
choice of employers.

Since we posit that employers have no choice but to install equipment
that meets current consensus standards (assuming one or more exist), the
incremental cost of the OSHA standard is the difference between the cost
of meeting the (possibly) more stringent OSHA standard and the cost of
designing and installing the equipment to meet the (possibly) less
stringent consensus standard. In our view, the fact that the current
consensus standard may be more stringent than the standard that was in
place when any existing equipment was designed and installed does not by
itself result in incremental costs that can be attributed to OSHA’s
standard. Thus no compliance costs result if noncompliance is
improbable.

If noncompliance is more probable (see Section 3.1.6 for current
compliance rates), the magnitude of the compliance costs from the
perspective of a regulatory cost analysis depends, first, on the
differential between the cost of the upgrade needed to comply with the
OSHA standard and the cost of the upgrade that the employer would
otherwise undertake. Second, since regulatory costs are measured in
terms of their present value equivalents, the cost depends on how far
into the future the prospective upgrades would be undertaken and the
discount rate used to calculate the present values.

ERG considers three types of costs in the evaluation of the proposed
Subpart D language:

Training costs and costs from other work-practice requirements, such as
inspection and hazard assessment

Stand-alone equipment costs, such as for portable ladders, and

Installed walking-working surface equipment costs, such as for fixed
ladders.

First, training and other work practice-related costs are typically
recurring costs and are not subject to grandfather-type provisions. Even
one-time training requirements impose ongoing costs as new employees
enter the job market. Furthermore, compliance with these requirements is
not controlled by consensus standards to the same extent as compliance
with equipment requirements.

Second, some equipment addressed by the OSHA standard, such as portable
ladders or mobile ladder stands, is commercially produced and purchased
in ready-to-use conditions by employers. ERG argues that such equipment,
in virtually all cases, will be designed and fabricated to meet current
consensus standards. This is due to the fact that equipment
manufacturers will seek to avoid (1) the small market represented by
employers that would purchase non-compliant equipment and (2) the
liabilities associated with the manufacture of non-compliant equipment.
For example, a walk through a hardware store will indicate that each
ladder is marked to identify the ANSI standard to which it is built.
Therefore, as a ladder needs to be replaced, the replacement will meet
the current standard. Even longer-lived equipment, such as a mobile
ladder stand, is advertised as meeting ANSI requirements. In other
words, an employer would not be able to purchase a ladder (or other
stand-alone equipment) that did not meet current voluntary standards.
The possibility does exist of importing equipment that may not meet
consensus standards. The 2006 Performance and Accountability Report of
the U.S. Consumer Product Commission (CPSC) noted that roughly
two-thirds of their product recalls involve imported products. ERG
argues that some imported equipment might be produced to specifications
provided by domestic vendors that are based on the requirements in the
ANSI standards. It is conceivable, however, that other vendors might
misrepresent the technical specifications of equipment that did not
fully meet the ANSI requirements. To address the question of substandard
imports, a cost is assigned for due diligence on the part of the
employer to ensure the equipment meet all the ANSI requirements.
Otherwise we conclude that noncompliance with consensus standards is
unlikely.

A third type of cost is associated with walking-working-related
equipment – such as fixed ladders, stairways, or ramps- that must be
designed and constructed to fit site-specific dimensions and
requirements. Installed surfaces often have lifetimes comparable to the
structures to which they are attached, e.g., fixed ladders. Typically,
an employer would use architects, engineers, and/or contractors
(possible in-house resources) to design, fabricate and install such
equipment. While it is conceivable that en employer might insist on
installing nonconforming equipment, ERG believes that professional
standards for architects and engineers, local building codes, and
potential liability concerns would dictate that virtually all employers
would voluntarily choose to upgrade equipment so as to conform to
existing national consensus standards. For these reasons, ERG concludes
that noncompliance with consensus standards is also unlikely for fixed
equipment requirements.

OSHA Requirements Equivalent to National Consensus Standards

Figure 3-2 is a logic flow diagram outlining the process for identifying
costs associated with new regulatory language. The starting point is a
side-by-side, provision-by-provision comparison of the existing and new
regulatory language. In many cases, the language might have changed to
enhance the understandability of the regulation without a change in the
scope of activities covered or requirement for an employer to provide a
safe workplace. In some cases, the revised language gives the employer
additional methods to provide a level of safety equivalent to that
specific in the original language. Such changes result in de minimis
costs to the employer.

If there is a change from the existing to the proposed language, the
second decision point is to determine whether the proposed language is
equivalent to an existing consensus standard. If it is, then the cost
associated with the new language is the change from a voluntary standard
to a mandatory standard, see Section   REF _Ref165450889 \r \h  <IP_ADDRESS>
. Table 3.1 is a listing of national consensus standard and the
associated section of the draft rule. If the draft rule does not contain
more stringent requirements than an existing national consensus
standard, and equipment purchased or installed meet these standards, no
costs are assigned to the rule. Costs are assigned, however, for the
portion of the industry that is not currently complying with the
voluntary standard to comply with the mandatory requirement (see Section
3.1.6 for the current compliance rates). As we have argued, however,
costs are attributable to the OSHA standard only if the employer has the
option to not comply with the consensus standard.

Third, the presence or absence of a grandfather clause determines
whether costs are incurred by existing establishments to retrofit and
upgrade to the new requirements when the standard is implemented
(retrofit costs, see Figure 3-1) or only when establishments replace
infrastructure or equipment at a time of the employer’s choosing
(future costs). Section 3.1.5 discusses the effect of grandfather
clauses in more detail. However, given that an OSHA requirement is
equivalent to a national consensus standard, it is possible that this
consensus is incorporated into the baseline conditions so strongly that
it is not probable for the employer to do anything but comply. If an
employer has no other choice than to comply with a requirement, then
there is no cost for compliance attributable to the regulation.

Figure 3-2.	Cost Methodology Logic Flow – OSHA Standard Equivalent to
National Consensus standard

Table 3-1.	Subpart D Requirements and National Consensus Standards

Table 3-1.	Subpart D Requirements and National Consensus Standards

Subpart D	National Consensus Standard

§1910.22	ANSI/ASSE A1264.2-2006, American National Standard for the
Provision of Slip Resistance on Walking/Working Surfaces

	ASME B56.1-2004, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Safety
Standard for Low Lift and High Lift Trucks

§1910.23	ANSI A14.1-2000, American National Standard for Ladders—Wood
Safety Requirements.

	ANSI A14.2-2000, American National Standard for Ladders—Portable
Metal Safety Requirements.

	ANSI A14.3-2002, American National Standard for  Ladders—Fixed-Safety
Requirements.

	ANSI A14.4-2002, American National Standard Safety Requirements for
Job-Made Wooden Ladders.

	ANSI A14.5-2000, American National Standard Ladders—Portable
Reinforced Plastic Ladders-Safety.

	ANSI A14.7-2006, American National Standard for Mobile Ladder Stands
and Mobile Ladder Stand Platforms.

§1910.24	ASTM C478-07, American Society for Testing and Materials
Standard Specification for Precast Reinforced Concrete Manhole Sections.

	ASTM A394-05, American Society for Testing and Materials Specification
for Steel Transmission Tower Bolts, Zinc-Coated and Bare.

	ASTM C497-05, American Society for Testing and Materials Test Methods
for Concrete Piper, Manhole Sections, or Tile.

	IEEE 1307-2004; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. IEEE
Standard for Fall Protection for Utility Work - IEEE Power Engineering
Society.

	Telecommunications Industry Association TIA-222-G-2005, Structural
Standard for Antenna Supporting Structures and Antennas.

§1910.25	ANSI A1264.1-1995 (R2002), American National Standard for
Safety Requirements for Workplace Floor and Wall Openings, Stairs and
Railing Systems.

	ANSI A1264.1-2007, American National Standard Safety Requirements for
Workplace Walking/Working Surfaces and Their Access; Workplace, Floor,
Wall and Floor Openings; Stairs and Guardrail Systems.

	NFPA 101-2006, National Fire Protection Association Life Safety Code.

	ICC-2003, International Code Council International Building Code.

§1910.26	ASME B56.1-2004, American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
Safety Standard for Low Lift and High Lift Trucks.

	ANSI/MH30.1-2000, American National Standard For the Safety
Performance, and Testing of Dock Leveling Devices Specification.

	ANSI/MH30.2-2005, Portable Dock Loading Devices: Safety, Performance
and Testing.

§1910.27	ANSI/IWCA I14.1-2001, Window Cleaning Safety Standard.

	ANSI/ASCE 7-2005, American National Standard for Minimum Design Loads
for Buildings and Other Structures.

	ANSI A1264.1-1995 (R2002), American National Standard for Safety
Requirements for Workplace Floor and Wall Openings, Stairs and Railing
Systems.

	ANSI A1264.1-2007, American National Standard Safety Requirements for
Workplace Walking/Working Surfaces and Their Access; Workplace, Floor,
Wall and Floor Openings; Stairs and Guardrail Systems.

§1910.28

§1910.29

§1910.30

	ANSI A10.11-1989 (R1998), American National Standard for Construction
and Demolition Operations – Personnel and Debris Nets.

	ANSI A14.3-2002, American National Standard for Ladders - Fixed -
Safety Requirements.

	ANSI A14.7-2006, American National Standard for Mobile Ladder Stands
and Mobile Ladder Stand Platforms.

	ANSI A1264.1-1995 (R2002), American National Standard for Safety
Requirements for Workplace Floor and Wall Openings, Stairs and Railing
Systems.

	ANSI A1264.1-2007, American National Standard, Safety Requirements for
Workplace Walking/Working Surfaces and Their Access; Workplace, Floor,
Wall and Floor Openings; Stairs and Guardrail Systems.

	ANSI/IWCA I-14.1-2001, Window Cleaning Safety.

	ANSI Z359.0-20xx, American National Standard, Definitions and
Nomenclature Used for Fall Protection and Fall Arrest.

	ANSI Z359.1-20xx, American National Standard, Safety Requirements for
Personal Fall Arrest Systems, Subsystems and Components

	ANSI Z359.2-20xx, American National Standard, Minimum Requirements for
a Comprehensive Managed Fall Protection Program.

OSHA Requirements More Stringent Than National Consensus Standards

Figure 3-3 is the logic flow for identifying costs associated with OSHA
language that contain more stringent safety requirements than an
existing consensus standard or where no consensus standard exists. In
this case, we assume that non-complying options exist. If there is no
grandfather clause, then all employers will incur retrofit costs to meet
the new requirement in the year in which the regulation becomes
effective. If there is a grandfather clause, then costs are incurred as
old equipment is replaced or new facilities are built. In each case, the
magnitude of compliance costs from a regulatory cost analysis
perspective depends on the differential between the cost of the upgrade
needed to achieve conformity with the consensus standard. In the
grandfather clause case, the cost analysis must consider timing of
equipment replacement within each affected industry and the appropriate
discount rate for calculating the present value of the resultant
compliance costs.

Grandfather Clauses

A “grandfather” clause contains language such as “Fixed ladders
installed on or after [insert date one year after the effective date of
the final rule published in the Federal Register] must meet the
following requirements:…” As shown in Figure 3-1, if there is no
grandfather clause, all workplaces must retrofit to meet the provision
in the year the regulation becomes effective.

If there is a grandfather clause, costs might be incurred in the future
as employers install new equipment to replace worn out equipment.
However, when the replacement time is reached, the baseline for
comparison is formed by the national consensus standards in effect at
the time of the replacement. However, for the purpose of this cost
analysis, ERG assumes the baseline is formed by the national consensus
standards in effect in 2007. If the proposed OSHA requirements are not
stricter than the current voluntary standards, then a cost would be
incurred only by those who would not have complied with the voluntary
standard.

Grandfather clauses work to lessen the potential costs to the employer
through two mechanisms:

The value of avoided costs (time delay, see Section <IP_ADDRESS>), and

The shift from a retrofit cost to an incremental cost (see Section
<IP_ADDRESS>).

Figure 3-3.	Cost Methodology Logic Flow – OSHA Requirements Exceed
Consensus Standard

Value of Avoided Costs

Regulatory costs are measured in terms of their present value
equivalents. Thus the cost depends on the discount rate used to
calculate the present values and on how many years into the future
before the prospective upgrades would be undertaken. Applying a 7.5
percent discount rate – a rate used here for illustrative purposes –
to calculate present values and annualized costs, the following figures
shows the present value of $1,000 in compliance costs incurred at
different years in the future.

Current Year:	$1,000.00

Year 2:	$930.23

Year 5:	$748.80

Year 10:	$521.58

So a five-year delay in upgrading reduces the present value of
compliance costs by about 25 percent, while a 10-year delay reduces the
costs by about half.

Where the OSHA standard is based on current consensus standards, the
likelihood of non-compliance depends on the age of the equipment. The
older the equipment, the more likely it was designed and installed prior
to the date of current consensus standards. Non-compliance also depends
on the typical lifetime of the equipment. If the equipment is relatively
short-lived (such as portable ladders), then it is more likely that a
substantial part of the equipment stock in use has been designed,
fabricated, and installed under the auspices of the current version of
the consensus standard.

The Shift from a Retrofit Cost to an Incremental Cost

Without a grandfather clause, an employer must immediately upgrade when
the rule becomes effective. This might mean, for example, ripping down a
relatively new fixed ladder and rebuilding it to meet the new
requirements. The retrofit cost is the entire cost of the new fixed
ladder, and the remaining economic value of the existing equipment lost.
With a grandfather clause, the employer can wait until the fixed ladder
is worn out and needs replacing. The costs for design and labor to build
the replacement fixed ladder are likely to be very similar whether the
ladder meets the original or updated standard. What will change is the
cost for the stronger materials to meet the updated standard, e.g., from
supporting a single live load of 200 pounds to supporting two live loads
of 250 pounds each. The incremental cost for heavier bolts, thicker
steel, or the addition of supporting members is the incremental costs
associated with the updated standard. The incremental costs cannot be
quantified except on a case-by-case basis, but are likely to be small
relative to the overall cost of replacement.

Table 3-2 lists the paragraphs in the draft regulation with new
requirements that include a “grandfather” provision. Due to this
provision, no costs will be incurred for modification or replacement of
equipment in these paragraphs.

Table 3-2.	Paragraphs with Grandfather Provisions

Paragraph 	Subject

§1910.23(d)(2)	Fixed ladders must be designed, constructed, and
maintained as follows: (i) Fixed ladders must be capable of supporting
two live loads of at least 250 pounds each, concentrated between any two
consecutive attachments, plus anticipated loads caused by ice buildup,
winds, rigging, and impact loads resulting from the use of ladder safety
devices... (ii) Each step or rung must be capable of supporting at least
a single concentrated load of 250 pounds applied in the middle of the
step or rung.

§1910.24(a)(1)	All step bolts that are used in corrosive environments
must be constructed of, or coated with, a material that will retard
corrosion of the step or bolt.

§1910.24(a)(7)	Each step bolt installed must be capable of supporting,
without failure, at least four times its maximum intended load.

§1910.24(b)(2)	The employer must ensure that manhole steps: (i) are
provided with slip-resistant surfaces such as, corrugated, knurled, or
dimpled surfaces; (ii) used in corrosive environment are constructed of,
or coated with, a material that will retard corrosion of the step; (iii)
have a minimum clear step width of 10 inches; (iv) are spaced uniformly,
not more than 16 inches apart; (v) have a minimum perpendicular distance
between the centerline of the manhole step to the nearest permanent
object in back of the step of at least 4.5 inches; and (vi) are designed
to prevent the employee's foot from slipping or sliding off the end of
the manhole step.

§1910.25(a)(6)	When a door or a gate opens directly on a stairway, a
platform must be provided, and the swing of the door or gate must not
reduce the effective usable depth to less than 22 inches.

§1910.26(b)	Dockboards must be designed, constructed, and maintained to
prevent equipment from running off the edge.

§1910.29(f)(1)(ii)	The height of stair rail systems must not be less
than 36 inches.

Current Compliance Rates

The baseline should be the assessment of the way the world would look
absent the regulation and is frequently assumed to resemble the present.
The baseline, then includes compliance rates with the existing Subpart D
and Subpart I as well as with national consensus standards.

Current Compliance Rates: Table 3-3 presents the fiscal year 2005 OSHA
inspections, subdivided by industry sector, that resulted in a citation
(OSHA, 2006a). The columns in Table 3-3 tabulate cases where a citation
was issued for any reason and also included non-compliance with a
section of 29 CFR 1910 Subpart D. The non-compliance rates in Table 3-3
are overstated because there are inspections with no citations that are
not included in this estimate. The upper-bound non-compliance rates for
floor guarding requirements in Section §1910.23 vary by industry.
Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate has the lowest non-compliance rate
(2.8 percent), while Wholesale Trade has the highest non-compliance rate
(13.6 percent). The non-compliance rates drop for fixed industrial stair
requirements, which range from 0 percent (Finance, Insurance, and Real
Estate) to 2.7 percent (Wholesale Trade). For the remaining paragraphs
(portable wood ladders, portable metal ladders, fixed ladders,
scaffolding, and manually propelled mobile ladder stands and scaffolds),
non-compliance rates do not exceed 1.2 percent. That is, for
§1910.25-§1910.28, the assumption of 100 percent industry compliance
is reasonable. That is, costs are only incurred when the draft
requirements exceed or would be more costly than the current
requirements. However, where costs might be incurred under more
stringent requirements, the upper-bound non-compliance rate for existing
requirements can be used as an estimate of the proportion of facilities
that might incur costs under the draft rule.

If meeting an existing requirement would also meet the draft
requirement, no costs are assigned to the provision. For example, the
draft language for §1910.23(d)(12)(ii) specifies that the step-across
distance from the centerline of the steps or rungs of a fixed ladder to
the access/egress point of the platform edge for side step ladders must
be between 15 and 20 inches. Based on Figure D-10 in the existing
standard, the maximum space from the edge of the ladder to the platform
(i.e., access/egress point) is 12 inches. As noted in the previous
paragraph, the centerline width for a fixed ladder is 8 inches. The
total step-across distance under the Table 3-3.	Compliance with Current
29 CFR 1910 Requirements

Sector	Inspections With Citations	Inspections With Subpart D Citations

§1910.23	§1910.24	§1910.25	§1910.26	§1910.27	§1910.28	§1910.29

	Total	Floor Guarding	Fixed Industrial Stairs	Portable Wood Ladders
Portable Metal Ladders	Fixed Ladders	Scaffolding	Manually Propelled
Aerial Platforms

Manufacturing	6,773	732	10.80%	168	2.50%	18	0.30%	23	0.30%	60	0.90%	16
0.20%	19	0.30%

Transportation and Utilities	1,301	115	8.80%	15	1.20%	0	0.00%	7	0.50%	11
0.80%	3	0.20%	5	0.40%

Retail trade	680	58	8.50%	14	2.10%	2	0.30%	6	0.90%	3	0.40%	1	0.10%	2
0.30%

Wholesale trade	670	91	13.60%	18	2.70%	1	0.10%	7	1.00%	8	1.20%	4	0.60%	0
0.00%

Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate	107	3	2.80%	0	0.00%	0	0.00%	2	1.90%
0	0.00%	1	0.90%	0	0.00%

Services	1,938	106	5.50%	19	1.00%	4	0.20%	5	0.30%	10	0.50%	15	0.80%	3
0.20%

All sectors	11,469	1,105	9.60%	234	2.00%	25	0.20%	50	0.40%	92	0.80%	40
0.30%	29	0.30%

existing standard is 20 inches. Thus, a fixed ladder that meets the
current requirements also meets the draft requirements; and no costs are
assigned to this paragraph.

Compliance Met By Least Cost Method

In a cost impact analysis, an employer is always assumed to meet a
regulatory requirement by choosing the least expensive means to do so.
Thus, if the draft regulation identifies several other means of meeting
a requirement along with the current method, the employers would be
expected to select the least cost method. It then follows that if the
alternative method specified in the draft regulation is more expensive
than the current method, the employer would be expected to use the
current method to meet the requirement. For example, under
§1910.28(b)(1), an employer can meet the duty to have fall protection
for an employee on a walking-working surface with an unprotected side or
edge by (1) the use of guardrail systems, safety net systems, personal
fall arrest systems, or travel restraint systems, or (2) an employee
must work in a designated area. The current regulation specifies
Approach (1) while the draft regulation specifies either Approach (1) or
(2). Thus, in this case, no costs were assigned to the draft
§1910.28(b)(1). There might be a cost savings to an employer. However,
those savings are not estimated in this report.

PARAGRAPH-BY-PARAGRAPH REVIEW

This section provides a brief paragraph-by-paragraph review of the draft
rule. Only requirements that might involve costs incremental to those
beyond current requirements and national consensus standards are
described.

Table 3-4 summarizes the paragraphs that, as currently written, might
result in costs to the employer. These are primarily inspection and
training costs. For the purpose of this analysis, ERG distinguishes
between informal and formal training. For example, draft
§1910.23(b)(11) states that an employee must face the ladder when
ascending or descending the ladder. ERG assumes such instruction can be
done on an in-house basis with materials such as OSHA training videos.
When training is done on an informal basis, ERG does not assign an
administrative costs for the employer to document that the training has
taken place. When the draft language uses the words “trained” or
“training,” ERG assumes the instruction is done on a more formal
basis, possibly with an outside person being hired to provide the
course. ERG assumes that an employer will choose to maintain
documentation of all formal training and ERG thus assigns a cost for the
administrative task.

Finally, several paragraphs say that training must be done in accordance
with §1910.30, see:

§1910.27(b)(2)(ii): Rope descent systems,

§1910.28(b)(1): Unprotected sides and edges,

§1910.28(b)(10)(v): Outdoor advertising

in Table 3-4. The costs for §1910.30 include the costs for the
paragraphs listed above.

Table 3-4.	Paragraphs of the Draft Standard To Be Analyzed for Cost
Impacts

Table 3-4.	Paragraphs of the Draft Standard To Be Analyzed for Cost
Impacts

Paragraph 	Subject

§1910.22(d)(1)	Regular and periodic inspection of walking-working
surfaces.

§1910.22(d)(2)	Unsafe conditions must be guarded until repair.

§1910.22(d)(3)	Qualified person must inspect repair.

§1910.23(b)(11)	Training: When ascending or descending a ladder, the
user must face the ladder.

§1910.23(b)(12)	Training: Each employee must use at least one hand to
grasp the ladder when progressing up and down the ladder.

§1910.23(b)(13)	Training: An employee must not carry any object or load
that could cause the employee to lose his or her balance and fall.

§1910.23(c)(5)	Training: Use of portable single rail ladders is
prohibited.

§1910.23(c)(6)	Training:  Ladders must not be moved, shifted, or
extended while occupied by employees.

§1910.23(e)	Due diligence on the part of the employer to ensure mobile
ladder stands and platforms meet the requirements

§1910.23(e)(1)(vii)	Mobile ladder stands and platforms must not be
moved.

§1910.24(a)(8)	Visual inspection of step bolts before each use.

§1910.24(b)(3)	Visual inspection of manhole steps before each use.

§1910.24(b)(2)(i)	Manhole steps are provided with slip-resistant
surfaces

§1910.24(b)(2)(vi)	Manhole steps are designed to prevent the employee's
foot from slipping or sliding off the end of the manhole step.

§1910.27(b)(2)(ii)	When rope descent systems are used, employees must
be trained in accordance with §1910.30. Costs for this paragraph are
therefore included in §1910.30.

§1910.27(b)(2)(iv)	When rope descent systems are used, employees must
use proper rigging, including sound anchorages and tiebacks.

§1910.28(a)(2)	Employer must determine that walking-working surfaces
have the strength and structural integrity to safely support employees.

§1910.28(b)(4)	Installation of guardrails and handrails on dockboards.

§1910.28(b)(10)(iii)	Inspection of ladder safety devices.

§1910.28(b)(10)(v)	Each employee who routinely climbs fixed ladders
must satisfy the criteria for qualified climber found in §1910.29(h).
Costs associated with this training are assigned to §1910.29(h).

§1910.28(b)(10)(vi)	Training: Employee must have both hands free while
ascending or descending ladder (outdoor advertising/billboards
operations).

§1910.29(b)(15)	Inspection of manila, plastic, or synthetic rope being
used as top rails or midrails.

§1910.29(h)	Training for qualified climbers.

	Retraining for qualified climbers as necessary.

	Performance observations

§1910.30(a)	Training: Fall hazards.

§1910.30(b)	Training: Equipment hazards.

§1910.30(c)	Retraining.

§1910.140	Hazard assessment.

§1910.140(c)(18)	Personal fall protection systems inspected before each
use.

The discussion pattern in this section lists the paragraph and text
first, followed by a discussion of whether or not the new requirement
constitutes a cost. Changes that result in no costs because they fall
under any of the situations described in Section 3.1 are not discussed
here.

Sections 3.2.1 through 3.2.10 discuss the requirements in draft Subpart
D paragraphs while Section 3.2.11 discusses the requirements in draft
Subpart I.

§1910.21 Scope

There are no costs assigned to §1910.21 Scope, application, and
definitions.

§1910.22 General Requirements

Paragraphs with Costs

§1910.22(d). Maintenance and repair. The paragraph involves new
requirements for the employer to inspect the walking-working surfaces,
guard hazardous conditions to prevent employee use until the hazard is
corrected, and the repair or maintenance work is inspected by a
qualified person. These costs are considered in Section   REF
_Ref165287656 \r \h  3.3.2  and are assumed to include the costs for
inspection described in §1910.28 (see Section 3.3.6).

Paragraphs with No Costs

§1910.22(c). Access and egress. The employer must ensure that employees
are provided with and use a safe means of access to, and egress from one
walking-working surface to another. The language in the existing
§1910.22(b) concerns aisles and passageways. Aisles and passageways
must be kept clear, in good repair, and with no obstruction across or in
aisles that could create a hazard. ERG interprets the language in the
draft §1910.22(c) to generalize the terms “aisles” and
“passageways” to cover all means of access and egress. The change
results in the terminology in the draft rule being consistent with that
in a consensus standard (NFPA 101). Thus, §1910.22(c) is assigned no
costs.

§1910.23 Ladders

§1910.23 begins with provisions that apply to all ladders
(§1910.23(b)) and then has provisions applicable to specific types of
ladders, such as portable ladders (§1910.23(c)), fixed ladders
(§1910.23(d)), and mobile ladder stands and mobile ladders stand
platforms (§1910.23(e).

Paragraphs with Costs

§1910.23(b)(11-13), §1910.23(c)(5-6), (10-11), and (13). These eight
paragraphs include instructions to the employee on proper use of the
ladders. These requirements are summarized in Table 3-7 in Section
3.3.3. §1910.23(c)(5) prohibits the use of single-rail ladders. This is
consistent with the requirements for the construction industry standard
at §1926.1053(b)(19). Thus the requirement not to use a single-rail
ladder is a matter of training. The wide availability of permitted
ladders means there are no equipment costs associated with the
prohibition. Training costs are considered in Section 3.3.3.

§1910.23(e). Mobile ladder stands and mobile ladder stand platforms
designed, used, and maintained in accordance with the applicable
standard from ANSI A14 series as of (insert effective date of this
standard) are deemed to be in compliance with this section. The only
provision that does not have a corresponding requirement in the national
consensus standard is §1910.23(e)(1)(vii) – occupied mobile ladder
stands and platforms must not be moved. §1910.23(e)(1)(vii) is a work
practice requirement and compliance is achieved through ladder safety
training and enforcement. Therefore, any cost for §1910.23(e)(1)(vii)
is not associated with the equipment costs due to the grandfather
clause, but with workplace practices addressed through training. See
Section 3.3.3 for ladder safety training costs.

All other provisions meet the national consensus standard. An
investigation of fiscal year 2005 OSHA data for inspections with Subpart
D citations indicates that the failure to provide safe ladders is very
low (e.g., 0.2 percent of inspections with citations included violations
for portable wood ladders, 0.4 percent for metal ladders, and 0.8
percent for fixed ladders). Based on these data, we might infer that
there is a near-100 percent intent to provide safe (i.e., OSHA
compliant) ladders by employers. With a near-100 percent compliance rate
with the current consensus standards no costs are assigned for equipment
upgrades (see Section <IP_ADDRESS>). However, costs are assigned for due
diligence on the part of the employer to ensure the equipment meet all
the ANSI requirements.

Paragraphs with No Costs

§1910.23(a). Application. The draft paragraph covers special wood
ladders specifically excluded in the existing language, including fruit
picker’s ladders, combination step and extension ladders, stockroom
stepladders, aisle-way stepladders, shelf ladders, and library ladders.
However, these ladders are assumed to meet consensus standards for
wooden ladders so no costs are incurred with the expanded application.

§1910.23(b)(4)(iii) concerning rolling ladders in communications
centers was moved from §1910.268(h)(5)—Telecommunications. Thus, this
is not a new requirement.

§1910.23(b)(9). Both existing and draft standards have a requirement to
inspect ladders before use. Based on discussion with OSHA, ERG does not
interpret the draft language to imply more frequent inspections than
currently performed.

§1910.23(c)(14). The reach of the ladder and ladder sections must not
be increased by any means unless specifically designed for the
application. Ladders and ladder sections cannot be tied or fastened
together to provide longer length unless the equipment is designed for
this purpose. This provision might cause the employer to incur a cost if
it is necessary to purchase a longer ladder of sufficient length for the
task. However, the existing regulations at §1910.25(d)(2)(ix) and
§1910.26(c)(3)(vi) specify that neither wood nor metal portable ladders
may be spliced, tied, or fastened together to create a longer section
unless the manufacturer has designed the equipment for such a purpose.
The draft language, then, expands the prohibition to all other means of
joining sections. There are no data estimating the frequency of such
occurrences but, presumably, these are rare. Thus, we do not assign a
cost to this paragraph.

§1910.23(d)(2). Fixed ladders installed on or after [insert date 90
days after the effective date of the final rule in the Federal Register]
must be capable of supporting 2 live loads of at least 250 pounds,
concentrated between any two consecutive attachments, plus anticipated
loads caused by ice build-up, etc. Each rung must be capable of
supporting at least a single concentrated load of 250 pounds. The new
language reflects the consensus standard in ANSI 14.3, however, the
existing language specifies a single concentrated load of 200 pounds.

ERG estimated that there are approximately 3.1million fixed ladders over
20 feet in length in the Untied States (see Appendix A). The requirement
to be able to support two loads of 250 pounds each dates back to the
1984 version of ANSI A14.3. It is therefore highly likely that much of
the population of existing fixed ladders was built when the 250-pound
requirement was in the voluntary standard. However, we do not know the
age distribution of fixed ladders in the United States or when a ladder
had its most recent reconstruction.

The cost differential for each ladder is the difference between a design
to support one live load of 200 pounds and two live loads of 250 pounds
each. Given that the fixed ladder must be constructed to fit a specific
site, it is likely that the labor costs for either design would be
comparable. Therefore, the cost attributable to the consensus standard
is primarily attributable to the difference in materials, e.g., thicker
steel. Such costs are likely to be highly site-specific and not
estimable at this time. However, given (1) that the cost for materials
is a fraction of the overall cost of building or rebuilding the fixed
ladder, and (2) the incremental cost is the difference between the
materials planned and materials needed, these incremental costs are
likely to be small. Since these small costs are likely to only affect a
small population of employers who are non-compliant with the current
consensus standards no costs are estimated for this paragraph.

§1910.23(d)(12)(i). The draft language changes the definition of
“step-across distance” to measure from the centerline of the steps
or rungs of a fixed ladder. The existing definition measures the
step-across distance from the nearest edge of the ladder to the nearest
edge of the structure or equipment. The minimum distance under the draft
language is 7 inches and 2.5 inches under the existing language. The
draft paragraph §1910.23(b)(4) specifies a minimum clear step or rung
width of 16 inches for individual rung and fixed ladders; thus the
distance from the centerline to the inside edge of the ladder is 8
inches. Adding the existing requirement of 2.5 inches from the nearest
edge of the ladder to the nearest edge of the structure or equipment to
the 8-inch centerline width results in a step-across width of 10.5
inches. Thus any fixed ladder that meets the current requirements also
meets the draft requirements. No costs are assigned to this paragraph.

§1910.23(d)(12)(ii). The draft language specifies that the step-across
distance from the centerline of the steps or rungs of a fixed ladder to
the access/egress point of the platform edge for side step ladders must
be between 15 and 20 inches. Based on Figure D-10 in the existing
standard, the maximum space from the edge of the ladder to the platform
(i.e., access/egress point) is 12 inches. As noted in the previous
paragraph, the centerline width for a fixed ladder is 8 inches. The
total step-across distance under the existing standard is 20 inches.
Thus, a fixed ladder that meets the current requirements also meets the
draft requirements. No costs are assigned to this paragraph.

§1910.24 Step Bolts and Manhole Steps

The requirements for step bolts are new to Subpart D. The preliminary
regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for the draft rule notes
“Manufactured products, such as ladders, step bolts, manhole
steps…generally meet or exceed draft OSHA specifications.” (OSHA,
1990a). A 2003 Standard Interpretation document comments that OSHA
considers the IEEE 1307-1996 consensus standard, in most cases, to
prevent or eliminate serious hazards (OSHA, 2003a). IEEE 1307-1996
defines “failure” in a step bolt as occurring when step bolts are
bent greater than 0.26 rad (15 degrees) below the horizontal, i.e., the
requirement in the draft §1910.24(a)(9). IEEE revised the standard in
2004; thus we assume that industry is using the more up-to-date
consensus standard.

Paragraphs with Costs

§1910.24(a)(8) and §1910.24(b)(3). Step bolts and manhole steps must
be visually inspected before each use. Inspection costs are considered
in Section 3.3.4.

§1910.24(b). The language in the draft is summarized in Table 3-5 along
with the corresponding section of ASTM C-478-06b.

Table 3-5.	Manhole Steps

Provision	Draft Language	ASTM C 478-06b Section

1910.24(b)(1)	Manhole steps installed before (insert date 90 days after
the effective date of the final rule in the Federal Register) must be
capable of supporting their maximum intended load.

1910.24(b)(2)	The employer must ensure that manhole steps installed on
or after (insert date 90 days after the effective rule in the Federal
Register):

1910.24(b)(2)(i)	Are provided with slip-resistant surfaces such as,
corrugated, knurled, or dimpled surfaces;

1910.24(b)(2)(ii)	Used in corrosive environments are constructed of, or
coated with, a material that will retard corrosion of the step;

1910.24(b)(2)(iii)	Have a minimum clear step width of 10 inches (25 cm);
16.5.2

1910.24(b)(2)(iv)	Are spaced uniformly, not more than 16 inches apart.
The spacing from the entry and exit surface to the first manhole step
may be different from the spacing between other steps;	16.4.1

1910.24(b)(2)(v)	Have a minimum perpendicular distance between the
centerline of the manhole step to the nearest permanent object in back
of the step of at least 4.5 inches (11.4 cm); and	16.5.3

1910.24(b)(2)(vi)	Are designed to prevent the employee's foot from
slipping or sliding off the end of the manhole step.

1910.24(b)(3)	Manhole steps must be visually inspected before each use
and be maintained in accordance with 1910.22

There are three additional requirements that exceed what is specified in
a national consensus standard for steps in pre-cast concrete manhole
sections:

Manhole steps must be provided with slip-resistant surfaces such as,
corrugated, knurled, or dimpled surfaces;

Manhole steps must be designed to prevent the employee's foot from
slipping or sliding off the end of the manhole step;

Manhole steps much be replaced if they are bent to such a degree that
there is no longer 4 inches clearance to the wall.

ASTM C478-06b permits the use of uncoated or untreated ferrous steps as
long as they are at least 1 inch in cross section, but says nothing
about a slip-resistant surface or design. Due to the requirements that
go beyond those in a consensus standard, when a manhole section needs to
be built or replaced, there will be incremental costs for
slip-resistant/corrosion-resistant surfaces. The paragraph now defines
when a step has “failed” when still present in the manhole; thus
there are also step replacement costs. These costs are discussed in
Section 3.3.4.

Paragraphs with No Costs

§1910.24(a)(1). The draft reads:

“All step bolts installed on or after [insert date 90 days after the
effective date of the final rule in the Federal Register] that are used
in corrosive environments must be constructed of, or coated with, a
material that will retard corrosion of the step or bolt.”

The most relevant national consensus standard is ASTM Standard
Specification for Steel Transmission Tower Bolts, Zinc-Coated and Bare
(ASTM A394-05). The appendix to the consensus standard mentions that the
dimensions of ladder bolts, step bolts, and equipment support bolts
shall be specified by the purchaser, thus the rest of the standard is
applicable to step bolts. The standard describes three types of bolts
covered by the standard:

Type 0: hot-dip zinc-coated bolts made of low or medium carbon steel.
(ASTM 394-05, Section 1.1.1)

Type 1: hot-dip zinc-coated bolts made of medium carbon steel, quenched
and tempered. (ASTM 394-05, Section 1.1.2)

Type 3: Bare (uncoated), quenched and tempered bolts made of weathering
steel (ASTM 394-05, Section 1.1.4)

Appendix A.2 of the consensus standard mentions that bolts should be
Type 0 unless agreed upon between the manufacturer and purchaser. That
is, the default condition is that the bolt is zinc-coated and therefore
meets the proposed OSHA requirement for corrosion resistance. The use of
any other bolt type implies that the manufacturer and purchaser have
agreed that the bolt is appropriate for the intended environment and
intended use. Since manufacturers of step bolts are unlikely to make
non-compliant step bolts, this provision falls into the category of
“non-compliance is unlikely,” and no costs are assigned to this
paragraph.

§1910.24(a)(6). The draft reads:

“Step bolts installed before [insert date 90 days after the effective
date of the final rule in the Federal Register] must be capable of
supporting their maximum intended load.”

The requirement that a step bolt must be capable of supporting its
maximum intended load is consistent with IEEE 1307-2004; IEEE Standard
for Fall Protection for Utility Work, Section <IP_ADDRESS>(d) which reads:

“d) Be capable of supporting the intended workload [as defined for the
application per the applicable ANSI standard(s)], but in no case shall
the minimum design live load be less than a simple concentrated load of
271 kg (598.4 lb) applied 51mm (2 inches) from the inside face of the
step bolt head.”

No cost is therefore assigned to this paragraph.

§1910.24(a)(7) requires step bolts installed after the effective date
of the rule to be capable of supporting four times its maximum intended
load. In the preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA says that it considers
a 5/8-inch bolt to meet this requirement and that such size bolts are
readily available.

§1910.25 Stairs and Stairways

Paragraphs with No Costs

§1910.25(a)(6). The original regulation says that for doors or gates
that open directly on a stairway, a platform must be provided, and the
swing of the door must not reduce the effective width to less than 20
inches. For platforms installed before 90 days after the effective date
of the final rule there are no changes to the existing requirements and
therefore no retrofit costs. For platforms installed on or after 90 days
after the effective date of the final rule, the effective width is
increased to 22 inches. The incremental cost is that associated with
adding 2 inches in clearance to the platform whenever the platform is
replaced. This is likely to be a minimal increase in materials cost
borne by the employer to meet the consensus standard. For reasons given
in Section 3.1.3, no incremental costs for meeting a consensus standard
are attributable to the proposed OSHA standard.

§1910.25(c). The original regulation in §1910.25(b) did not permit
spiral stairways except under special conditions. Under §1910.25(a)(9),
spiral stairs, ship stairs, or alternating tread-type stairs are not
permitted except for special limited usage and secondary access
situations where it is not practicable to provide a standard stairway.
Additional requirements for spiral stairs are listed in the draft
language for §1910.25(c). An existing spiral staircase that does not
meet the draft requirements for clear width, riser height, etc., would
need to be modified or replaced. However, spiral staircases are likely
to be relatively rare given that they are exceptions to the existing
rule. In addition, a note to §1910.25(a)(1) indicates that employers in
compliance with NFPA 101 (or Building Code) will be deemed to be in
compliance with this paragraph. Therefore, if the spiral staircase is in
compliance with NFPA 101, it meets the requirements in
§1910.25(c)(1-5), see NFPA (2006). Thus, we do not assign costs to
§1910.25(c).

§1910.25(d). This paragraph is a response from OSHA to an OMB
initiated, government-wide effort to reform regulation in the U.S.
manufacturing sector. The Copper and Brass Fabricators Council submitted
a comment that OSHA required the use of fixed stairs when ship stairs
would be safer (OMB, 2005). Ship stairs typically are installed with
slopes of 50 degrees or greater, however, the existing regulation for
fixed stairs addressed stairs installed at angles between 30 and 50
degrees. Thus, ship stairs were not specifically addressed in the
original interpretation. Recent standard interpretations indicate that
if an inspection found a set of ship stairs at an establishment (a
violation of the existing regulation) that conformed to the draft
regulation, OSHA would consider it a de minimis violation (OSHA 2006b
and 2006c). Therefore, the need to retrofit or replace a set of ship
stairs under the draft rule would be minimal and no costs are assigned
to §1910.25(d).

§1910.25(e). Alternating tread stairs were not specifically mentioned
in the original regulation. A letter from OSHA to a manufacturer of
alternating tread stairs deemed the stair design to be safe (OSHA,
1981). Alternating tread stairs are discussed in NFPA 101, Section
7.2.11, therefore, any alternating tread stair that meets the
requirements of NFPA 101 also meets the requirements draft in
§1910.25(e). Thus, we do not assign costs to §1910.25(e).

§1910.26 Dockboards

Paragraphs with No Costs

§1910.26(b). The draft language reads:

Dockboards put into service on or after [insert date 90 days after the
effective date of the final rule in the Federal Register] must be
designed, constructed, and maintained to prevent equipment from running
off the edge.”

The definition of a dockboard in ANSI MH30.2-2005 Section 2.2 contains
the language “as well as providing a run-off guard, or curb.”
Dockboards are manufactured by one company for sale to and use by
another company. Following the logic of Section <IP_ADDRESS>, if an employer
orders a dockboard, it will have curbs. No costs for this provision are
attributable to the rule.

§1910.27 Scaffolds

Paragraphs with Costs

§1910.27(b)(2)(ii). This paragraph codifies safety provisions presented
in the 1991 memorandum to the Regional Administrators, which are
essentially similar to what is now contained in the national consensus
standard ANSI/IWCA I 14.1 (OSHA, 1991a). These are:

Training of employees in the use of the equipment before it is used.

Inspection of the equipment each day before use.

Proper rigging, including sound anchorages and tiebacks, in all cases,
with particular emphasis on providing tiebacks when counterweights,
cornice hooks, or similar non-permanent anchorage systems are used.

Use of a separate fall arrest system.

All lines installed (such as by using knots, swages, or eye splices)
when rigging descent control devices shall be capable of sustaining a
minimum tensile load of 5,000 pounds.

Provisions are made for rescue or assure that employees are able to
rescue themselves.

Ropes are effectively padded where they contact edges of the building,
anchorage, obstructions, or other surfaces that might cut or weaken the
rope.

Provide for stabilization at the specific work location when descents
are greater than 130 feet.

There are some changes in language but most of these are not anticipated
to result in compliance costs, e.g., “prompt rescue” rather than
“rescue” and “harness” rather than “body belt.” The
exceptions are §1910.27(b)(2)(ii) and §1910.27(b)(2)(iv). According to
§1910.27(b)(2)(ii), training must now be done in accordance with
§1910.30. Costs for any training beyond what was done as a result of
the 1991 memorandum are attributed to §1910.30.

§1910.27(b)(2)(iv). When rope descent systems are used, employers must
use proper rigging, including sound anchorages and tiebacks with
particular emphasis on providing tiebacks when counterweights, cornice
hooks, or similar non-permanent anchorages are used. It is apparent that
IWCA expects to find buildings without anchorages. A key provision of
ANSI/IWCA I-14.1 is a written work plan (Section 1.7). The IWCA web site
recommends that the person “whose job it is to look at and price jobs
should be the primary person to develop the written plan. After all,
this is the time when you see things like anchor points (or lack
thereof) entrance ways, sharp edges, and other concerns. The best part
of the written plan is the fact that it allows the building owner or
manager to work with you in creating a safe place to work for you and
your employees.” (IWCA, 2007b) ANSI/IWCA 14.1, Section 17 lists
options for roof support equipment, including:

Parapets, cornices, and building anchorages (Section 17.1)

Davits and davit fixtures (a crane-like structure, Section 17.2)

Sockets (Section 17.3)

Tie-backs (Section 17.4)

Counterweighted outriggers (Section 17.5)

Parapet clamps and cornice hooks (Section 17.6)

Overhead monorail tracks and trolleys (Section 17.7)

Several of these options, such as counterweighted outriggers, are
transportable and are likely to be supplied by the contractor. Thus, the
role of the work plan is to delineate how the work is to be performed
using a mix of contractor and property owner equipment. The voluntary
standard provides several acceptable options for roof support equipment
and specifies the development of a work plan where both the contractor
and property owner concur on how a safe job can be done at that
property. It is highly unlikely that either party would agree to a work
practice it considered unsafe and ERG believes that voluntary compliance
with the consensus standard is likely to be high. Therefore, no costs
are assigned for equipment costs.

Costs do result, however, from inspections and certification for
providing assurances that an anchorage is sound. These are discussed in
Section 3.3.5.

Paragraphs with No Costs

§1910.27(a). This paragraph extends the construction industry
requirements for scaffolds (except rope descent systems) to all other
parts of industry. The construction industry scaffold standards (Subpart
L of 29 CFR Part 1926) were updated on August 30, 1996 (OSHA, 1996), and
contain requirements for all the same types of scaffolds that are now
regulated by General Industry standards. OSHA believes that many general
industry employers who use scaffolds also perform work covered by the
construction industry standards and are already familiar with, and in
compliance with, the construction industry scaffold standards.
Therefore, the new language resolves any inconsistencies and thus no
costs are attributed to this paragraph.

§1910.27(b)(1). Rope descent systems are an alternative to powered
platforms. The draft language states that rope descent systems cannot be
used for heights greater than 300 feet unless access cannot otherwise be
obtained safely and practicably. The wording of the draft rule is
consistent with the industry consensus standard (ANSI/IWCA, 2001). In
other words, both the IWCA consensus standard and the proposed OSHA
language (1) prohibit the use of rope descent systems for descents
exceeding 300 feet, and (2) contain an exclusion clause – unless
access cannot safely and practicably be obtained by other means. Because
both contain the same exclusion clause, the OSHA requirement is no more
restrictive than the consensus standard. Since this is a work-practice
as opposed to an equipment specification requirement, incremental costs
are attributable to the proposed standard to the extent that employers
would not otherwise voluntarily comply with the IWCA standard.

The potential cost is, at the very least, limited to situations where
(1) the building is 300 feet tall or higher, and (2) there is an
alternative to the rope descent system that is practicable and safe. ERG
used the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat’s database and
identified slightly more than 1,900 buildings that are 300 feet (91.7 m)
tall or higher (CTBUH, 2006). More than one in every four of these
buildings is in New York City where State policy does not allow the use
of rope descent systems (DiChacho, 2006). A better estimate of the
number of potentially affected buildings is 1,500 buildings nationwide.
ERG presumes that some of these 1,500 buildings have permanently
installed power platforms for access to the exterior of the building,
and further presumes that using an existing system would be less
expensive than setting up a rope descent system. The final set of
buildings for which §1910.27(b)(1) could result in costs are those
where a safe and practicable alternative to a rope descent system exists
but cannot be used. Because all companies bidding on the project would
be making those bids under the same set of constraints, §1910.27(b)(1)
would not result in a loss in income to the window cleaning industry.
There may be higher costs to the building owners but, although the cost
cannot be estimated, ERG considers the cost to be small given the
limited number of buildings that potentially would be affected.

§1910.27(b)(2)(x). The requirement to secure equipment is consistent
with the consensus standard IWCA I-14.1-2001 Section 3.10. Thus, no
incremental costs are incurred for this requirement.

§1910.27(b)(2)(xi). The requirement to protect suspension ropes from
exposure to open flames, hot work, corrosive chemicals, or other
destructive conditions is an extension of the requirement to protect the
integrity of the ropes in the 1991 OSHA memorandum. The costs for
meeting this requirement is part of the training costs estimated in
§1910.30.

§1910.28 Duty to Have Fall Protection

The draft language for §1910.28, with two major revisions, is a
consolidation of the fall protection requirements in the existing rule.
First, comments submitted in response to the reopening of the rule in
2003 suggested that the fall protection requirements in Subpart D should
be consistent with those in Subpart M of the construction standard. The
draft language for §1910.28 brings consistency between the rules that
might affect employers and employees in both the construction and
General Industry sectors. Second, the existing standard does not address
the use of restraint systems, designated areas, or safety nets systems,
nor is it clear as to where the use of personal fall protection systems
is permitted. The restructured section allows employers to choose from
various options in providing fall protection, that is, it is not as
restrictive as the existing standard that primarily requires the use of
standard railings (guardrails).

Paragraphs with Costs

§1910.28(a)(2). General. The employer must determine that the
walking-working surface has the strength and structural integrity to
safely support employees. Discussions with OSHA staff indicate that
their opinion is that this requirement can be met by a five- to
ten-minute inspection of the surface or review of engineering paperwork.
In rare circumstances, an employer might need to spend 15 to 30 minutes
to determine if work can proceed. Costs for this are discussed in
Section 3.3.6 where they are considered as part of the general
requirement for an employer to periodically and regularly inspect
walking-working surfaces in §1910.22(d) (1).

§1910.28(b)(4). Dockboards. This includes a new requirement for
guardrails or handrails on dockboards if an employee might fall four or
more feet. There is an exception for cases where the dockboards are used
exclusively for material handling operations performed with motorized
equipment. In these cases, neither guardrails nor handrails are required
if the fall hazard is 10 feet or less and the employee has been trained
according to §1910.30. Section 3.3.6 discusses the costs for installing
handrail or guardrail systems for dockboards. Training costs are
assigned to §1910.30.

§1910.28(b)(10)(iii) and (vi). §1910.28(b)(10)(iii) requires the
employee to follow inspection procedures for the safety devices.
§1910.28(b)(10)(vi) requires the employee to have both hands free of
tools and material while climbing up or down the ladder. No frequency is
mentioned but we assume inspection occurs prior to each use. Costs are
assigned to these two paragraphs and are discussed in Section 3.3.6.

§1910.28(b)(10)(v). This paragraph effectively requires employees that
routinely climb fixed portions of billboard ladders that do not have
cages or wells to be a “qualified” climber as specified in
§1910.29(h). Costs for this paragraph are assigned to §1910.29(h).
Rather than speculate on what defines “routinely” or what is
required of employees that climb outdoor advertising structures
/billboards but not on a routine basis, ERG assumes that all employees
in NAICS 5418 (advertising and related services) that use personal fall
protection should be trained as qualified climbers (see §1910.29(h)
discussion in Section 3.3.7).

Paragraphs with No Costs

§1910.28(b)(1). Unprotected sides and edges. Under the draft rule, if a
walking-working surface (vertical and horizontal) has an unprotected
side or edge that is four feet or more above a lower level, an employee
must be protected from falling by the use of guardrail systems, safety
net systems, personal fall arrest systems, or the employee must work in
a designated area. In the existing rule, the “4-foot drop” condition
for protection is found:

§1910.23(b): every wall opening

§1910.23(c)(1): every open-sided floor or platform

§1910.23(c)(2): the open sides of any runway

Thus, there is no change in height requirement for fall protection
between the existing and draft rules. The language and organization for
the draft rule, however, is less complex than that for the existing
rule. The draft rule provides additional flexibility in the methods used
for fall protection and allows for exceptional conditions, e.g., if it
is not feasible to install guardrails on the working surface, guardrails
are not required provided access to the working surface is limited to
authorized employees who have been trained in accordance with §1910.30.
No costs are assigned to this paragraph.

§1910.28(b)(2). Hoist areas. The draft rule states that fall protection
must be provided in hoist areas where the drop is four or more feet.
This is a clarification. OSHA staff consider the existing
§1910.23(b)(1) and §1910.23(c)(1) to address hoist areas. No costs are
assigned to this paragraph.

§1910.28(b)(3). Holes. The existing rule requires guarding for every
hole and skylight floor opening. The draft rule specifies that fall
protection is needed when an employee might fall more than four feet.
Thus, the new language brings the condition that precipitates a need for
fall protection for holes into agreement with that for unprotected sides
and edges and hoist areas. The new language also permits the requirement
to be met by personal fall arrest systems and covers as well as
guardrails. No costs are assigned to this paragraph.

§1910.28(b)(6). Dangerous equipment. The existing language requires a
standard railing and toe board for working/walking surfaces above
dangerous equipment. The draft language introduces a distinction on what
is required by whether the potential fall is less than four feet. For
potential falls of less than four feet onto or into dangerous equipment,
the employer has the additional options of covering or guarding the
dangerous equipment to eliminate the hazard. For potential falls of four
feet or more, the employer has the options of guardrail systems,
restraint systems, personal fall arrest systems, or safety net systems.
Because the employer is assumed to meet the requirements through the
least cost method (see Section 3.1.7 above), no costs are assigned to
this paragraph.

§1910.28(b)(7). Wall openings. The draft language limits the need for
fall protection to cases where the inside bottom edge of the wall
opening is less than 39 inches above the walking-working surface. In
addition, the employer has the additional option of using a safety net
system or personal fall arrest system to meet this requirement. No costs
are assigned to this paragraph.

§1910.28(b)(8). Repair, service, and assembly pits 4 to 10 feet in
depth. Pits, in general, were subsumed within the definition of a floor
opening in the existing §1910.21(a)(2). In the draft paragraph, pits
between 4 and 10 feet in depth for repair, service, and assembly
operations need not have a fall protection system provided that a
(minimum) 6-foot perimeter is marked around the pit and access to that
area is limited to trained and authorized employees. ERG does not assign
incremental costs to this paragraph for two reasons. First, an employer
would only incur costs for caution signs and floor markings if they were
less expensive than the fall protection system required under the
existing regulation (see Section 3.1.7 for a discussion on the
assumption that an employer will meet requirements by the least
expensive method). Second, the existing §1910.145 already requires an
employer to post caution signs where needed and the existing §1910.144
describes what is required for marking. ERG assumes an employer has
signs and marking materials available, so no incremental costs are
assigned to this paragraph.

§1910.28(b)(9). Fixed ladders. The employer has the added option of
meeting the requirement through the use of personal fall protection
systems. The existing language specified cages or wells. No costs are
assigned to this paragraph.

§1910.28(b)(10)(i), (ii), and (iv). Outdoor advertising (billboards).
This is a new paragraph. Under the language of the existing Subpart D,
no distinction is made for billboards. Thus, the fixed ladder portion of
the billboard could be considered under the existing fixed ladder
requirements. Under existing§1910.27(d)(1), cages or wells are required
for ladders more than 20 feet. Under the draft §1910.28(b)(10)(i), an
employee climbing a fixed ladder portion of a billboard up to 50 feet in
length needs either a body belt or body harness with an appropriate
18-inch rest lanyard as a means to tie off to the fixed ladder.
Presumably, the additional options are less expensive than cages or
wells where they do not already exist. Any ladder safety systems (i.e.,
a device other than a cage or well, see §1910.21(b)) that already exist
must be maintained (§1910.28(b)(10)(iv)). This is already required
under current practice. Thus, no incremental costs are assigned to these
paragraphs for compliance.

If, however, the fixed ladder portion extends beyond 50 feet, the entire
length of the fixed ladder must have ladder safety devices (see
§1910.28(b)(10)(ii)). Ladder safety systems refer to any device other
than a cage or well (Presumably, the ladder safety systems are less
expensive than cages or wells where the latter do not already exist, see
Section 3.1.7). Thus, no incremental costs are assigned to this
paragraph for compliance.

§1910.28(b)(10)(vii). Climbers must be protected by an appropriate fall
protection system when they reach their work positions but the costs for
these systems are already considered in the existing requirements for
fixed ladder systems. Thus, no additional costs for equipment are
considered for this paragraph.

§1910.28(b)(12). Scaffolds and rope descent systems. Paragraph now
refers to §1926, thus avoiding any inconsistencies between the
paragraphs. The language extends the requirements found in the
construction standards to all other industries. Fall protection on
scaffolds in §1926 follows consensus standards, thus no costs are
assigned to this paragraph.

§1910.28(b)(13). Walking-working surfaces not otherwise addressed. OSHA
considers the new paragraph to be a clarification of the existing
§1910.23(c)(3), which requires a railing and toeboard. The draft
language restricts the requirement to working surfaces 4 feet or more
above a lower level and permits the employer to comply with the
paragraph by the use a personal fall protection system. Under the least
cost assumption, no costs are assigned to this paragraph.

§1910.29 Fall Protection Systems and Criteria

Paragraphs with Costs

§1910.29(b)(15). Guardrail systems. The new paragraph requires that
manila, plastic, or synthetic rope being used for top rails or midrails
be inspected “as frequently as necessary” to ensure that it meets
the strength requirements. This inspection cost is considered in Section
3.3.7.

§1910.29(h). This paragraph sets the criteria for the use of
“qualified” climbers and limits the use of “qualified climbers”
to employees engaged in outdoor advertising operations. The costs for
this paragraph are those to train and, as necessary, retrain qualified
climbers. That is, ERG assumes qualified climbers require training
beyond that now required for fixed ladders. Additional costs are
incurred by the requirement for the employer to observe the performance
to ensure the qualified climber has the skills necessary to perform the
climb safely. These costs are discussed further in Section 3.3.7.

Paragraphs with No Costs

§1910.29(c). Safety net systems. Paragraph now refers to §1926, thus
avoiding any inconsistencies between the paragraphs. The language
extends the requirements found in the construction standards to all
other industries. However, safety net system requirements in §1926
follow consensus standards, thus no costs are assigned to this
paragraph.

§1910.30 Training Programs

Paragraphs with Costs

This is an entirely new paragraph requiring training regarding fall and
equipment hazards as well as re-training when necessary for employees in
general industry. ERG assumes that an employer that trains employees in
compliance with §1910.30 would choose to maintain records of the
training and the cost estimates reflect this time commitment on the part
of the employer. The training costs estimated for §1910.30 encompass
requirements from other paragraphs that specify that training must be
done in accordance with §1910.30. These costs are discussed in more
detail in Section 3.3.8 and are incurred only by the percentage of
establishments that do not already provide regular safety training.

§1910.140 Subpart I: Fall Protection

OSHA proposes to amend the general industry standard for personal
protective equipment (PPE) to add requirements for personal fall
protection equipment. The draft §1910.140 adds specific design and
performance requirements for personal fall protection systems to the
existing regulation. In addition, the proposed standard would require
that the provisions for hazard assessment found in §1910.132 apply to
personal fall protection systems.

Paragraphs with Costs

§1910.140(c)(18) requires personal fall protection systems to be
inspected prior to each use.  Inspection costs for this provision are
discussed in Section 3.3.9.

§1910.132(d) requires an employer to assess the workplace to determine
if hazards are present, or are likely to be present, which necessitate
the use of PPE and, if so, to determine the type of PPE required. Costs
associated with hazard assessment are discussed in Section 3.3.9.

§1910.132(f) requires that— before using personal fall protection
systems, and after any component or system is changed— employees must
be trained in the application limits of the equipment, proper hook-up,
anchoring and tie-off techniques, methods of use, and proper methods of
equipment inspection and storage. The costs for this paragraph, then,
are included in the costs for §1910.30.

COST ESTIMATION

This section focuses on the costs associated with the draft rule. It
does not attempt to estimate potential cost savings to industry from
increased flexibility in meeting specific requirements, such as the use
of personal fall protection systems rather than the currently mandated
hand/guardrail systems, even if some of the new alternatives might
actually be safer than the currently mandated requirements.

Section 3.3.1 discusses data used in the following estimations. Section
3.3.2 through 3.3.9 estimates the costs associated with each paragraph.
Table 3-4, developed in Section 3.4, is the basis for these discussion.
Section 3.3 summarizes the compliance cost estimates for the draft
standards.

Supporting Data

The costs are based on additional employer and supervisor time for
training and inspection. The number of establishments and employees are
taken from Statistics of U.S. Businesses 2003. The number of employees
covered by Subpart D and Subpart I is based on the employment share of
workers employed in building and grounds; construction; installation,
maintenance, and repair; production; and material moving occupations as
reported by Bureau of Labor statistics, Occupational Employment
Statistics. See Section Two for more industry profile information.

Employee and supervisor wages (See Table 2-5) also are based on Bureau
of Labor statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics. Wages are
adjusted to include the cost of benefits, based on Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation – March 2006
(released June 2006). Current compliance rates are based on OSHA
inspection statistics for Fiscal Year 2005, see Table 3-3. The
percentage of businesses that already provide regular safety training is
based on the National Occupational Exposure Survey (NIOSH, 1988), see
Table 3-6.

Table 3-6.	Fraction of Businesses Providing Regular Safety Training

NAICS	Industry	Fraction Providing Regular Safety Training

11	Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting 	0.796

21	Mining (2111 Oil and Gas Extraction)	0.751

22	Utilities	0.89

31-33	Manufacturing	0.855

42	Wholesale Trade	0.668

44-45	Retail Trade	0.668

48-49	Transportation	0.89

51	Information	0.664

52	Finance and Insurance	0.664

53	Real Estate	0.664

54	Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services	0.664

55	Management	0.664

56	Administrative and Support, Waste Management and Remediation Services
0.664

61	Educational Services	0.83

62	Health Care	0.957

71	Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation	0.664

72	Accommodation and Food Services	0.664

81	Other Services	0.664

§1910.22 General Requirements

§1910.22(d). Although the underlying hazard of unsafe walking-working
surfaces is addressed within various §1910 requirements, §1910.22
contains three paragraphs with new requirements:

•	§1910.22(d)(1): Regular and periodic inspection of walking-working
surfaces

•	§1910.22(d)(2): Unsafe conditions must be guarded until repair

•	§1910.22(d)(3): Qualified person must inspect repair.

For the purpose of estimating costs for §1910.22(d)(1), ERG assumes
that facilities in compliance with OSHA regulations already perform
regular and periodic inspections of walking working surfaces. For the
purposes of estimating costs, ERG used the non-compliance rates for
floor guarding (§1910.23 has the highest non-compliance rates, see
Table 3-3) to estimate the number of establishments that need to perform
regular and periodic inspections of walking-working surfaces. ERG
assumed that a supervisor would spend 15 minutes every quarter making
the inspection for a total of 1 hour per year. The total annual cost for
inspections is estimated to be $12.9 million.

For estimating the costs for §1910.22(d)(2), ERG assumed that within a
year, ten percent of these establishments would identify an unsafe
condition and that it takes an employee 15 minutes to set up the guard
mechanism (e.g., cones, barriers, etc.). Incremental material costs are
assumed to be negligible (e.g., they have cones but now they use them).
Estimated compliance costs for this provision are $0.196 million.

For §1910.22(d)(3), ERG assumes it takes 5 minutes for a supervisor or
qualified person to inspect the repair of the unsafe condition. The
estimated cost is $0.107 million ($107,350).

The total estimated cost for compliance with §1910.22(d) is $13.2
million per year.

§1910.23 Ladders

§1910.23(b)(11-13), §1910.23(c)(5-6), (10-11), and (13). Eight
paragraphs within §1910.23 have new directives for protecting employees
from slip, trip, and fall hazards during operations involving ladders.
Table 3-7 summarizes these requirements, all of which are assumed to be
addressed in a single training session. ERG considers that compliance
with this paragraph can be met by informal training and thus no
administrative costs are included for an employer.

The OSHA website includes a Resource Center with a loan program for
training videos (OSHA, 2006d). The index lists ten training videos for
ladders and stairways with times ranging from five to 19 minutes and an
average of 12 minutes. For the purposes of estimating costs, we use a
15-minute training period. Ten employees are trained per session with
one supervisor in attendance. We assume that $1 in materials cost is
incurred for handouts for each employee trained.

Table 3-7.	Training Requirements Under Draft §1910.23

Paragraph 	Subject

§1910.23(b)(11)	When ascending or descending a ladder, the user must
face the ladder.

§1910.23(b)(12)	Each employee must use at least one hand to grasp the
ladder when progressing up and down the ladder.

§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.

§1910.23(c)(5)	The use of portable single rail ladders is prohibited.

§1910.23(c)(6)	Ladders must not be moved, shifted, or extended while
occupied by employees.

§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)

§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)

§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)

Some establishments already provide regular safety training. The
proportions of industries that already provide training are taken from
NOES survey. Although the data are more than 20 years old, NIOSH (1988)
is still the primary source for such information covering a 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 to estimate the cost
of the rule. The total costs are $10.1 million with an annualized cost
of $1.4 million.

New employees that enter the workforce would also need training. For the
purpose of estimating the cost of the rule, ERG assumed that training
received at a prior place of employment was not considered sufficient to
meet this requirement for the new employer. ERG examined the industry
turnover rate data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. For
2002, the data were collected by SIC code while industries in this cost
analysis are classified by NAICS code. Table 3-8 summarizes the data and
the NAICS codes to which they are assigned. ERG assigned the turnover
rate for manufacturing to logging (NAICS 1133) and oil and gas
extraction (NAICS 2111). ERG assigned the turnover rate for finance,
insurance, and real estate to information (NAICS 51). Under these
assumptions, the estimated cost is $3.9 million per year to train new
employees about ladder safety.

Table 3-8.	2002 Industry Turnover Rates

Industry Sector	NAICS Codes	Turnover Rate [a]

Manufacturing	1133, 2111, 31-33	26.10%

Transportation and Public Utilities	22, 48-49	27.70%

Wholesale Trade	42	28.40%

Retail Trade	44-45	60.10%

Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate	51-53	24.00%

Service 	54-81	43.40%

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics. Job Openings and Labor Turnover
Survey, 2002.

[a]Hires as a percent of total employment.

§1910.23(e). The industry profile identifies 6,460,256 establishments
covered in Subpart D. Five years might be a typical lifetime for a
ladder; thus ERG assumes that one-fifth of the establishments might
purchase a ladder in any given year. Furthermore, ERG assumes that a
supervisor from each establishment takes 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 this paragraph is $3.2 million.

§1910.24 Step Bolts and Manhole Steps

§1910.24(a)(8). ERG identified three general cost categories for the
step bolt and pole step requirements:

Utility poles.

Communication structures

Sports and performance arenas with pole-mounted lights

Utility poles have been identified as having step bolts. According to
the 2007 UDI Directory of Electric Power Producers and Distributors,
there are 6,297,596 distribution line miles across the United States
(Platts, 2007). Of these we are interested in the overhead (as opposed
to underground) line miles. The most recent data found for the overhead
line miles 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, it is assumed that there is not a
significant amount of new line miles built, and of the new lines miles
there is a trend to build the lines underground. Assuming one pole every
100 feet, ERG estimates 216,480,000 poles across the United States. This
is 2.5 times the number of reported utility poles on highways in 1999,
and therefore this estimate is considered 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
$1.3 million.

ERG estimated about 190,000 fixed ladder structures in the
communications industry (see Appendix A). This estimate, however,
actually covers communication structures with fixed ladders and step
bolts. Fixed ladders, however, have an existing requirement for
inspection while step bolts do not. Structures in FCC's Antenna
Structure Registration (ASR) database meet at least one of the following
requirements:

Height is 200 ft or greater.

Height <199 ft 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 assumes that these structures are more likely to have fixed ladders
rather than step bolts. As of May 2007, there are 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 assumes that the difference between the total number of structures
(190,000) and the number in the ASR database (93,000) is the number of
structures that could potentially have step bolts. ERG assumes 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. This
results in an annual cost of $0.039 million for NAICS 51 (Information).

There are 1,699 promoters of performing arts, sports, and similar events
with facilities (Census, 2002). ERG is unable to estimate the number of
step bolts at each facility, but assumes that one hour per year is
dedicated to inspecting all step bolts at each facility. This results in
an annual cost of $0.028 million for NAICS 7113 (promoters of performing
arts, sports, and similar events with facilities).

The total annual inspection cost for step bolts is estimated to be $1.37
million.

§1910.24(b)(3). ERG (2005) estimates there are between 6.6 and 13.2
million manholes with a mid-point estimate of 9.9 million. Of these,
approximately 85 percent, or 8.4 million are less than 20 feet in depth
and do not have a fixed ladder. ERG assumes that 10 percent of these are
entered once a year, on average, and that it takes one minute to inspect
the steps prior to entering the manhole. This results in an annual cost
of $0.34 million for 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, has no data on the
number of such manholes but assumes that the costs would be proportional
to the number of manholes that are estimated for water and sewage
systems. No costs are estimated for NAICS 2211 and 2212 for this
paragraph.

§1910.24(b)(2) and (4) The incremental costs of slip-resistant and
corrosion-resistant surfaces would be incurred in the future as manhole
sections with steps are replaced at the end of their useful life. There
are 9.9 million manholes, of which 85 percent are less than 20 feet and
15 percent are 20 feet or more. The manholes less than 20 feet are
assumed to have a uniform distribution between portable ladders, fixed
ladders, and steps, resulting in 2.9 million manholes with steps. The
manholes 20 feet or more 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 language. 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.

First, annual step replacement costs are estimated 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, the estimated
annual step replacement cost is $0.03 million. Second, annual manhole
replacement costs are estimated assuming 5 percent of manholes need to
be replaced a year and that steps are every 16 inches. The estimated
annual manhole replacement cost is $1.7 million.

§1910.27 Scaffolds and Rope Descent Systems

§1910.27(b)(2)(ii). Cost for any training beyond what is done as a
result of the 1991 memorandum are attributed to §1910.30 (see Section
3.3.8).

§1910.27(b)(2)(iv). To provide assurances that an anchorage is sound,
costs are assigned as 1) a qualified/competent person to inspect the
rigging and anchorages on buildings annually and 2) a professional
engineer to certify the soundness of the rigging and anchorages every 10
years.

ERG contacted Stefan Bright of the International Window Cleaning
Association who provided an estimate of 3.0 million descents or 750,000
buildings per year (Bright, 2007). 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. Thus, we have at least 3.3 million
residential buildings with at least 5 or more floors (DOE, 2004).

If we assume 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.

Bright (2007) estimated that a minimum of 20 percent of the building
owners comply with the inspection standard but that the number is
increasing. Comments on the proposed language, however, indicate a wide
range of response that probably reflect the geographical variability in
proportion of building owners that inspect their anchorages on a
periodic basis. Amodeo (2003) mentions some clients view ANSI I-14 as
voluntary and resist having inspections. Kreidenweis (2003) mentions
that very few buildings are inspected by an engineer. In contrast, Lebel
(2003) mentions that many buildings have a roof plan and identified
anchorages certified by a professional engineer. Zeolla (2003) states
that most buildings that have invested in anchors are performing the
inspections.

If we assume approximately 750,000 inspections per year and 75 percent
of them will be affected by the change from a voluntary requirement to a
mandatory requirement, an estimated 562,500 buildings require annual
inspections and decennial certifications.

It is assumed that the annual inspections are performed by a supervisor
and that it takes one hour to perform the inspection.

Table 3-9 summarizes the range in costs estimated for a professional
engineer to certify the anchorages. Kreidenweis (2003) and Lebel (2003)
are comments submitted to OSHA on proposed Subpart D language. The
estimates are deflated to 2003 dollars based on changes in the Consumer
Price Index (CPI-U; CEA, 2007). The costs range from a low of $175 to a
high of $2,500 and probably represent the range in building size,
complexity, and regional variation. The median value is $1,000.

Table 3-9.	Estimated Certification Costs

 	 	 	 	2003 Dollars

 	Estimated Cost	 	Estimated Cost

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

An estimated 562,500 inspections at an inspection cost of $21.97/hr is
about $12.4 million. An estimated 562,500 certifications every ten years
means that 56,250 buildings need to certify every year. At an average
cost of $1,000 for certification this is about $56.3 million. The
estimated total cost of inspecting and certifying anchorages for window
washing is $68.6 million.

§1910.28 Duty to Have Fall Protection

§1910.28(a)(2). This paragraph covers all walking-working surfaces. The
paragraph on general requirements (§1910.22(d)(1)) has a provision for
the employer to inspect walking-working surfaces on a periodic and
regular basis to ensure that the surfaces are in a safe condition for
the employee to use. ERG considers §1910.28(a)(2) to provide further
detail as to what should be considered in an inspection. Thus, ERG
considers the costs for strength and structural integrity inspection,
specified in §1910.28(a)(2), to be included in the costs estimated for
general inspection in §1910.22(d)(1). The costs for §1910.22(d)(1) are
discussed in Section 3.3.2.

§1920.28(b)(4) concerns dockboards. In this paragraph, guardrails or
handrails must be installed if an employee can fall four or more feet to
a lower level. Dockboards with maximum heights of less than four feet
would not incur costs under this paragraph. Dockboards with fall
potential between four feet and 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 must be trained and these requirements are
discussed in Section 3.3.8 below. ERG assumes that a substantial
proportion of dockboards would either not incur costs due to height or
be able to use the exception, thus the costs that would be incurred
under this paragraph are unlikely to be substantial and are not
estimated.

The costs for §1920.28(b)(4)(ii)(B) are included in the estimates for
§1910.30 (see Section 3.3.8).

§1910.28(b)(10)(iii). ERG (2005) reports that, based on discussions
with the Outdoor Advertising Association of America, the number of
billboards with fixed ladders over 20 feet is approximately 20,500. The
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 the 20,500 billboards are climbed six times a year (123,000
climbs). Each time a billboard is about to be climbed, the employee
takes two minutes to inspect the ladder safety device (246,000 minutes
or 4,100 hours). Employees that climb billboards are included under
NAICS 5418 (Advertising and Related Services). In 2003, the average wage
including benefits for this category is $18.895/hr. The estimated cost
to comply with this provision is approximately $77,469 per year.

§1910.28(b)(10)(v) and (vi) refers to outdoor advertising operations.
For the purpose of estimating costs, all employees that climb billboard
are assumed to be “qualified” climbers and that the training for a
qualified climber includes the instruction to have both hands free while
ascending or descending the ladder (§1910.28(b)(10)(vi)). ERG assigns
the costs to train a qualified climber (§1910.28(b)(10)(v)) to
§1910.29(h).

§1910.29 Fall Protection Systems Criteria and Practices

§1910.29(b)(15). The draft language for §1910.29(b)(15) specifies only
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 (hr)

average wage per inspector per industry ($/hr).

At this time, ERG does not have an estimate of the proportion of
guardrail systems that use manila, plastic, or synthetic rope as top
rails or midrails. However, ERG considers it likely that the inspection
of these alternate materials for toprails and siderails would form part
of the inspections performed under §1910.22, the general inspection of
walking-working surfaces for safety. That is, §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,
no additional costs are allocated to this provision.

§1910.29(h). Qualified climbers must:

have climbing duties as one of their routine work activities
(§1910.29(h)(4))

be physically capable of performing the climbing duties
(§1910.29(h)(1))

undergo training or an apprenticeship program (§1910.29(h)(2))

be retrained as necessary (§1910.29(h)(2))

Employers are required to ensure that a qualified climber has the skill
to safely perform the climb. The language for how the employer does this
is open to two interpretations. The first interpretation is that the
employer uses performance observations (i.e., in all cases) and either
formal classroom or on-the-job training. The second interpretation is
that the employer uses performance observations when the climber has had
formal classroom training, or the employer ensures the skill of the
qualified climber through on-the-job training. In the second case, the
employer does not need to personally observe the climber.

The concept of a “qualified climber” is not new. In 1990, Gannett
Outdoor Companies applied for a variance from the fixed ladder
regulations. OSHA considered the application and granted it in 1991. In
1993, OSHA issued an instruction to extend the variance granted to
Gannett Outdoor Companies to other employers (OSHA, 1990, OSHA, 1991b,
and OSHA, 1993). For the purposes of estimating costs, ERG assumes that
90 percent of the employees in the outdoor advertising industry that
climb have been trained as qualified climbers. Thus, there are one-time
costs associated with this paragraph to qualify the remaining 10 percent
of climbers. These costs are annualized over 10 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

Administrative costs to document training and re-training.

For the purpose of estimating one-time costs, ERG assumes that 818
employees that perform construction, installation, maintenance, and
repair operations in NAICS 5418 (advertising and related services) 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 website 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. The prices include materials and the trainer’s
time. For the purposes of estimating costs, ERG assumes a 4-day training
at a cost of $1,500 plus the employee’s time ($605, based on an
average wage of $18.89/hr and 32 hours) for a total of $2,105.
Administrative tasks to document the training are assumed to be 15
minutes of a supervisor’s time for every ten employees trained. The
one-time cost to qualify the estimated 818 climbers of outdoor
advertising/billboard structure is $1.72 million and the annualized cost
is $0.25 million per year.

For the purposes of estimating the annual costs associated with this
paragraph, ERG assumes:

A supervisor observes each of the estimated 8,180 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.

The turnover rate is 43 percent.

The estimated annual cost is $8.2 million of which $7.4 million is due
to the need to train new hires.

§1910.30 Training Programs

§1910.30(a and b) addresses training with respect to fall hazards. The
training must be:

done 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

include the use and operation of guardrail systems, safety net systems,
warning lines used in designated areas, and other (unspecified)
protection to be used

The use, operation, and limitations of personal fall protection systems
including proper hook-up, anchoring and tie-off techniques, methods of
use, and proper methods of equipment inspection and storage as
recommended by the manufacturer.

§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 the subpart D and
their use in accordance with recognized industry practices and
manufacturers recommendations

placement and securing of dockboards to prevent unintentional movement

rigging and safe use of rope descent systems.

The costs for the training allocated under §1910.27(b)(2)(ii) (rope
descent systems) and §1910.28(b)(4) (duty to have fall protection:
dockboards) are thus included in the cost estimate for §1910.30.

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). ERG then applied these industry-specific percentages to the
number of employees for 2003 to estimate the number of employees that
need the type of training now required in §1910.30.

Some companies already provide this training. ERG used the NOES survey
to estimate the level of training, by NAICS code, that is already
provided at the baseline.

For the purpose of estimating costs, ERG assumes that all employees that
have not already been trained and use personal fall protection systems
undergo a 6-hour training on fall hazards to address the §1910.30(a)
and 1910.30(b)(1) requirements.

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 requirements for step
bolts (i.e., a total of 10 hours of training). Employees in NAICS codes
4881 thorough 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 are in NAICS 5617 (services to buildings and dwellings). They
are assumed to have an entire day devoted to training on rope descent
systems (i.e., for a total of 14 hours).

Training must be provided by a qualified person. For the purpose of
estimating costs, ERG assumes that the trainer comes to the workplace.
The $500/day fee includes instruction, travel, lodging, and per diem 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 §1910.30(a and b) is $76.8
million. This cost is annualized over ten years and an interest rate of
seven percent. The annualized cost is $10.9 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 $26.6
million.

§1910.30(c) concerns the need to retrain employees whenever the
employer has reason to believe that retraining is required for safety.
This need can occur through several situations such as changes in the
workplace, fall protection systems, or fall protection equipment that
render previous training invalid, or employee knowledge or use of fall
protection systems or equipment is not adequate. ERG assumes that
retraining already occurs at establishments that already have training
programs in place. For the remaining employees, ERG estimates that five
percent require retraining in any given year. The retraining course is
assumed to be a 1-hour refresher course provided by a supervisor that
focuses on the areas in which the employee is deficient. The estimated
cost is $3.9 million.

§1910.140 Subpart I: Fall Protection

§1910.140(c)(18) states that personal fall protection systems must be
inspected before each use for mildew, wear, damage, and other
deterioration and defective components must be removed from service. For
the purposes of estimating costs, ERG assumes that each employee that
wears a personal fall protection system does so at the beginning of
every workweek, the employee works 50 weeks per year, and the inspection
takes about one minute. The associated inspection cost is approximately
$6.5 million per year.

§1910.132(d) requires an employer to assess the workplace to determine
if hazards are present or are likely to be present.  ERG assumes 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 varied with the
size of the establishment. ERG uses the number of employees as an
indicator of establishment size. The time required for the hazard
assessment is 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) required a hazard assessment.

Half the establishments in wholesale and retail sales (NAICS 4231
through 4543 required a hazard assessment, and

One-quarter of the establishments in the service industries (NAICS 5111
through 8139) required a hazard assessment.

This results in a one-time cost of $61.4 million, which converts to an
annualized cost of $8.7 million.

1910.132(f) requires that employees must be trained prior to using PPE
in the workplace. The costs for this paragraph, then, are included in
the costs for §1910.30.

COST SUMMARY

Tables 3-10 through 3-12 summarize the cost for each paragraph by
industry. Table 3-10 lists the first-year costs. These costs are
incurred once in order 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 $150 million; the annualized
cost is $21.4 million

Table 3-11 lists the recurring costs, such as inspections and training
new employees, for each paragraph by industry. These costs are incurred
annually and are estimated at $138 million. Table 3-12 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 $159
million.

Table 3-10.	First Year Costs for Draft Rule by Paragraph and Industry

NAICS	Title	One-Time Compliance Costs

§1910.22	§1910.23	§1910.24	§1910.27	§1910.28	§1910.29	§1910.30
§1910.140	Total

General Requirements	Ladders	Step Bolts and Manhole Steps	Scaffolds	Duty
To Have Fall Protection	Fall Protection Systems Criteria and Practices
Training Program	Fall Protection

	11	Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting 	$0 	$4,888 	$0 	$0 	$0
$0 	$118,883 	$255,213	$378,985

21	Mining	$0 	$32,158 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$812,380	$249,785	$1,094,322

22	Utilities	$0 	$264,601 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$3,395,451	$1,223,776
$4,883,828

31-33	Manufacturing	$0 	$1,032,811 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$12,446,644
 $9,656,569	$23,136,023

42	Wholesale Trade	$0 	$988,116 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$11,951,856	$6,057,789
$18,997,761

44-45	Retail Trade	$0 	$1,994,544 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$10,688,115
 $16,324,931	$29,007,590

48-49	Transportation	$0 	$214,632 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$3,325,959
 $5,835,456	$9,376,057

51	Information	$0 	$1,266,796 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$15,745,319 	 $1,291,598
$18,303,713

52	Finance and Insurance	$0 	$36,034 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$414,478
 $1,272,696	$1,723,209

53	Real Estate	$0 	$677,782 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$987,389 	 $2,066,125
$3,731,296

54	Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services	$0 	$341,878 	$0 	$0
	$0 	$1,722,243 	$4,494,960 	 $4,778,911	$11,337,991

55	Management of Companies and Enterprises	$0 	$212,882 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$0
$1,618,641	 $713,153	$2,544,676

56	Administrative and Support, Waste Management and Remediation Services
$0 	$1,038,596 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$4,566,956	 $1,914,397	$7,519,949

61	Educational Services	$0 	$66,268 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$ 0	$66,268

62	Health Care	$0 	$32,896 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$829,638	 $3,681,718
$4,544,252

71	Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation	$0 	$140,401 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$0
 $0	$140,401

72	Accommodation and Food Services	$0 	$146,820 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$0
$1,365,409 	 $2,816,666	$4,328,894

81	Other Services	$0 	$1,619,839 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$4,076,932
 $3,260,584	$8,957,355

Total	$0 	$10,111,940 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$1,722,243 	$76,839,020 	$61,399,367
$150,072,569

Table 3-11.	Recurring Costs for Draft Rule by Paragraph and Industry

NAICS	Title	Recurring Compliance Costs

§1910.22	§1910.23	§1910.24	§1910.27	§1910.28	§1910.29	§1910.30
§1910.140	Total

General Requirements	Ladders	Step Bolts and Manhole Steps	Scaffolds	Duty
To Have Fall Protection	Fall Protection Systems Criteria and Practices
Training Program	Fall Protection

	11	Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting 	$50,176	$9,749	$0	$0	$0
$0	$67,934	$11,188	$139,047

21	Mining	$28,119	$13,564	$0	$0	$0	$0	$224,333	$83,243	$349,259

22	Utilities	$71,149	$86,354	$3,374,254	$0	$0	$0	$1,038,196	$227,237
$4,797,190

31-33	Manufacturing	$1,222,602	$453,722	$0	$0	$0	$0	$3,642,109
$1,198,150	$6,516,583

42	Wholesale Trade	$1,960,992	$515,767	$0	$0	$0	$0	$3,774,844	$1,122,007
$7,373,609

44-45	Retail Trade	$2,767,102	$1,727,133	$0	$0	$0	$0	$7,198,744	$963,475
$12,656,453

48-49	Transportation	$595,680	$169,000	$0	$0	$0	$0	$1,005,824	$292,207
$2,062,711

51	Information	$534,145	$394,287	$39,009	$0	$0	$0	$4,246,105	$1,039,061
$6,252,607

52	Finance and Insurance	$444,816	$267,392	$0	$0	$0	$0	$113,666	$40,143
$866,017

53	Real Estate	$297,818	$335,793	$0	$0	$0	$0	$492,275	$89,268	$1,215,154

54	Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services	$1,584,706	$620,592
$0	$0	$77,469	$8,244,729	$2,082,536	$439,181	$13,049,212

55	Management of Companies and Enterprises	$96,745	$121,193	$0	$0	$0	$0
$786,210	$155,606	$1,159,754

56	Administrative and Support, Waste Management and Remediation Services
$518,651	$605,039	$0	$68,608,964	$0	$0	$2,381,116	$334,612	$72,448,383

61	Educational Services	$109,864	$61,381	$0	$0	$0	$0	$23,903	$0	$195,148

62	Health Care	$1,018,491	$317,368	$0	$0	$0	$0	$371,930	$72,467
$1,780,255

71	Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation	$177,842	$113,890	$27,865	$0	$0
$0	$53,206	$0	$372,803

72	Accommodation and Food Services	$661,201	$260,640	$0	$0	$0	$0
$642,934	$111,779	$1,676,554

81	Other Services	$1,096,428	$1,029,466	$0	$0	$0	$0	$2,386,721	$368,146
$4,880,762

Total	$13,236,525	$7,102,329	$3,441,128	$68,608,964	$77,469	$8,244,729
$30,532,586	$6,547,771	$137,791,501

Table 3-12.	Annualized Costs for Draft Rule by Paragraph and Industry

NAICS	Title	Annualized Compliance Costs

§1910.22	§1910.23	§1910.24	§1910.27	§1910.28	§1910.29	§1910.30
§1910.140	Total

General Requirements	Ladders	Step Bolts and Manhole Steps	Scaffolds	Duty
To Have Fall Protection	Fall Protection Systems Criteria and Practices
Training Program	Fall Protection

	11	Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting 	$50,176 	$10,445 	$0
$0 	$0 	$0 	$84,861	$47,524	$193,006

21	Mining	$28,119 	$18,142 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$339,998 	$118,807 	$505,066

22	Utilities	$71,149 	$124,027 	$3,374,254 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$1,521,632
$401,475 	$5,492,537

31-33	Manufacturing	$1,222,602 	$600,771 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$5,414,231
$2,573,028 	$9,810,632

42	Wholesale Trade	$1,960,992 	$656,452 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$5,476,519
$1,984,500 	$10,078,463

44-45	Retail Trade	$2,767,102 	$2,011,111 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$8,720,491
$3,287,778 	$16,786,482

48-49	Transportation	$595,680 	$199,558 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$1,479,367
$1,123,045 	$3,397,650

51	Information	$534,145 	$574,651 	$39,009	$0 	$0 	$0 	$6,487,884
$1,222,955 	$8,858,644

52	Finance and Insurance	$444,816 	$272,522 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$172,679
$221,346	$1,111,363

53	Real Estate	$297,818 	$432,294 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$632,857 	$383,438
$1,746,407

54	Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services	$1,584,706 	$669,267
	$0 	$0 	$77,469 	$8,489,938 	$2,722,517 	$1,119,591 	$14,663,487

55	Management of Companies and Enterprises	$96,745 	$151,503 	$0 	$0 	$0
	$0 	$1,016,668	$257,143	$1,522,058

56	Administrative and Support, Waste Management and Remediation Services
$518,651 	$752,912 	$0 	$68,608,964 	$0 	$0 	$3,031,348 	$607,179
$73,519,055

61	Educational Services	$109,864 	$70,817 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$23,903	$0
$204,583

62	Health Care	$1,018,491 	$322,051 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$490,052 	$596,661
$2,427,254

71	Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation	$177,842 	$133,880 	$27,865	$0
$0 	$0 	$53,206	$0	$392,793

72	Accommodation and Food Services	$661,201 	$281,544 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$0
$837,337 	$512,809 	$2,292,891

81	Other Services	$1,096,428 	$1,260,095 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$0 	$2,967,185
$832,380 	$6,156,088

Total	$13,236,525 	$8,542,042 	$3,441,128	$68,608,964 	$77,469
$8,489,938 	$41,472,733	$15,289,660	$159,158,459

REFERENCES

Amodeo.  2003.  Comments submitted to OSHA docket S029 Exhibit 3-14 by
Linda Amodeo, Vice President, City Wide Building Services, Inc.  Dated
July 24.

ANSI. 2006. ANSI A14.7-2006, American National Standard for Mobile
Ladder Stands and Mobile Ladder Stand Platforms.

ANSI. 2005. ANSI MH30.2-2005, Portable Dock Leveling Devices: Safety
Performance and Testing.

ANSI. 2002. ANSI A14.4-2002, American National Standard Safety
Requirements for Job-Made Wooden Ladders and ANSI A14.5-2002, American
National Standard for Ladders—Portable Reinforced Plastic–Safety
Requirements.

ANSI/IWCA, 2001. American National Standard Institute. International
Window Cleaning Association. Window Cleaning Safety. IWCA I-14.1-2001.
October.

ANSI. 2000. ANSI A14.1-2000, American National Standard for
Ladders—Wood–Safety Requirements; ANSI A14.2-2000, American National
Standard for Ladders—Portable Metal–Safety Requirements; and ANSI
A14.3-2000, American National Standard for Ladders—Fixed–Safety
Requirements.

ANSI. 1995. ANSI A1264, American National Standard Safety Requirements
for Workplace Floor and Wall Openings, Stairs and Railing Systems.

ASTM. 2005 ASTM Standard Specification for Steel Transmission Tower
Bolts, Zinc-Coated and Bare, ASTM A394-05.

ASTM. 2006. ASTM C478-06b. ASTM Standard Specification for Precast
Reinforced Concrete Manhole Sections.

BLS. 2002. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Job Openings and Labor Turnover
Survey. 2002.

Bright.  2007.  Personal communication between Stefan Bright,
International Window Cleaning Association, and Andreas Lord, Eastern
Research Group, Inc.  March 3.

CEA.  2007.  Council of Economic Advisors.  Economic Report of the
President.  February.    HYPERLINK
"http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/2007_erp.pdf"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/2007_erp.pdf .

Census, 2002. U.S. Census Bureau. 2002 Economic Census.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/"
http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/ .

CPSC. 2006. United States Consumer Product Safety Commission. 2006
Performance And Accountability Report. November.
http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PUBS/REPORTS/2006par.pdf

CPSC. 2005. United States Consumer Product Safety Commission. Handbook
for Manufacturing Safer Consumer Products (Chinese). August.
http://www.cpsc.gov/BUSINFO/China/china.html and
http://www.cpsc.gov/BUSINFO/China/HandbookChineseAug05.pdf

CTBUH. 2006. Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. Web Site.
http://www.ctbuh.org/ Accessed 23 August 2006. The database itself is
hosted on the Emporis web site.
http://buildings.emporis.com/?nav=theplatformconcept&lng=3 accessed 23
August 2006.

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. 24 August.

DOE. 2006. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 2003
Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey. Table B10: Number of
Floors, Number of Buildings and Floorspace for Non-Mall Commercial
Buildings.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/cbecs2003/detailed_tables_2003/detail
ed_tables_2003.html"
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/cbecs2003/detailed_tables_2003/detaile
d_tables_2003.html .

DOE. 2004. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 2001
Residential Energy Consumption Surveys. 2001 Housing Characteristics
Tables. Table HC1-1a. Housing Unit Characteristics by Climate Zone,
Million U.S. Households, (2001).
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/detail_tables.html

ERG. 2006. Eastern Research Group, Inc. 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. Submitted to OSHA. September 23.

ERG. 2005. Eastern Research Group, Inc. and Jack Faucett Associates.
Data on Fixed Ladders and Cost Analysis Update in Support of OSHA’s
rulemaking on Walking and Working Surfaces. Submitted to OSHA. April 30.

ERG. 1999. Eastern Research Group Inc., PPE Cost Survey: Final Report.
(Exhibit 14, OSHA Docket S-042: Costs of Personal Protective Equipment).
Prepared for OSHA under Task Order 3, Base Year, DOL Contract No.
J-9-F-9-0010. June 23.

IEEE. 2006. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. IEEE
Standard for Fall Protection for Utility Work. IEEE Standard 1307-2004.
http://standards.ieee.org/reading/ieee/std/numerical.html, accessed July
24, 2006.

IEEE. 2004. IEEE 1307-2004; IEEE Standard for Fall Protection for
Utility Work.

ITC. 2007. United States International Trade Commission. Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (2007). USITC publication 3902.
February.   HYPERLINK "http://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/index.htm"
http://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/index.htm

Kreidenweis.  2003.  Comments submitted to OSHA docket S029 Exhibit
3-126 by Andy Kreidenweis, Braco Window Cleaning Service Inc.  Dated
July 30.

Lebel.  2003.  Comments submitted to OSHA docket S 029, Ex. 3-13 by Marc
Lebel, Pro-Bel Enterprises Limited.  Dated July 18.

NATE. 2006. National Association of Tower Erectors. Web site.
http://www.natehome.com/MemberBenefitsServices/NATECLIMBERTRAININGSTANDA
RD/Index.cfm). Accessed 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.
HYPERLINK "http://www.ncamp.org/poisonpoles/tables/table2.html"
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.   HYPERLINK
"http://safety.transportation.org/htmlguides/utl_pole/exec_sum.htm"
http://safety.transportation.org/htmlguides/utl_pole/exec_sum.htm .

NFPA. 2006. National Fire Protection Association. Standard 101. Life
Safety Code. 2006 Edition. <IP_ADDRESS>.3 Spiral stairs.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.nfpa.org/freecodes/free_access_document.asp"
http://www.nfpa.org/freecodes/free_access_document.asp . Accessed July
24, 2006.

NIOSH. 1988. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Centers for
Disease Control. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.