raise affirmative defenses, such as a claim that the required controls
are not feasible or pose a greater hazard.
    Final paragraph (b)(1)(iii), similar to proposed paragraph
(b)(1)(vi), excepts employers from providing the fall protection
specified in final paragraph (b)(1)(i) when employers can demonstrate
that it is not feasible for workers to use fall protection on the
working side of platforms used at loading racks, loading docks, and
teeming platforms. The ``working side'' is the side of the platform
where workers are in the process of performing a work operation. The
final rule, similar to the proposed rule, specifies that the working
side exception to providing fall protection only applies when the
employer demonstrates infeasibility and:
     The work operation for which fall protection is infeasible
is in process (final paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A));
     The employer limits access to the platform to
``authorized'' workers (final paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)), which the
final rule defines as a worker who the employer assigns to perform a
specific type of duty, or allows to be in a specific location or area
(final Sec.  1910.21(b)); and
     The employer trains authorized workers in accordance with
final Sec.  1910.30 (final paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(C)). Section 1910.30
requires, among other things, that employers train workers, including
authorized workers, to recognize fall hazards and the procedures to
follow to minimize them.
    OSHA notes that, in limited cases, it may not be possible for
workers to perform work operations if fall protection, such as
guardrails, interferes with access to the work operation. However, as
the final rule specifies, the issue of blocking access to the work
operation is a concern only when workers are in the process of
performing the work operation. As a result, fall protection, such as
guardrails, must be in place or used when workers are not performing a
work operation on the working side of a platform. OSHA believes that
fall protection does not interfere with performing tasks such as
maintenance, cleaning, and similar tasks; therefore, when workers are
performing these tasks, employers must provide fall protection.
    Final paragraph (b)(1)(iii) differs from the proposal in two
respects. First, the final rule deletes the proposed exception for the
``working side'' of slaughtering facility platforms (proposed paragraph
(b)(1)(iv)). Based on evidence in the record, OSHA decided to regulate
those platforms separately in final paragraph (b)(14).
    Second, the exception in the final rule only applies when the
employer demonstrates that no fall protection system is feasible. The
proposed rule applied the exception when the employer demonstrates
guardrail systems are not feasible (proposed paragraph (b)(1)(vi)).
Therefore, to the extent fall protection systems other than guardrails
are feasible, such as travel restraint or personal fall arrest systems,
the employer would have to provide those systems and the exception
would not apply.
    Stacked materials. In the proposed rule, OSHA raised an issue about
whether there is a need to promulgate specific requirements to address
the use of fall protection when employees work and climb four feet or
more above a lower level on stacked materials, such as stacks of steel
and precast concrete products that are being stored or loaded onto
motor vehicles and rail cars for transport (75 FR 28868). OSHA noted in
the proposed rule that the Agency uses Sec.  1910.23, Sec.  1910.132
and the general duty clause (29 U.S.C. 654(a)(1)) to protect workers
who climb and stand on stacked materials from falling (75 FR 28868).
    By 2004, the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) and Precast/
Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) had raised the issue of fall
protection on stacked materials (75 FR 28868; Exs. 5; 41). In general,
they both said using fall protection, such as ``guardrails or tie-off
protection,'' on stacked materials was infeasible or creates a greater
hazard (75 FR 28868). AISI said workers at steel and steel product
companies ``need to stand on `stacks' of product that have a large
surface area in order to rig bundles for crane lifts and similar
activities'' or ``[load] products onto truck trailers and railcars''
(Ex. 5, AISI's comments on the Office of Management and Budget ``Draft
Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations'').
They characterized the solutions OSHA recommended to protect those
workers (i.e., guardrails around stacked materials, magnet cranes, and
safety lines around vehicle trailers and rail cars) as ``not feasible''
and ones that could ``create its own serious safety hazard.'' For
example, AISI said safety lines would interfere with movement of the
product and magnet cranes cannot connect to single bundles.
    PCI, in a January 3, 2000, letter requesting an exception from
existing fall protection requirements for loading/unloading precast
concrete products on motor vehicles and for stacking, storing, and
loading/unloading precast concrete products in the plant, said workers
need to access the top of concrete products for only ``very short
periods of time'' to connect/disconnect lifting devices or rigging (Ex.
41). They said installing a fall protection system, by contrast, would
expose employees to fall hazards for ``an extended period of time''
and,

therefore, poses a greater hazard (Ex. 41). PCI also pointed out that
the OSHA construction fall protection standard does not require that
workers use fall protection when unloading precast concrete at
construction sites (Ex. 41).\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ OSHA notes that the definition of ``walking-working
surface'' in the construction fall protection standard does not
include rolling stock and motor vehicles (29 CFR 1926.500(b)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AISI and PCI recommended that OSHA allow employers to use
alternative measures, such as safe work practices and training,
including a ``mentor system hands-on process for training'' (Exs. 5;
41). AISI said OSHA should require guardrails or tie-off protection
only ``where practical'' and be permitted to use an ``alternative
practice'' and provide training where it is not (Ex. 5). However, AISI
did not identify any alternative practices that would provide adequate
protection for employees working on stacked materials. PCI said
employers should be allowed to provide ``individual instruction as well
as have a mentor system hands on training process'' instead using fall
protection systems on stacked materials (Ex. 41). PCI also recommended
that employees perform ``corrective and detail work'' at the ground
level or from a ladder or mobile-elevating work platform instead of on
the stacked materials.
    OSHA received a number of comments in response to the proposed
rule, most of which supported requiring the use of fall protection on
stacked materials (Exs. 127; 155; 161; 185; 198; 205; 238). For
example, ASSE stated:

    ASSE cannot agree with ``some commentators (who) have
recommended that OSHA allow the use of safe work practices by
trained employees in lieu of conventional fall protection for
certain activities,'' . . . . If employers are going to ask
employees to climb on stacked materials where there are fall hazards
and, typically, exposure to falls off the sides to lower levels,
employers have the duty to warn, train and protect workers from
falls. In our members' experience, this is not infeasible or
unreasonable to ask (Ex. 127).

    The Society of Professional Rope Access Technicians (SPRAT) said
``the prevalence of incidents that have occurred in these situations''
warrants a requirement to use ``fall protection of some sort'' on
stacked materials (Ex. 205). SPRAT recommended allowing employers to
use industrial rope access systems (IRAS) to protect employees because
they said it would mitigate any difficulty or impossibility of using
``measures previously recognized by OSHA as being `conventional' ''
(Ex. 205). SPRAT further recommended:

    [I]f OSHA's language toward protection against falls were less
method-specific and more results-oriented, competent and qualified
persons would have greater latitude in creating protective systems
that would be very protective without having to use a proscribed
method. OSHA would be well-advised to permit use of such systems so
long as they are approved by a Qualified Person, created by a
Competent Person, and appropriate training [is] provided to the
Authorized Person (Ex. 205).

    OSHA did not propose to cover IRAS and the final rule clarifies
that IRAS are not rope descent systems (Sec.  1910.21(b)). Given that,
OSHA is not adopting SPRAT's recommendations.
    Several commenters said fall protection systems to protect
employees working on stacked materials are feasible and currently in
use in general industry (Exs. 155; 185; 198). For instance, ISEA and
CSG said fall protection manufacturers have developed and are supplying
employers with such systems, including ``trailer-mounted systems, A-
frames, rope grab systems, and ropes at tie-off points'' (Exs. 185;
198). They added that manufacturers also create custom fall protection
systems (Exs. 185; 198). Ellis Fall Safety Solutions (Ellis) said that
temporary and permanent wheeled and fork[hyphen]lifted devices with
railed personal fall protection anchorages are available for loading/
unloading operations and should be required for stacked materials (Ex.
155; see also 148; 158; 198; 355-2). Ellis also pointed out that these
systems can provide fall protection over a large surface area (i.e.,
``up to 30 ft.'') (Ex. 155).
    PCI and the International Sign Association (ISA), in response to
the proposed rule, submitted comments opposing any requirement for fall
protection on stacked materials (Exs. 161; 238). PCI said in the 14
years since their request for an exception from the existing fall
protection requirements they had ``not learned of any system or
device'' that would change their position that requiring the use of
fall protection on stacked materials is infeasible and would create a
greater hazard (Ex. 238).
    ISA, like PCI and AISI, argued that it is infeasible to require the
use of fall protection on stacked cargo and motor vehicles (Ex. 161).
In particular, ISA said permanent attachment of fall protection
equipment to motor vehicles is not feasible because the area of the
truck bed normally available for walking or working is usually quite
small and such equipment would interfere with the utility of trucks as
cargo-carrying vehicles. Like PCI and AISI, ISA also recommended that
OSHA ``should provide flexibility for employers in terms of
implementing alternative practices, appropriate training, or both''
(Ex. 161).
    ISA also appeared to suggest that installing fall protection for
employees working on stacked materials would create a greater hazard.
ISA said employees stand or work on stacked materials only
``occasionally'' and ``temporarily'' to perform operations that ``are
strictly associated with rigging of cargo items for hoisting,''
implying that rigging stacked cargo only exposes employees to fall
hazards for a very brief period of time compared to the time necessary
to install fall protection systems (Ex. 161).
    After reviewing the rulemaking record, OSHA does not agree that
requiring fall protection on stacked materials is infeasible or could
create a greater hazard. OSHA finds there is substantial evidence
showing that a number of fall protection systems for stacked materials
are available and already are in use in general industry (Exs. 155;
185; 198). For example, commenters said wheeled, trailer-mounted and
fork-lifted overhead anchor and retractable line systems are available
and in use to protect employees working on stacked materials (Exs. 155;
185; 198. See also, e.g., Exs. 148; 158; 355-2; OSHA-S029-2006-0662-
0373). These stand-alone systems can be used for stacking, storing, and
loading/unloading stacked materials in open yards and plants as well as
for loading/unloading stacked materials on rolling stock and motor
vehicles (e.g., Ex. 355-2). In addition, the record shows that other
fall protection systems employers use for loading/unloading stacked
cargo on rolling stock and motor vehicles also work for materials that
are stacked or stored in yards or plants. These systems include mobile
work platforms, scissor lifts and stairs equipped with railings/
guardrails that allow workers to access stacked materials without
standing on them (e.g., Exs. 63; 124; 169; 181; 335; OSHA-S029-2006-
0662-0208; OSHA-S029-2006-0662-0227; OSHA-S029-2006-0662-0350; OSHA-
S029-2006-0662-0373).
    Finally, OSHA also concludes that the final rule does not need to
include specific or separate requirements addressing stacked materials.
OSHA believe that final Sec.  1910.28(b)(1) (Unprotected sides and
edges) and (b)(15) (Walking-working surfaces not otherwise addressed)
adequately address fall protection on stacked materials.
    Hoist areas. Final paragraph (b)(2), like the proposed rule,
establishes fall

protection requirements for workers who work in hoist areas that are
four feet or more above a lower level. The final rule defines a ``hoist
area'' as an elevated access opening to a walking-working surface
through which equipment or materials are loaded or received (final
Sec.  1910.21(b)).
    Final paragraph (b)(2)(i) requires employers to protect workers in
hoist areas from falls by:
     Guardrail systems (final paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A));
     Personal fall arrest systems (final paragraph
(b)(2)(i)(B)); or
     Travel restraint systems (final paragraph (b)(2)(i)(C)).
    The construction fall protection standard includes a similar
provision requiring that employers provide guardrail or personal fall
arrest systems to protect workers in hoist areas that are six feet or
more above a lower level (Sec.  1926.501(b)(3)). This final rule
provides greater control flexibility than the construction standard
because it also allows employers to provide travel restraint systems to
protect workers. OSHA received no comments on the proposed provision
and it is finalized as discussed.
    Final paragraph (b)(2)(ii), like the proposed and construction
rules (Sec.  1926.501(b)(3)), requires that, if removing any portion of
a guardrail system, gate, or chains and if the worker leans through or
over the edge of the access opening to facilitate hoisting, the
employer must protect the worker from falling by a personal fall arrest
system. The proposed rule required that employers provide ``grab
handles'' on each side of a hoist area opening, in addition to a
personal fall arrest system, if removing the guardrail, gate, or chains
and if the worker leans out the access opening. The existing rule does
not have a specific provision addressing hoist areas. However, the
existing provisions on wall openings and holes requires that both sides
of openings and holes have grab handles if the rail, half door, or
other equivalent barrier is removed (existing Sec.  1910.23(b)(1)). In
addition, where the structure has extension platforms onto which
employers may place hoisted materials, the existing rule requires that
employers provide side rails or equivalent guards to protect workers
(existing Sec.  1910.23(b)(ii)). OSHA notes that it adopted the
existing rule in 1971, before personal fall arrest systems were widely
available.
    OSHA only received one comment on the proposed provision. Ameren
recommended that OSHA define what would qualify as a grab handle to
ensure the final rule does not result in confusion or misinterpretation
(Ex. 189). After further consideration, OSHA believes it is not
necessary for employers to provide grab handles in addition to personal
fall arrest systems if removing guardrails, gates, or chains and if
workers look through or over the edge of an access opening to
facilitate hoisting. OSHA believes that personal fall arrest systems
provide adequate worker protection, and better protection than grab
handles, therefore, OSHA does not carry forward the proposed
requirement on grab handles. Of course, employers are free to provide
grab handles or other handholds in addition to personal fall arrest
systems in those situations. OSHA believes that the revisions in the
final rule address Ameren's concern and the provision is finalized as
discussed.
    Final paragraph (b)(2)(iii), specifies that if grab handles are
installed at hoist areas, they must meet the requirements of Sec.
1910.29(l). Employers are not required to install grab handles at hoist
areas; however, if they do install grab handles, the handles must meet
the criteria specified in Sec.  1910.29(l). Although OSHA believes it
is not necessary to install grab handles at hoist areas when workers
use a personal fall arrest system, the Agency recognizes grab handles
can provide some security when workers must lean out from a hoist area.
In those cases, OSHA believes it is important for grab handles to be of
a certain size, have sufficient clearance, and be capable of
withstanding the forces placed on them.
    Holes. Final paragraph (b)(3) consolidates the proposed
requirements to protect workers from falls associated with holes
(proposed paragraph (b)(3)) and floor holes (proposed paragraph
(b)(14)), and requires that employers protect workers from falling into
or through any hole, including skylights, stairway floor holes,
ladderway floor holes, hatchway and chute-floor holes, and other holes
on roofs. The final rule defines a ``hole'' as a gap or open space in a
floor, roof, horizontal walking-working surface, or other similar
surface that is at least 2 inches in its least dimension (final Sec.
1910.21(b)). Although skylights may be covered by screens or other
material, for the purposes of this definition and the final rule, OSHA
classifies skylights as holes. Falling into a hole or tripping and
possibly falling due to a hole in a walking-working surface may injure
or kill a worker.
    OSHA believes that consolidating the requirements for protecting
workers from falling into or tripping on a hole is appropriate because
the hazards generally associated with these conditions, and the methods
to address these hazards, are the same. Moreover, consolidating the
provisions makes the final rule easier to understand and follow, which
will enhance employer compliance.
    In the final rule, OSHA moved the proposed requirement (proposed
paragraph (b)(3)(iii)) to protect workers on walking-working surfaces
from being hit by objects falling through overhead holes to final
paragraph (c), Protection from falling objects. The final rule
consolidates all requirements addressing falling object hazards in
final paragraph (c).
    OSHA received one general comment on the proposed requirements to
protect workers from falling or stepping into, or tripping on, holes.
Ellis Fall Safety Solutions (Ellis) said the final rule should require
that employers not leave holes exposed or uncovered for more than two
minutes and assign a ``standby person'' to be present to warn workers
about the hole until employers cover or barricade the hole (Ex. 155).
Ellis also said the final rule should require that employers use two
means to protect employers from falling into holes as a way ``to
safeguard the next trade or planned work'' (Ex. 155). For example,
Ellis suggested that employers cover the hole with a plywood board as
the primary means of protection and, as the secondary protection,
attach a net to a bar joist underneath the hole using a scissor lift.
OSHA believes the final rule provides a reasonable and appropriate
level of protection. Any of the fall protection systems specified by
the final rule will protect workers from falling, tripping, or stepping
into holes. OSHA believes the final rule already ensures the ``next
trade'' is safeguarded from holes. The final rule requires that all
employers in any trade must conduct inspections of walking-working
surfaces and maintain those surfaces in a safe condition before
allowing workers to work there (final Sec.  1910.22(d)(1)). OSHA notes
that employers are free to use more than one measure to protect workers
from hazards associated with holes.
    Final paragraph (b)(3)(i) requires that employers ensure workers
are protected from falling through any hole (including skylights) that
is four feet or more above a lower level using one or more of the
following:
     A cover over the hole (paragraph (b)(3)(i)(A));
     A guardrail system around the hole (paragraph
(b)(3)(i)(B));
     A travel restraint system (paragraph (b)(3)(i)(C)); or
     A personal fall arrest system (paragraph (b)(3)(i)(D)).
    Final paragraph (b)(3)(i) is the same as the proposed rule, and
provides greater

control flexibility than the existing general industry and construction
fall protection rules (existing Sec.  1910.23(a)(4), (8), and (9), and
Sec.  1926.501(b)(4)). The existing general industry rule only allows
employers to guard holes using standard railings (guardrails) or, in
some situations, a cover. The construction rule does not include travel
restraint systems as a fall protection option to protect workers from
falling into holes (Sec.  1926.501(b)(4)(i)).
    Final paragraph (b)(3)(ii) requires that employers ensure workers
are protected from tripping into or stepping into or through any hole
that is less than four feet above a lower level by covers or guardrail
systems. The final rule differs from the proposal in two ways. First,
final paragraph (b)(3)(ii) clarifies that OSHA intended that the
proposed requirement only applied to holes that are less than four feet
above a lower level. Where a hole is four feet or more above a lower
level, the requirements in final paragraph (b)(3)(i) apply and ensure
that workers do not step or trip into the hole or fall into it. Second,
final paragraph (b)(3)(ii) provides greater control flexibility than
the proposal and the construction fall protection standard because it
adds guardrail systems as an alternative option employers may use to
protect workers from tripping or stepping into holes. Proposed
paragraph (b)(3)(ii) and the construction standard (Sec.
1926.501(b)(4)(ii)) only permit employers to use covers to prevent
stepping or tripping into holes.
    Final paragraph (b)(3)(iii), like the existing standard (Sec.
1910.23(a)(1)) and the proposed rule (proposed paragraph (b)(14)(i)),
requires that employers ensure workers are protected from falling into
stairway floor holes by a fixed guardrail system erected on all exposed
sides, except at the stairway entrance. The final rule also carries
forward, with revisions, the existing and proposed exception for
stairways when (1) used less than once a day and (2) traffic across the
opening prevents the use of a fixed guardrail system (e.g., stairway
floor hole located in store aisle). In that situation, employers may
protect workers from falling using a hinged floor-hole cover that meets
the criteria in Sec.  1910.29 plus a removable guardrail system on all
exposed sides except the stairway entrance. The exception in the final
rule is consistent with ANSI/ASSE A1264.1-2007, Safety Requirements for
Workplace Walking/Working Surfaces and Their Access; Workplace, Floor,
Wall and Roof Openings; Stairs and Guardrails Systems (ANSI/ASSE
A1264.1-2007).
    OSHA also clarifies the ``infrequently used'' language in the
existing exception by incorporating the language in a note in the
proposed rule stating that ``infrequently used'' means using the
stairways ``on less than a daily basis.'' The exception in the final
rule also clarifies the language in the existing and proposed rules
requiring that the hinged floor-hole cover be of ``standard strength
and construction'' by specifying that the cover must meet the criteria
in final Sec.  1910.29, specifically Sec.  1910.29(e). OSHA believes
the language in the final rule will make the rule easier for employers
to understand and follow. For example, requiring that the hinged floor-
hole cover meet the requirements in Sec.  1910.29 ensures that they
will support, without failure, at least twice the maximum intended load
that may be imposed on the cover (final Sec.  1910.29(e)(1)). This is
important because a hinged floor-hole cover, like all covers, need an
adequate margin of safety to ensure they are capable of supporting
intended loads, and to account for the possibility of unforeseen
traffic across the cover.
    In addressing stairways used less than once a day, OSHA requested
information and comment in the proposed rule on using automatically
rising railings that come into position when a load-bearing hinged
floor-hole cover opens (75 FR 28892). Explanatory paragraph E3.1 in
ANSI/ASSE A1264.1-2007 states that the removable guardrail system
required for infrequently used stairways should be ``hinged or
otherwise mounted so as to come into position automatically with the
opening of the [hinged floor-hole] cover.'' Ameren commented, ``As long
as the automatic rising railings are an option and not the only method
of protection this provision would be feasible'' (Ex. 189). OSHA did
not receive any comments supporting making automatically rising
guardrails mandatory, and the final rule does not include such a
requirement.
    Final paragraph (b)(3)(iv), similar to the existing (Sec.
1910.23(a)) and proposed (proposed paragraph (b)(14)(ii)) rules,
requires that employers ensure they protect workers from falling into
ladderway floor holes or ladderway platform holes by providing a
guardrail system and toeboards on all exposed sides, except at the hole
entrance. In addition, the final rule requires that employers protect
the access opening in the guardrail system by using a ``self-closing''
gate or an offset so workers cannot walk or step into the hole.
    Final paragraph (b)(3)(iv) substitutes ``self-closing'' gate for
``swinging'' gate language in the existing and proposed rules. The
purpose of these gates, when open, is to provide a means of access to
ladderway floor holes and, when closed, to provide guardrail protection
that meets of all the criteria in final paragraph (b). The term
``swinging'' gate, as used in the existing and proposed rules, refers
to gates that automatically swing back into a closed position when the
opening is not being used for access to prevent workers from falling
into the ladderway hole. These are sometimes called ``safety gates''
(Ex. 68). If gates do not swing automatically into a closed position,
they do not provide the required guardrail protection.
    OSHA is aware that, in addition to swinging gates, there are
automatically closing sliding gates that are currently manufactured,
readily available, and in use to protect workers from falling into
ladderway floor and platform holes. OSHA believes these sliding gates
provide protection that is as effective as the protection swinging
gates provide. Therefore, to give employers the flexibility to use the
type of automatically closing gate that works best for them, OSHA uses
the term ``self-closing'' gates in final paragraph (b)(3)(iv).
    OSHA received one comment on the proposed requirement. Edison
Electric Institute (EEI) recommended that OSHA allow employers to use
double chains ``around holes used as points of access (such as
ladderways)'' (Ex. 207). ``Many industrial facilities use double chains
instead of swinging gates or guardrails at the top of fixed ladders,''
EEI said. ``These have been effective for a number of decades'' (Ex.
207). EEI also pointed out that the 1990 proposed rule would have
allowed the use of chains, in addition to swinging gates and offsets,
at the access openings in the guardrail systems.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See also Letter to Mr. Stephen Hazelton (5/23/2005) that
states:
    [T]he [1990] proposed paragraph at 1910.28(b)(6) permits the use
of movable guardrail sections such as gates, chains, and other
means, which, when open, provide a means of access and, when closed,
provide the guardrail protection that meets the proposed paragraphs
1910.28(b)(1) through (b)(5). An employer's compliance with the
proposed rule, in lieu of compliance with an existing rule
[1910.23(a)(2)], is considered as a de minimis violation.
    This letter available on OSHA's website at:
    https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=25100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA has not adopted EEI's recommendation. In the preamble to the
2010 proposed rule, OSHA said the new proposed rule replaces the 1990
proposal (75 FR 28863). Unlike the 1990 proposal, proposed paragraph
(b)(14)(ii)

did not permit employers to use double chains in place of self-closing
gates or offsets. As mentioned, OSHA believes that chains less
protective than self-closing gates or off sets. Self-closing gates and
offsets are passive fall protection methods that automatically restore
guardrail protection as soon as the worker passes through the opening
or offset area. Neither method requires the worker to take any action
to restore that protection. However, if employers provide double chains
at entrances to ladderway floor or platform holes, their employees
would have to remove the chains and reattach them once they pass
through the opening. If workers forget or fail to reattach the chains,
they and others in the area could fall through the hole. Workers also
are at increased risk of falling through the hole once they enter the
area inside the guardrails to climb down the ladder because they have
to turn around and away from the hole to reattach the chains and risk
falling backward into the hole. If workers avoid this risk by not
reattaching the chains, it exposes other workers to the risk of a fall
when they approach the opening in the guardrail system. OSHA believes
that double chains do not fully protect workers from falls at hole
entrances, and therefore, is adopting the existing and proposed
requirements that entrances to ladderway floor and platform holes have
a self-closing gate or be offset to prevent workers from falling.
    Final paragraph (b)(3)(v), like proposed paragraph (b)(14)(iii),
requires that employers ensure workers are protected from falling
through hatchway and chute-floor holes by one of the following:
     A hinged floor-hole cover and a fixed guardrail system
that leaves only one exposed side.\51\ When the hole is not in use, the
employer must ensure the cover is closed or a removable guardrail
system provided on all exposed sides (final paragraph (b)(3)(v)(A));
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ OSHA used the term ``permanently attached'' guardrail
system in the proposal. In the final rule, OSHA uses the term
``fixed'' guardrail systems, which OSHA considers to be equivalent
to, but clearer than, the proposed term.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A removable guardrail system and toeboards on not more
than two sides of the hole and a fixed guardrail system on all other
exposed sides. The employer must ensure the removable guardrail system
remains in place when the hole is not in use (final paragraph
(b)(3)(v)(B)); or
     A guardrail system or travel restraint system when the
work operation necessitates passing material through a hatchway or
chute floor hole (final paragraph (b)(3)(v)(C)).
    With one exception (final paragraph (b)(3)(v)(C)), the final rule
generally is consistent with existing Sec.  1910.23(a)(3) and A1264.1-
2007 (Section 3.1). Final paragraph (b)(3)(v)(C) adds a requirement
that employers provide a guardrail system or travel restraint system
when workers need to pass materials through a hatchway or chute-floor
hole. The existing and ANSI rules only state that ``protection shall be
provided to prevent a person from falling through the opening,'' but do
not specify what protection is needed. OSHA believes the final rule is
more protective and clearer than these rules because it specifies how
employers must protect workers. OSHA adopts final paragraph (b)(3) as
discussed.
    Dockboards. Final paragraph (b)(4) adds fall protection
requirements to protect workers on dockboards. The final rule defines a
``dockboard'' as a portable or fixed device for spanning a gap or
compensating for the elevation difference between a loading platform
and a transport vehicle. Dockboards include, but are not limited to
bridge plates, dock plates, and dock levelers. (final Sec.
1910.21(b)).
    Final paragraph (b)(4)(i), like the proposal, requires that
employers ensure each worker on a dockboard is protected from falling
four feet or more to a lower level by a guardrail system or handrails.
The final rule limits the fall protection options that employers may
use. OSHA believes guardrails and handrails will provide adequate
protection for workers. In addition, employers can use them on
dockboards while other options may not work. For example, it may not be
possible to install anchorages on dockboards that would support the use
of personal fall arrest systems.
    OSHA notes that in some situations there may be insufficient space
between the dock and the transport vehicle for a worker to fall and,
therefore, no fall hazard would exist. In that situation, final
paragraph (b)(4)(i) would not apply.
    Final paragraph (b)(4)(ii), like the proposal, includes an
exception specifying that employers do not have to provide a guardrail
system or handrails when:
     Using the dockboard solely for materials-handling
operations using motorized equipment (final paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A));
     Workers engaged in motorized material-handling operations
are not exposed to fall hazards greater than 10 feet (final paragraph
(b)(4)(ii)(B)); and
     Employers train those workers in accordance with Sec.
1910.30 (final paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(C)).
    Final paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(C) does not include the proposed
language identifying the subjects that training must address. The
requirements in final Sec.  1910.30 cover all of the topics OSHA
proposed, thus, OSHA does not believe it is necessary to repeat them in
this provision.
    OSHA believes the exception in final paragraph (b)(4)(ii) is
appropriate. Employers often use motorized equipment to move large and
heavy material across dockboards. However, such equipment may not fit
on a dockboard that has guardrails or handrails. Preventing workers
from using motorized equipment to move the material may expose them to
other hazards, such as risk of injury associated with lifting and
carrying heavy materials. OSHA did not receive any comments on the
proposed dockboard requirements, and finalizes the provisions as
discussed.
    Runways and similar walkways. Final paragraph (b)(5) specifies the
fall protection systems that employers must provide to protect workers
from falling off runways and similar walkways. The proposed and final
rules define a ``runway'' as an elevated walking-working surface (Sec.
1910.21(b)). For purposes of the final rule, runways include catwalks,
foot walks along shafting, and elevated walkways between buildings.
    Final paragraph (b)(5)(i), like the proposed rule, retains the
existing requirement (Sec.  1910.23(c)(2)) that employers must protect
workers on runways or similar walkways from falling four feet or more
to a lower level by a guardrail system. The final rule generally is
consistent with the construction fall protection standard (Sec.
1926.501(b)(6)). Like dockboards, the final rule limits the fall
protection options employers may use. OSHA believes that guardrails
will provide adequate protection from falls, and that other options may
not work on runways. For example, it may not be possible for employers
to install anchorages and other components of personal fall protection
systems that would protect workers from falling off runways while still
allowing them to walk on the runway.
    Final paragraph (b)(5)(i) no longer includes the existing and
proposed requirement that employers provide toeboards on both sides of
runways if workers are likely to use tools, machine parts, or other
objects on the runway. The primary purpose of requiring toeboards is to
prevent objects from

falling onto workers on a lower level. As mentioned earlier, OSHA
consolidated all requirements addressing falling object hazards in
final paragraph (c), and, therefore, does not repeat them here.
    Final paragraph (b)(5)(ii), which is similar to the proposed rule,
addresses runways used exclusively for special purposes, such as
filling tank cars. The final paragraph requires that when the employer
can demonstrate that it is not feasible to have guardrails on both
sides of special purpose runways, the employer may omit the guardrail
on one side, provided the employer:
     Ensures that the runway is at least 18 inches wide (final
paragraph (b)(5)(ii)(A)); and
     Provides each worker with, and ensures that each worker
uses, a personal fall arrest system or travel restraint system (final
paragraph (b)(5)(ii)(B)).
    The final rule clarifies two points in the proposed rule. First,
the final rule clarifies that guardrails may be omitted from a special
purpose runway only when the employer can demonstrate that it is not
feasible to have guardrails on both sides of the runway. Feasibility is
the standard test of whether employer action is possible, and OSHA
believes employers are familiar with, and understand, it.
    Second, final paragraph (b)(5)(ii)(B) clarifies the language in the
proposed rule requiring that employers ensure ``the proper use of
personal fall arrest systems or travel restraint systems.'' This
provision means that employers may omit a guardrail on one side of a
special purpose runway only when the employer both provides and ensures
that each worker properly uses a personal fall arrest system or travel
restraint system.
    OSHA notes that the final rule provides greater protection for
workers than both the existing rule (Sec.  1910.23(c)(2)) and A1264.1-
2007 (Section 5.2). Although these standards specify that employers may
omit a guardrail on one side of a special use runway only if they use a
runway that is at least 18 inches wide (consistent with final paragraph
(b)(5)(ii)(A)), the standards do not require that employers provide,
and ensure that workers use, personal fall arrest or travel restraint
systems while on those runways.
    OSHA received no comments on the proposed runway requirements, and
adopts them with the revisions discussed above.
    Dangerous equipment. Final paragraph (b)(6) addresses the hazards
associated with working above dangerous equipment. Final Sec.
1910.21(b) adopts the definition of ``dangerous equipment'' in the
construction fall protection standard (Sec.  1926.500(b)). The
definition also specifies that such equipment includes vats, tanks,
electrical equipment, machinery, machinery with protruding parts, or
similar units that, because of their function or form, may harm a
worker who falls into or onto the equipment. The existing rule in Sec.
1910.23(c)(3) also provides examples of equipment OSHA considers to be
dangerous, including pickling or galvanizing tanks and degreasing
units. The definition of dangerous equipment in this final rule
includes similar equipment. OSHA added a definition of dangerous
equipment to the final rule in response to Northrup Grumman
Shipbuilding's (NGS) recommendation that OSHA define the term so that
employers understand what equipment the final rule covers (Ex. 180).
    This final rule, like the proposed rule, includes requirements for
protecting workers who are working less than four feet above dangerous
equipment. OSHA believes it is necessary to protect workers from
falling onto or into dangerous equipment regardless of how far above
the equipment they are working. Falling less than four feet into or
onto equipment that has sharp, protruding, or moving parts could kill
or seriously injure a worker.
    When workers are less than four feet above dangerous equipment,
final paragraph (b)(6)(i), like the proposed rule, requires that
employers protect workers from falling into or onto the dangerous
equipment using a guardrail system or a travel restraint system, unless
the equipment is covered or guarded to eliminate the hazard. The
existing rule in Sec.  1910.23(c)(3) requires that, regardless of
height, employers must protect workers who are working above dangerous
equipment using guardrails and toeboards. The construction fall
protection standard contains a provision requiring guardrails or
equipment guards when workers are working less than six feet above
dangerous equipment (Sec.  1926.501(b)(8)).
    OSHA believes final paragraph (b)(6)(i), which allows employers to
protect their workers by providing either guardrails or travel
restraint systems, but does not require toeboards, provides greater
control flexibility than the existing rule without compromising worker
safety. OSHA believes that either guardrails or travel restraint
systems provide sufficient protection for workers above dangerous
equipment. Therefore, OSHA does not believe that toeboards, which
primarily protect workers from falling objects from higher levels, are
necessary. Accordingly, OSHA deleted the existing toeboard requirement,
but notes that final paragraph (c)(1) of this section requires that
employers provide toeboards to protect workers from objects falling
from higher levels and hitting them.
    OSHA notes that the final rule does not permit employers to use
safety nets or personal fall arrest systems when workers are less than
four feet above dangerous equipment. At these heights, safety nets and
personal fall arrest systems may not be safe to use because there may
not be sufficient stopping distance to prevent a falling worker from
making contact with the dangerous equipment.
    Final paragraph (b)(6)(i), like the proposal, does not require
employers to use guardrails or travel restraint systems if the employer
covers or guards dangerous equipment and the worker is less than four
feet above the equipment. OSHA believes that covering or guarding
dangerous equipment that is less than four feet below workers
adequately eliminates the hazard.
    When workers are four feet or more above dangerous equipment, final
paragraph (b)(6)(ii), like the proposed rule, requires that employers
protect workers from falling by providing:
     Guardrail systems (final paragraph (b)(6)(ii)(A));
     Safety net systems (final paragraph (b)(6)(ii)(B));
     Travel restraint systems (final paragraph (b)(6)(ii)(C));
or
     Personal fall arrest systems (final paragraph
(b)(6)(ii)(D)).
    Final paragraph (b)(6)(ii) provides more control flexibility for
employers than the existing rule, which requires that employers protect
workers from falling onto or into dangerous equipment by providing a
guardrail system. OSHA believes that allowing employers to use a range
of fall protection options ensures that employers will be able to
select the fall protection option that best fits the particular
workplace situation and conditions.
    OSHA received two comments on the proposed provision. Verallia
recommended that OSHA delete the requirement because they said the
proposal was ``too subjective and vague'' and ``could be interpreted
differently'' (Ex. 171). However, Verallia did not provide examples or
further explain its recommendation. As mentioned earlier, this final
rule adds a definition of dangerous equipment, which also includes
examples of specific equipment OSHA considers to be dangerous. The
final rule specifically

and clearly identifies what constitutes dangerous equipment, what
protections employers must provide at specific heights, and when and at
what height employers can protect workers from falling using fall
protection options other than guardrails or travel restraint systems.
Moreover, OSHA believes the examples of equipment OSHA defines as being
dangerous specifically clarifies, in objective terms, under what
conditions employers must comply with the final rule and, therefore,
reduces the possibility of conflicting interpretations.
    The second commenter, NGS, said the proposed rule was not as
protective as the existing rule and would not provide an equivalent
level of protection from ``open pits, vats, etc.'' as existing Sec.
1910.22(c) (Ex. 180). NGS recommended that ``standard guardrails be
required around open tanks'' and ``vats that contain hazardous
substances that pose an immediate threat to life'' (Ex. 180). OSHA does
not believe including NGS's recommendations are necessary in this final
rule. First, although final paragraph (b)(6) does not retain existing
Sec.  1910.22(c) as a separate provision, OSHA incorporated into the
final definition of dangerous equipment all of the equipment Sec.
1910.22(c) covers, including the equipment NGS mentioned. The final
rule does not leave any dangerous equipment unaddressed, and,
therefore, the Agency believes the final rule provides protection
equivalent to that in existing Sec.  1910.22(c).
    Second, the final rule allows employers to use controls that
provide equivalent or greater protection than the controls specified in
existing Sec.  1910.22(c). OSHA believes that giving employers
flexibility in choosing what protection to use will enable them to
select the measure that works best, and is the most effective, in the
particular work situation. Third, the final rule recognizes that it may
not be possible to use guardrails in a particular situation and
provides employers with alternatives that will protect their workers in
those cases.
    Fourth, where dangerous equipment is not covered or guarded, final
paragraph (b)(6)(i) requires that employers use guardrails or travel
restraint systems to protect workers from falling onto the dangerous
equipment, when the height of the fall is less than four feet. OSHA
notes that employers are free to use guardrails when an employee works
at any height above dangerous equipment.
    Openings. Final paragraph (b)(7), similar to the proposed rule,
requires that employers protect workers from falling through openings.
Final Sec.  1910.21(b), like both the proposed and construction (Sec.
1926.500(b)) rules, defines an ``opening'' as a gap or open space in a
wall, partition, vertical walking-working surface, or similar surface
that is at least 30 inches high and at least 18 inches wide through
which a worker can fall to a lower level.
    The final rule requires that employers protect workers on walking-
working surfaces near openings (including openings with a chute
attached) if the inside bottom edge of the opening is less than 39
inches above the walking-working surface and the outside bottom edge of
the opening is four feet or more above a lower level. The employer must
protect workers from falling through those openings by providing:
     Guardrail systems (final paragraph (b)(7)(i));
     Safety net systems (final paragraph (b)(7)(ii));
     Travel restraint systems (final paragraph (b)(7)(iii)); or
     Personal fall arrest systems (final paragraph (b)(7)(iv)).
    The final rule, unlike the proposal (proposed paragraph
(b)(7)(ii)), does not allow employers to use designated areas instead
of providing conventional fall protection to protect workers from
falling through openings. As discussed above, the final rule limits the
use of designated areas to the limited and specific situation of work
on low-slope roofs. Deleting the option of designated areas from final
paragraph (b)(7) makes the provision consistent with the construction
standard, which also does not allow the use of designated areas to
protect workers from falling through openings (Sec.  1926.501(b)(14)).
    The final rule simplifies, updates, and increases the control
flexibility of the existing rule. For example, the final rule
establishes one set of requirements that apply to all openings, while
the existing rule, in Sec.  1910.23(b), contains different provisions
for different types of wall openings (e.g., chute-wall, window-wall,
and temporary wall openings). The final rule also incorporates new fall
protection technology (e.g., personal fall arrest systems, travel
restraint systems, safety net systems) in place of some of the measures
listed in the existing rule (e.g., rail, roller, picket fence, half
door, standard slats, standard grill work). OSHA believes that allowing
employers to use new technology will enhance worker protection.
    Finally, in several ways the final rule provides more flexibility
than the existing rule. First, the final rule only requires employers
to provide fall protection when the inside bottom edge of the opening
is less than 39 inches above the floor or other type of walking-working
surface, while the existing rule, with one exception, generally
requires employers to protect wall openings regardless of the height of
the bottom inside edge of the opening.\52\ OSHA does not believe that
it is necessary to provide fall protection when the bottom inside edge
of openings are 39 inches or higher than the walking-working surface on
which the worker is standing; in such cases, OSHA believes the wall or
partition itself usually provides adequate protection against falling
though the opening. Second, the final rule allows employers to use a
wider range of fall protection options than the existing rule to
protect workers near wall openings. OSHA believes the increased
flexibility will ensure that workers have the most effective protection
because employers will be able to select the fall protection option
they determine works best in the particular situation. Finally,
paragraph (b)(7) of the final rule, unlike the existing rule in Sec.
1910.23(b)(1)) and (e)(10), does not require that employers install
grab handles on each side of wall openings. OSHA believes that the fall
protection options specified by final paragraph (b)(7) provide adequate
protection from falls through wall openings, and therefore, grab
handles are not necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ OSHA notes the existing provision (Sec.  1910.23(b)(3)) for
window wall openings at stair landings, floors, platforms, or
balconies did not require fall protection if the bottom edge of the
opening is three feet or more above the landing, floor, platform, or
balcony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, when work
operations require that workers reach through wall openings to
facilitate hoisting materials, OSHA considers the opening to be a
``hoist area'' covered by final paragraph (b)(2), and not a wall
opening. OSHA believes this distinction is important. Final paragraph
(b)(7) allows employers to use guardrail, personal fall arrest, travel
restraint, or safety net systems to protect workers from falling
through wall openings. However, it is not always possible to use a
safety net system to protect workers from falling when they are
hoisting materials through an opening because a safety net system may
interfere with materials being hoisted or may not provide a sufficient
stopping distance to prevent a falling worker from making contact with
the lower level. Accordingly, final paragraph (b)(2) specifies that
employers must protect workers using only a guardrail, personal fall
arrest, or travel restraint systems. Moreover, when workers need to
lean out or over the edge of the hoist area, final paragraph (b)(2)
requires that employers protect workers with personal fall arrest

systems. Final paragraph (b)(7) does not contain the protective
limitations specified by final paragraph (b)(2). OSHA did not receive
any comments on proposed paragraph (b)(7), and adopts it as discussed.
    Repair, service and assembly pits (pits) less than 10 feet deep.
Final paragraph (b)(8), like the proposed rule, adds a new provision
addressing fall hazards associated with repair, service, and assembly
pits that are less than 10 feet deep. Employers use these pits
primarily to provide access to the underside of vehicles to perform
work, such as vehicle maintenance. Typically, a worker drives a vehicle
over the pit and uses stairs to get into the pit. The final rule
specifies that employers do not have to provide fall protection systems
for service, repair, or assembly pits that are less than 10 feet deep,
provided the employer:
     Limits access within six feet of the pit edge to
authorized workers trained in accordance with final Sec.  1910.30
(final paragraph (b)(8)(i));
     Applies floor markings or warning lines and stanchions, or
a combination thereof, at least six feet from the pit edge. Floor
markings must be a color that contrasts with the surrounding area and
warning lines and stanchions must be capable of resisting, without
tipping over, a force of at least 16 pounds that is applied
horizontally against the stanchion at a height of 30 inches (final
paragraph (b)(8)(ii)); and
     Posts readily visible caution signs that state ``Caution--
Open Pit'' and meet the requirements of Sec.  1910.145, Specifications
for Accident Prevention Signs (final paragraph (b)(8)(iii)).
    Final paragraph (b)(8) only applies to service, repair, and
assembly pits that are less than 10 feet deep. For deeper pits,
employers must provide a conventional fall protection system specified
in final paragraph (b)(1), Unprotected sides and edges.
    Neither the existing nor construction fall protection rules contain
a similar provision on service, repair, and assembly pits.
Historically, OSHA addressed these hazards through Section 5(a)(1)
(General Duty Clause) of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 654).
    The final rule recognizes that protecting workers from falling into
service, repair, and assembly pits can present some unique issues. For
example, for vehicle service and repair pits, the fall hazard is
present only when a vehicle is not over the pit. Driving a vehicle over
the pit normally eliminates the fall hazard. In addition, conventional
fall protection systems may not work at service, repair, and assembly
pits. For instance, using guardrails can interfere with driving
vehicles over or away from a pit, and personal fall arrest and travel
restraint systems may prevent workers from reaching the area where they
need to perform work. Finally, it is OSHA's understanding that workers
are unlikely to be near service, repair, and assembly pits when they
are not working on vehicles.
    OSHA believes the final rule strikes an appropriate balance between
protecting workers and ensuring that they can repair, service, or
assemble vehicles. The Agency believes that establishing well-marked
areas (that is, floor markings or warning lines and stanchions, or
both), along with posting caution signs, will be effective in warning
authorized workers that they are about to enter a hazardous area, and
other workers that they need to keep out of the area. In addition,
limiting access within six feet of pits to those workers who the
employer specifically assigns or allows to be in the area, and who, as
a result of training, recognize the applicable fall hazards, will keep
worker exposure to these hazards to a minimum.
    OSHA received comments on the proposed provision from the American
Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA) and the American Truck Dealers
Division of the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA). Both
organizations supported the proposed rule (Exs. 181; 187). NADA said,
``These proposed requirements should serve to adequately address the
potential for fall hazards related to motor vehicle service pits'' (Ex.
181).
    OSHA added a sentence to the final rule addressing the situation
where two or more pits are in a common area and are not more than 15
feet apart. It specifies that OSHA employers may comply with final
paragraph (b)(8)(ii) if they place contrasting floor markings at least
six feet from the pit edge around the entire area of the pits. OSHA
added the sentence to respond to a comment from ATA, which stated:

    OSHA should include a provision stating that when two or more
pits are in a common area, a perimeter marking and the posting of
appropriate warnings around the entire area will meet the
requirements of this section. In addition, when the distance from a
building entrance to the pit is less than 6 feet, a floor marking
and warning sign at the entrance will satisfy the requirements (Ex.
187).

ATA also noted, ``In some large motor carrier facilities, there may be
two or more adjacent pits in one area of the shop,'' that ``[t]he
distance between pits can vary from 12 to 15 feet,'' and that ``the
distance from the doorway to the closest portion of the pit . . . is
less than six feet'' (Ex. 187). OSHA believes the added sentence in the
final rule addresses ATA's concerns and finalizes the provision as
discussed.
    Fixed ladders (that extend more than 24 feet above a lower level).
Final paragraph (b)(9) establishes fall protection requirements for
fixed ladders that extend more than 24 feet above a lower level. Final
Sec.  1910.21(b), like the proposed rule, defines ``fixed ladder'' as a
ladder with rails or individual rungs that is permanently attached to a
structure, building, or equipment. Fixed ladders include individual
rung ladders, but not ship stairs, step bolts, or manhole steps.
    Final paragraph (b)(9), like the proposal, only requires that
employers provide fall protection to those fixed ladders that extend
more than 24 feet above a lower level. The existing rule (Sec.
1910.27(d)(1)(ii)) requires that fixed ladders more than 20 feet above
a lower level be equipped with cages or wells. Changing the fall
protection trigger height to 24 feet makes the final rule consistent
with ANSI/ASC A14.3-2008 and OSHA's construction ladder standard (Sec.
1926.1053(a)(18) and (19)), which is one of the Agency's goals in this
rulemaking. This change allows workers who perform both general
industry and construction activities to use fixed ladders with the same
fall protection trigger height.
    Siebe North, Inc., a manufacturer of ladder safety systems and
personal fall arrest systems, supported the proposed change in the fall
protection trigger height for fixed ladders (Ex. OSHA-S041-2006-0666-
0198). CSG and ISEA, on the other hand, argued that OSHA should require
fall protection on fixed ladders from the ground up (Exs. 185; 198). As
discussed above, limiting fall protection to fixed ladders that extend
more than 24 feet above a lower level makes the final rule consistent
with both OSHA's construction rule and the long-standing ANSI standard
(A14.3). In any event, OSHA does not believe the change from the
existing rule will affect worker safety substantially because fixed
ladders that extend more than 24 feet must have fall protection systems
that protect workers from the ground up even if workers climb the
ladder less than 24 feet above the lower level.
    In final paragraph (b)(9)(i), OSHA revises the existing fall
protection requirements for fixed ladders. The final rule requires that
employers equip fixed ladders with ladder safety systems or personal
fall arrest systems to protect workers from falling to a lower level,
which could result in death or serious injury. Final paragraph
(b)(9)(i) establishes a new framework to protect

workers from fall hazards on fixed ladders that allows employers to
gradually, over 20 years, phases in ladder safety systems/personal fall
arrest systems and phase out the use of cages and wells as a means of
fall protection. After this 20-year period ends, the final rule
requires that employers must ensure all fixed ladders are equipped with
either ladder safety or personal fall arrest systems to protect workers
from fall hazards. The final rule establishes the following phase-in/
phase-out schedule:
     For existing fixed ladders (that is, for ladders erected
before November 19, 2018)--employers have up to 20 years to install
ladder safety or personal fall arrest systems (final paragraph
(b)(9)(i)(A));
     For new fixed ladders (that is, for new ladders erected on
or after November 19, 2018)--the employer must equip the new ladder
with a ladder safety or personal fall arrest system (final paragraph
(b)(9)(i)(B));
     For ladder repairs and replacements--when an employer
replaces any portion of a fixed ladder the replacement must be equipped
with a ladder safety or personal fall arrest system (final paragraph
(b)(9)(i)(C)); and
     The final deadline for all fixed ladders--on and after
November 18, 2036 all fixed ladders must be equipped with a ladder
safety or personal fall arrest system (final paragraph (b)(9)(i)(D)).
(See further discussion of phase-out schedule below.)
    The gradual phasing out of cages and wells means that employers may
continue to use existing fixed ladders during the 20-year phase-out
period, even if the existing fixed ladders are equipped only with cages
and wells. However, during the 20-year phase out period, when employers
install new fixed ladders or replace a portion of a section on an
existing fixed ladder, final paragraphs (b)(9)(i)(B) and (C) require
them, respectively, to install a new fixed ladder equipped with a
ladder safety or personal fall arrest system (when replacing the entire
ladder) or equip the replacement section (e.g., a ladder with multiple,
offset sections) with a ladder safety system or personal fall arrest
system (when replacing a portion of an existing fixed ladder). At the
end of 20 years, final paragraph (b)(9)(i)(D) specifies that all fixed
ladders must be equipped with ladder safety or personal fall arrest
systems. (OSHA notes that after the 20-year phase out period ends
employers may still have or equip fixed ladders with cages and wells,
but OSHA will not consider them to be a means of fall protection.)
    The proposed rule would have allowed employers to use cages, wells,
ladder safety systems, or personal fall arrest systems when the length
of a climb is less than 24 feet regardless of the height of the ladder
(proposed Sec.  1910.28(b)(9)(i)). When the total length of a climb on
a fixed ladder is at least 24 feet, the proposed rule would have
allowed employers to equip the fixed ladder with a ladder safety
system, personal fall arrest system, cage or well (proposed Sec.
1910.28(b)(9)(ii)). OSHA is phasing in the requirement to equip fixed
ladder with ladder safety systems/personal fall arrest systems and
phasing out the use of cages and wells as a means of fall protection
because there is wide recognition in general industry that cages and
wells neither prevent workers from falling off ladders nor protect them
from injury when a fall occurs (e.g., Exs. OSHA-S041-2006-0666-0198;
113; 155; 185; 198; 329 (1/21/2011), pgs. 18-19, 259). In general,
stakeholders said cages and wells simply ``contain employees in the
event of a fall and direct them to a lower landing'' rather than
preventing them from hitting a lower level (Ex. 113; see also Exs.
OSHA-S041-2006-0666-0198; 155; 185; 198; 329 (1/21/2011), pgs. 18-19,
259)). In addition, they also said fixed ladder cages and wells may
result in severe injury or fatality and increase the severity of fall
injuries (Ex. 113; 185; 198; OSHA-S041-2006-0666-0198). Therefore, they
said OSHA should require that fixed ladders be equipped with ladder
safety systems or personal fall arrest systems (Exs. OSHA-S041-2006-
0666-0198; OSHA-S041-2006-0666-0354; 113; 155; 185; 198; 329 (1/21/
2011), pgs. 18-19, 259).
    As far back as 1990, when OSHA first raised the question about the
effectiveness of cages and wells as a means of fall protection on fixed
ladders, Siebe North, Inc., a manufacturer of ladder safety and
personal fall protection systems, said OSHA should require that fixed
ladders be equipped with ladder safety systems or personal fall arrest
systems:

    Except to the extent that a cage or well will change the
trajectory of a fall so that the victim falls directly to the base
of the ladder, we are unaware of any empirical or other data which
suggests that a cage or well will otherwise result in a fall which
is not a free fall--or, more importantly, a fall likely to result in
less severe injury than would be caused by a free fall of the same
distance. (Indeed, most falls of any significant distance in cages,
and probably in wells as well, are likely to add to the victim's
trauma due to impacts with the cage or well during the course of the
fall.)
* * * * *
    As already noted, except to the extent that it directs the
victim's falling body to the base of the ladder, a cage or well
provides no protection for the falling climber. On the other hand,
where a ladder safety device is used, a climber's fall is stopped in
2 feet or less, with no trauma from this short fall. When a fall
occurs, a ladder safety device alone will both save a life and
prevent injury, no matter where in the climb the fall begins. On the
other hand, a cage or well will do neither. If the ladder is
equipped with only a cage or well, whether a falling climber dies or
merely lives with severe injury depends entirely on the length of
the fall since the cage or well will have no protective effect (Ex.
OSHA-S041-2006-0666-0198) (emphasis in original).

In response to the 2010 proposed rule, a number of commenters also
agreed that employers need to equip fixed ladders with ladder safety
systems/personal fall arrest systems because cages and wells are not
effective fall protection measures (Exs. 113; 185; 198; 329 (1/18/
2011), p. 96; 329 (1/21/2011), p. 259). For example, CSG said:

    [C]ages should not be used as an individual method of fall
protection, but only in conjunction with a personal fall arrest/
cable-and-rail system or a twin-leg lanyard. CSG recognizes that a
cage system allows a measure of security. However, if a person does
fall in a cage, OSHA is correct that the cage will direct the person
to the ground, likely resulting in a severe injury or fatality (Ex.
198).

    ISEA agreed with CSG (Ex. 185). The Oregon Department of
Transportation (DOT) added:

    Ladder cages are an old technology used for decades before
ladder safety systems were ever developed . . . [C]ages and wells
are designed to ``. . . contain employees in the event of a fall and
direct them to a lower landing.'' Cages provide little fall
protection and no fall prevention. They do give a sense to the
climber of being contained, and do provide a surface to rest against
for a winded climber, but will not prevent a fall. Falls in cages
can be very gruesome with the faller entangling themselves in the
cage as they fall, sometimes tearing off body parts (Ex. 113).

    Similarly, Ellis testified that OSHA should prohibit the use of
cages and wells for fall protection because he said they are
ineffective:

    [T]his may be the time to withdraw cages since they are
ineffective. I refer to the [Health and Safety Executive] Report on
their website relating to cages and the testing that's being done to
show that they're incapable of stopping falls. It may not be OSHA's
best move to keep citing a device that fails to work which most
people would admit that you're not get stopped in a fall. The best
that happens in a fall inside a cage is to be a--have a feeling of
being contained. . . . (Ex. 329 (1/21/2011, p. 259)).

    The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) report Ellis cited was

``Preliminary investigation into the fall-arresting effectiveness of
ladder safety hoops'' (Research Report 258-2004).\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ The HSE Report is available at http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr258.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Executive Summary states:

    After studying the information from the references, the survey,
from the accident database and the results from testing, it seems
clear that caged ladders cannot provide positive fall-arrest
capability, especially in the case of the three-upright design which
was tested as part of this research. There is every possibility of a
fall down the cage to the ground or other platform.
    There would appear, or so it seems, a possibility to stop the
fall of a worker in certain circumstances, but this depends upon the
attitude of the worker both before the fall and during the fall, and
whether or not the worker manages to catch part of his or her body
in one of the cage apertures, or manages to trap themselves in the
cage some other way. In any event, it is a chance occurrence, and
the opinion is that even if the worker could be caught by the cage,
it could lead to significant if not fatal injury.
    The accidents reviewed indicate that workers fall down cages to
the next level and are rarely caught. Injuries have been reported.
Even if a fall is halted by limb entanglement within a cage, rescue
would be extremely difficult process to carry out successfully (Ex.
392).

    OSHA believes there is substantial evidence in the rulemaking
record to support eliminating the use of cages and wells as a means of
fall protection on fixed ladders. Therefore, for the reasons discussed
above, OSHA is phasing out their use and requiring that employers equip
fixed ladders with ladder safety systems or personal fall arrest
systems according to the schedule established in final paragraph
(b)(9)(i).
    OSHA believes that gradually phasing out the use of cages and wells
as a means of fall protection over 20 years and requiring employers to
provide ladder safety systems/personal fall arrest systems
prospectively (that is, when installing new fixed ladders or replacing
a portion of an existing fixed ladder section) is a safe, cost-
effective way to increase worker protection beyond the existing and
proposed rules, and will not pose difficulties or undue burdens for
employers. For example, ladder safety and personal fall arrest systems
generally are less costly and easier to install on fixed ladders than
cages and wells. OSHA believes that providing 20 years to phase out
cages and wells gives employers ample time to plan and carry out this
transition as part of their normal business and replacement cycles,
instead of retrofitting fixed ladders. According to the FEA, the useful
life of a large majority of fixed ladders will be exhausted within 20
years.
    Several stakeholders specifically recommended that OSHA
prospectively require new fixed ladder be equipped with ladder safety
systems/personal fall arrest systems (Exs. OSHA-S041-2006-0666-0198;
113; 329 (1/21/2011), p. 18-19). For example, Siebe North supported
installing ladder safety systems/personal fall arrest systems ``in the
design stage'' because ``ladder safety devices can be engineered into
and installed as part of the original ladder installation without any
extra hazardous exposure to the installation workers,'' adding that
``well or cage installations hazards will always be significantly
greater than the installation hazards for ladder safety devices'' (Ex.
OSHA-S041-2006-0666-0198). The American Wind Energy Association said:

    Technology in fall protection has developed to the point where
suitable solutions exist for the protection of climbers for fixed
ladders. At a minimum, new installation of fixed ladders, that meet
the trigger heights and length listed, should include falling-object
for workers regardless of the industry. The wind industry is an
example of a new industry that has embrace ladder-climbing systems
across-the-board (Ex. 329 (1/21/2011), pgs. 18-19).

    Siebe North also indicated that requiring employers to install
ladder safety systems/personal fall arrest systems instead of cages/
wells was cost effective, ``For a 50-foot climb, a ladder safety device
would cost about $500 installed, but a case or well would cost in
excess of $1,500'' (Ex. OSHA-S041-2006-0666-0198). Clear Channel
Outdoor indicated that equipping billboard ladders with ladder safety
systems/personal fall arrest systems would cost significantly less than
installing cages and wells (Ex. 329 (1/18/2011), pgs. 134-35). Ameren
Corporation recommended grandfathering in all existing ladders ``due to
the potential financial impact'' (Ex. 189).
    As mentioned, OSHA believes the prospective application of the
requirement to equip fixed ladders with ladder safety systems or
personal fall arrest systems will not pose financial hardship on
employers. According to CSG, it is ``common'' for fixed ladders
manufactured today to be equipped with ladder safety systems (Ex. 329
(1/18/2011), p. 104).
    As mentioned, final paragraph (b)(9)(i) also establishes the cage
and well phase-out dates for existing, new, replacement, and eventually
all fixed ladders (i.e., a final deadline when employers may no longer
use cages and wells as a means of fall protection on any fixed ladder):
    Existing fixed ladders.\54\ Final paragraph (b)(9)(i)(A) requires
that employers ensure existing fixed ladders are equipped with at least
one of the following four devices no later than November 19, 2018:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ For purposes of final paragraph (b)(9)(i)(A), the term
``existing fixed ladder'' includes any fixed ladder installed before
November 19, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A cage;
     A well;
     A ladder safety system; or
     A personal fall arrest system.
    Although the existing rule requires that employers already must
have installed cages or wells on fixed ladders, the record indicates
some have not. Therefore, OSHA is giving employers two years to come
into compliance with the existing rule (existing Sec.  1910.27).
Providing two years will ensure that employers have adequate time to
order and install devices on fixed ladders and will reduce costs for
employers who have ordered and not yet installed new fixed ladders
equipped with cages or wells. Although the final rule is phasing out
the use of cages and wells as a fall protection device, final paragraph
(b)(9)(i) allows employers to continue to use existing fixed ladders
that have a cage or well, but not ladder safety or personal fall arrest
system, until:
     The fixed ladder, cage, or well, of portion of it is
replaced (final paragraph (b)(9)(i)(C)); or
     November 18, 2036 (final paragraph (b)(9)(i)(D)),
whichever comes first.
    This means that employers may not have to install ladder safety or
personal fall arrest systems on their existing fixed ladders for up to
20 years. However, OSHA believes that many employers already have
installed ladder safety systems and personal fall arrest systems or
will install those systems long before the 20-year deadline comes due.
    Like final paragraph (b)(9)(i)(A), ANSI/ASC A14.3-2008 (Section
1.6.1) generally permits employers to use existing fixed ladders
without change. The requirements of ANSI/ASC A14.3-2008 do not apply to
existing fixed ladders, provided that the ladder was in compliance with
a Federal, state, or national consensus standard at the time it was
installed and there is documentation available to substantiate that
(Section 1.6.1(1)), or a person competent in structural design
determines that any differences in the existing ladder are such that
its performance ``will not substantially deviate from the
requirements'' of ANSI/ASC A14.3-2008 (Section 1.6.1(2)).

    OSHA believes that most fixed ladders, except for some used in
outdoor advertising, already have at least one of the four devices
final paragraph (b)(9)(i)(A) requires and, therefore, will be able to
continue using those ladders under the final rule. At a minimum, OSHA
believes that most existing fixed ladders have cages or wells, which
the existing rule (Sec.  1910.27(d)(1)(i)) has required since the
Agency adopted it pursuant to section 6(a) of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C.
655(a)). Evidence discussed in the FEA also indicates that a
significant percentage of employers already have ladder safety or
personal fall arrest systems on existing fixed ladders.
    For fixed ladders that do not have any fall protection, which
appears to be the case in the outdoor advertising industry, final
paragraph (b)(9)(i)(A) requires that employers install a cage, well,
ladder safety system, or personal fall arrest system before November
19, 2018. OSHA believes that most of those employers will install
ladder safety or personal fall arrest systems during that time. First,
according to the FEA, those systems generally are less expensive than
cages or wells. Second, even ANSI/ASC A14.3-2008 requires the use of
ladder safety systems for some climbs (Sections 4.1.3, 4.1.4, <IP_ADDRESS>).
However, the Agency notes that employers also will be in compliance if
they install cages or wells on existing fixed ladders during the first
two years after the final rule is published.
    One commenter, Ameren, said OSHA should make allowances for
employers who have ordered fixed ladders but not yet received and
installed them (Ex. 189). They said that it may take up to one year to
receive a fixed ladder after placing the order. Final paragraph
(b)(9)(i)(A) gives employers two years to install fall protection
devices on their fixed ladders. As mentioned, OSHA considers ladders
installed during this two-year period to be ``existing fixed ladders,''
which means employers may install any of the four devices specified in
final paragraph (b)(9)(i)(A). Thus, employers will not have to change
their orders if they purchased fixed ladders equipped with a well or
cage. That said, OSHA believes many employers will change their orders
to ladder safety or personal fall arrest systems which are less
expensive than cages and wells and brings employers into compliance
with final paragraph (b)(9)(i)(D) without having to make changes when
the final phase-out deadline comes due.
    New fixed ladders. Final paragraph (b)(9)(i)(B) requires that
employers ensure new fixed ladders they install on and after November
19, 2018 are equipped with a ladder safety system or personal fall
arrest system. Requiring that new fixed ladders, rather than existing
fixed ladders, be equipped with ladder safety or personal fall arrest
systems makes the final rule primarily prospective. OSHA believes that
employers should not have any difficulty complying with this approach.
    OSHA believes virtually all new fixed ladders manufactured and
installed today are available with ladder safety and personal fall
arrest systems. Allowing employers two years to begin equipping new
fixed ladders with ladder safety or personal fall arrest systems gives
employers adequate time to identify companies that manufacture fixed
ladders equipped with these systems. OSHA notes that the 2-year phase-
in also gives ladder manufacturers time to ensure their ladder safety
and personal fall arrest systems comply with the personal fall
protection system criteria in the final rule (final Sec.  1910.29).
    OSHA points out that final paragraph (b)(9)(i)(B) does not prohibit
employers from also installing cages and wells on new fixed ladders in
addition to ladder safety or personal fall arrest systems. Cages and
wells can provide a way for workers to rest while they are climbing and
working on fixed ladders. However, OSHA stresses that employers may not
use cages and wells instead of providing ladder safety and personal
fall arrest systems. In addition, employers must ensure that the cages
and wells are compatible with and do not interfere with the ladder
safety or personal fall arrest systems. (See final paragraph (b)(9)(iv)
for further discussion.)
    Unlike final paragraph (b)(9)(i)(B), ANSI/ASC A14.3-2008 does not
require that employers ensure new fixed ladders they install are
equipped with ladder safety systems or personal fall arrest systems;
but rather allows employers to install new ladders that only have cages
or wells in some situations. For example, that standard allows
employers to install new fixed ladders equipped with only cages where
the length of any climb is less than 24 feet even though the top of the
ladder is at a distance greater than 24 feet above a lower level
(Section 4.1.2). Similarly, A14.3-2008 allows employers to install only
cages or wells on new multiple-section fixed ladders that do not have a
single length of climb exceeding 24 feet, provided each ladder section
is offset horizontally from adjacent sections and there is a landing
platform for safe access/egress (Section <IP_ADDRESS>). That standard only
requires employers to use ladder safety systems when a single length of
climb exceeds 24 feet (Section 4.1.3) or the length of climb on
multiple section ladders exceeds 50 feet (Section <IP_ADDRESS>).
    Final paragraph (b)(9)(i)(B) does not adopt the approach in ANSI/
ASC A14.3-2008. As discussed above, evidence in the record shows that
cages and wells do not prevent workers from falling off ladders or
protect workers from injury if they fall (e.g., Exs. 113; 155; 185;
198; OSHA-S041-2006-0666-0198). OSHA believes the final rule, requiring
that employers ensure new fixed ladders are equipped with ladder safety
systems or personal fall arrest systems, is more protective than ANSI/
ASC A14.3-2008. In addition, OSHA believes the final rule is easier to
understand and follow than specifying the type of fall protection
employers must provide based on the length of the worker's climb, as
A14.3-2008 requires.
    Replacement. Final paragraph (b)(9)(i)(C) requires that employers
ensure when a fixed ladder, cage, or well, or any portion of a section
thereof is replaced, a personal fall arrest system or ladder safety
system is installed in at least that section of the fixed ladder, cage,
or well where the replacement is located. Unlike final paragraph
(b)(9)(i)(B), which does not become effective until November 19, 2018,
any replacement installed after the final rule becomes effective, which
is January 17, 2017, must be equipped with a ladder safety system or
personal fall arrest system.
    Final paragraph (b)(9)(i)(C) does not require that employers
install ladder safety or personal fall arrest systems when they make
minor repairs to fixed ladders, cages, or wells, such as replacing a
bolt or repairing a weld on a cage. However, when employers determine
that they cannot simply make a repair to a section or a portion of a
section of a fixed ladder, cage, or well but must replace that portion
or section, employers must ensure the replacement is equipped with a
ladder safety or personal fall arrest system. OSHA believes the
inspection requirement in final Sec.  1910.22(d) will help employers
identify when simple repairs or corrections will be adequate and when
the situation, such as a condition that affects the structural
integrity of the fixed ladder, cage, or well, necessitates replacement
of the fixed ladder, cage, or well section.
    OSHA also notes that when ``a portion of a section'' of a fixed
ladder, cage, or well needs replacement, the final rule only requires
the employer to install a ladder safety or personal fall arrest system
in that ``section of the fixed ladder, cage, or well where the
replacement is located.'' The final rule

does not require employers to install a ladder safety or personal fall
arrest system on the entire fixed ladder when a portion of one section
needs replacement. For example, only part of a 50-foot section of a
cage, well or multi-section ladder might need replacement because of
damage. Final paragraph (b)(9)(i)(C) only requires that the employer
replace that 50-foot section of the ladder, cage, or well with a ladder
safety system or personal fall arrest system, not all sections. OSHA
believes that a ``section'' of a fixed ladder equipped with a cage or
well most likely will not exceed 50 feet. In this regard, ladder
sections are the length of ladder between landings or platforms, and
final paragraph (b)(9)(iii) requires that fixed ladders that have cages
or wells must have landing platforms at least every 50 feet.
    The approach ANSI/ASC A14.3-2008 follows when existing fixed
ladders are replaced, modified, or repaired differs from the final rule
in two respects. First, when existing fixed ladders are replaced,
modified, or repaired, the ANSI/ASC standard specifies that employers
may install cages or wells instead of ladder safety systems or personal
fall arrest systems in some situations (see discussion of final
paragraph (b)(9)(i)(B)). Second, the ANSI/ASC standard requires that
employers only have to install cages, wells, or ladder safety systems
when they make repairs to more than 25 percent of the whole ladder.
OSHA believes that requiring employers to install personal fall arrest
or ladder safety systems when repairs necessitate replacement of a
portion of a fixed ladder, cage, or well is more protective than
allowing employers to wait until more than 25 percent of the fixed
ladder is in need of repair. In fact, the final rule prohibits that
approach. Section 1910.22(d)(2) requires that hazardous conditions be
repaired immediately and, if that is not possible, guarded so workers
cannot use the walking-working surface until it is fixed (final Sec.
1910.22(d)(2)). Moreover, as discussed above, the record indicates that
installing ladder safety systems or personal fall arrest systems
instead of cages or wells also is more protective.
    Again, this provision does not prohibit employers from keeping
those portions of a cage or well that are functioning properly, or
installing a new cage or well, provided the employer also installs a
personal fall arrest or ladder safety system as final paragraph
(b)(9)(i)(B) requires, and the cage or well does not interfere with the
fall protection system.
    Final deadline. Finally, final paragraph (b)(9)(i)(D) establishes
the final deadline for employers to ensure that all fixed ladders that
extend more than 24 feet above a lower level are equipped with ladder
safety or personal fall arrest systems, which, as mentioned, is 20
years after OSHA publishes the final rule. By that date (November 18,
2036), and thereafter, employers must ensure that all fixed ladders are
equipped with personal fall arrest or ladder safety systems, even if
the ladders have cages or wells.
    OSHA set the extended phase-out period to take into account normal
replacement and average useful life of fixed ladders, cages, and wells.
After 20 years, OSHA estimates that the large majority of fixed ladders
will have been replaced or in need of replacement. Even ANSI/ASC A14.3-
2008 notes that while ``[fixed] ladders are designed for extended
service,'' they ``are neither designed nor intended to possess an
infinite safe useful life'' (Section 9.1.3).
    OSHA also believes the extended phase-out lessens the compliance
burden on employers, provides a smooth transition to update ladder
systems, and allows employers to install ladder safety and personal
fall arrest systems according to normal replacement schedules. In
addition, OSHA believes that, through replacement and new
installations, the vast majority of fixed ladders will have ladder
safety or personal fall arrest systems before the time the final
deadline arrives.
    Final paragraph (b)(9)(ii) adds new requirements for one-section
fixed ladders that are equipped with personal fall arrest systems or
ladder safety systems and fixed ladders equipped with those systems on
more than one ladder section. For these ladders, the final rule
requires that employers ensure:
     The personal fall arrest or ladder safety system provides
protection throughout the entire vertical distance of the ladder,
including all ladder sections (final paragraph (b)(9)(ii)(A)); and
     The ladder has rest platforms provided at least every 150
feet (final paragraph (b)(9)(ii)(B)).
    In final paragraph (b)(9)(ii)(A), OSHA clarified the proposed
language (``vertical distance'') so the Agency could eliminate the need
for the proposed note to paragraph (b)(9). OSHA stresses that the
entire vertical distance of a fixed ladder includes all sections of a
ladder, as well as any vertical distance in between ladder sections
(sometimes referred to as ``entire length of climb''). This means that
employers must protect workers for the entire vertical distance of
fixed ladders equipped with ladder safety or personal fall arrest
systems. The final provision also addresses the hazard of attempting to
connect to a ladder safety or personal fall arrest system part way
through a climb (i.e., at 24 feet), which would require that the worker
release one hand from the ladder, and thereby increase the risk of
falling. This requirement is consistent with the construction fall
protection standard and ANSI A14.3-2008 (Section 7.1.6).
    OSHA notes that final paragraph (b)(9)(ii)(A) does not apply when
only one section of a multiple-sectioned fixed ladder has a personal
fall arrest system or ladder safety system and the other sections have
only cages or wells. In this case, final paragraph (b)(9)(i)(C)
applies, and employers need only ensure that the ladder safety or
personal fall arrest system protects the worker during that section of
the climb. However, when one-section fixed ladders and multiple
sections of a fixed ladder have a ladder safety or personal fall arrest
system, final paragraph (b)(9)(ii)(A) applies, and the employer must
ensure the system protects the worker throughout the entire climb. The
Agency does not believe that complying with final paragraph
(b)(9)(ii)(A) should pose difficulties for employers. Rather, OSHA
believes that if employers must install a ladder safety or personal
fall arrest system, it is likely they will install the system on the
entire fixed ladder (including all ladder sections). This is
particularly true if the employer anticipates that other sections of
the fixed ladder, cage, or well also will need replacement at some
point.
    Paragraph (b)(9)(ii)(B), like the proposal, requires that employers
ensure fixed ladders that have personal fall arrest or ladder safety
systems also have landing platforms at intervals of at least every 150
feet. This final provision generally is consistent with OSHA's
construction ladder standard and ANSI A14.3-2008. OSHA's ladder
standard for construction requires that fixed ladders with self-
retracting lifelines have rest platforms every 150 feet, while the ANSI
standard requires that fixed ladders equipped with ladder safety
systems have rest platforms at the same intervals (Section <IP_ADDRESS>).
OSHA received no comments on the proposed provision and finalizes it as
discussed.
    Final paragraph (b)(9)(iii), like proposed paragraph (b)(9)(ii)(C),
applies during the gradual phase out of cages and wells. The final rule
requires that employers ensure ladder sections that have cages or
wells:

     Are offset from adjacent sections (final paragraph
(b)(9)(iii)(A)); and
     Have landing platforms provided at maximum intervals of 50
feet (final paragraph (b)(9)(iii)(B)).
    Final paragraph (b)(9)(iii) is the same as the ladder standard for
construction (Sec.  1926.1053(a)(19)(iii)). ANSI/ASC A14.3-2008
requires that each section of multiple section ladders equipped with
only cages or wells be horizontally offset from adjacent sections and
have landing platforms to provide safe access/egress (Section <IP_ADDRESS>).
Figure 5a in the A14.3 standard specifies platform landings at
intervals of at least 50 feet. The existing rule in Sec.
1910.27(d)(2), however, requires landing platforms at 30-foot intervals
if the fixed ladder has a cage or well, and at 20-foot intervals when
there is no cage or well. OSHA based the existing rule on the ANSI
A4.13-1956 rule in effect at the time. OSHA believes that making final
paragraph (b)(9)(iii) consistent with the construction ladder
requirements and the current ANSI A14.3-2008 standard will allow
workers who perform both general industry and construction activities
to use the same fixed ladders while cages and wells are being phased
out. OSHA notes that once employers equip fixed ladders with a ladder
safety or personal fall arrest system this provision no longer applies,
even if the ladder also still has the cage or well.
    David Hoberg, with DBM Consultants, supported the provision
requiring that fixed ladders have landing platforms, stating:

    [H]aving climbed ladders of up to 125 feet and supervised
persons using them, you would not believe the difference a landing
makes. A hand cramping stops the climb. And try climbing a ladder as
a first responder wearing 100 lbs. of gear where there is no landing
to stage equipment or rest or take action (Ex. 206).

The provision is finalized with minor reorganization for clarity.
    Final paragraph (b)(9)(iv) is a new provision OSHA added to the
final rule that allows employers to use cages and wells in combination
with personal fall arrest and ladder safety systems, provided the cages
and wells do not interfere with the operation of the system. The
proposed rule did not specifically address this issue, but ANSI A14.3-
2008 (Section 4.1.6) allows the use of ladder safety systems in
combination with a cage. OSHA is adding this provision to clarify that
employers do not have to remove cages or wells when they install a
required ladder safety or personal fall arrest system, provided the
cage or well does not interfere with the operation of the required
ladder safety or fall protection system. If a cage or well prevents a
personal fall arrest or ladder safety system from operating properly,
then the employer must remove the cage or well to protect workers from
falling or otherwise incurring an injury.
    OSHA received one comment about using ladder safety or personal
fall arrest systems in combination with cages or wells. Ellis urged
that OSHA prohibit the use of ladder safety devices inside ladder cages
because the rear bars of ladder cages can ``pitch the body forward
which is tantamount to free fall'' (Ex. 155). The Agency believes that
the language addressing interference in final paragraph (b)(9)(iv)
resolves Ellis' concern without limiting employer flexibility or
compromising worker safety.
    Outdoor advertising. Final paragraph (b)(10) addresses fall hazards
on fixed ladders used in outdoor advertising (billboards). Final
paragraph (b)(10), in combination with final paragraph (b)(9), revises
the proposed rule to require that employers ensure their workers use
fall protection while climbing fixed ladders that extend more than 24
feet above a lower level. This provision ensures that workers in
outdoor advertising will have the same protection from fall hazards as
other general industry workers who climb fixed ladders.
    The effect of the final rule is to phase out the fall protection
exception that OSHA established in the 1991 Gannett variance (56 FR
8801 (3/1/1991)) and the 1993 directive extending the variance to the
entire outdoor advertising industry (Fixed Ladders Used on Outdoor
Advertising Structures/Billboards in the Outdoor Advertising Industry,
STD 01-01-014 (1/26/1993)). (Hereafter, the Gannett variance and OSHA
directive are collectively referred to as ``outdoor advertising
directive.'') The outdoor advertising directive excepted that industry
from complying with existing requirements that fixed ladders have cages
or wells (existing Sec.  1910.27(d)(1)(ii)), and landing platforms
(existing Sec.  1910.27(d)(2)). The effect of the directive is that
workers in the outdoor advertising industry may climb fixed ladders, in
some situations, without conventional fall protection (e.g., cages,
wells, and ladder safety and personal fall arrest systems), provided
employers ensure that:
     Each worker wears a safety belt or harness with an
appropriate 18-inch rest lanyard when climbing up to 50 feet or heights
up to 65 feet from grade on a combination ladder consisting of a
portable ladder and a fixed ladder;
     Each worker keeps both hands free of tools or materials
when climbing;
     Each worker uses a ladder safety system for climbs on
fixed ladders that exceed 50 feet or when the ladder ascends to heights
that exceed 65 feet above grade;
     Each worker who climbs fixed ladders equipped with ladder
safety devices uses those devices properly and follows appropriate
procedures for inspection and maintenance of those devices;
     The employer ensures proper maintenance and use of ladder
safety devices that are installed on fixed ladders;
     Each worker uses an appropriate fall protection system
after reaching the work position; and
     Each qualified climber receives training and demonstrates
the physical capability to perform necessary climbs safely. In this
regard, the employer must ensure that: The worker's physical condition
is such that climbing will not impair the worker's health or safety;
the worker completes training consisting of classroom training,
observing an experienced qualified climber, and actual climbing under
close supervision using redundant safety equipment; and the worker
works without fall protection only after demonstrating the necessary
ability and skill in climbing (STD 01-01-014).
    The proposed rule would have codified the specifications contained
in the outdoor advertising directive, thus allowing outdoor advertising
workers to continue climbing fixed ladders without fall protection so
long as they complied with all of the provisions the directive
included.
    The final rule, however, does not adopt the proposal. Instead,
final paragraph (b)(10)(i) specifies that the fall protection
requirements for fixed ladders in final paragraph (b)(9) also apply to
fixed ladders used in outdoor advertising. This means that outdoor
advertising employers must ensure, in accordance with final paragraph
(b)(9)(i)(A), that fixed ladders are equipped with a ladder safety
system, personal fall arrest system, cage, or well before November 19,
2018. In addition, they must follow the schedule in final paragraph
(b)(9)(i) for gradually phasing in the installation of ladder safety
and personal fall arrest systems on fixed ladders.
    Final paragraph (b)(10)(i) also requires that employers in outdoor
advertising follow other provisions in revised subparts D and I, such
as the inspection and maintenance requirements in final Sec.  1910.22,
the training requirements in final Sec.  1910.30, and the criteria for
personal fall protection systems in Sec.  1910.140.

    Final paragraph (b)(10)(ii) establishes the requirements that
outdoor advertising employers must follow during the phase-in period
(two years) they have to install a cage, well, ladder safety system or
personal fall arrest system. During this period when outdoor
advertisers have not yet installed fall protection, employers must
ensure that each worker:
     Receives training and demonstrates the physical capability
to perform the necessary climbs in accordance with final Sec.
1910.29(h) (final paragraph (b)(10)(ii)(A));
     Wears a body harness equipped with an 18-inch rest lanyard
(final paragraph (b)(10)(ii)(B));
     Keeps both hands free of tools or material while climbing
the fixed ladder (final paragraph (b)(10)(ii)(C)); and
     Is protected by a fall protection system upon reaching the
work position (final paragraph (b)(10)(ii)(D)).
    The requirements in final paragraph (b)(10)(ii) are limited and
temporary. First, they only apply to fixed ladders used in outdoor
advertising that are not equipped with any type of fall protection.
Once a fixed ladder used for outdoor advertising is equipped with one
of these systems, the requirements in final paragraph (b)(10)(ii) no
longer apply. Instead, the requirements in final paragraphs (a) and
(b)(9), final Sec.  1910.29, and final Sec.  1910.140 apply to outdoor
advertising employers and fixed ladders used in outdoor advertising.
    Second, final paragraph (b)(10)(ii) is only a temporary provision.
It is applicable only before November 19, 2018. As of November 19,
2018, final paragraph (b)(9)(i)(A) requires that employers must ensure
all existing fixed ladders, including those used for outdoor
advertising activities, are equipped with a cage, well, ladder safety
system, or personal fall arrest system. Thus, as of November 19, 2018,
the requirements in final paragraph (b)(10)(ii) no longer apply and the
provision, in essence, expires. In their place, as stated above, the
requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b)(9), as well as other fall
protection system requirements in the final rule, apply to outdoor
advertising employers. OSHA notes that the requirements in final Sec.
1910.29(h), which apply when workers climb fixed ladders without fall
protection to perform outdoor advertising activities, also are
temporary. As of November 19, 2018, the requirements in Sec.
1910.29(h) no longer will apply since, in accordance with final
paragraph (b)(9)(i)(A), all fixed ladders used for outdoor advertising
will be required to be equipped with a personal fall arrest system,
ladder safety system, cage, or well.
    Final paragraph (b)(10)(ii)(A) requires that outdoor advertising
employers ensure that each worker who climbs a fixed ladder that is not
equipped with a personal fall arrest system, ladder safety system,
cage, or well, receives training and demonstrates the physical ability
to climb fixed ladders. Employers may comply with the training final
paragraph (b)(10)(ii)(A) requires by ensuring that workers have
completed a training or apprenticeship program, provided the program
includes hands-on training on climbing ladders safely, performance
observation combined with formal classroom or on-the-job training, and
retraining as necessary (final Sec.  1910.29(h)(2) and (3)).
    OSHA notes that employers must ensure the requirement in final
paragraph (b)(10)(ii)(A) to demonstrate physical capability must
include either a physical examination or observation of the worker
performing actual climbing activities (final Sec.  1910.29(h)(1)).
Final Sec.  1910.29(h) discusses in detail the training and physical
capacity requirements in final paragraph (b)(10)(ii)(A). OSHA notes
that this training is in addition to the training outdoor advertising
employers must provide to their workers under final Sec.  1910.30.
    Final paragraph (b)(10)(ii)(B) requires that outdoor advertising
employers ensure workers who climb fixed ladders without fall
protection wear body harnesses equipped with an 18-inch rest lanyard.
OSHA's intention in requiring that outdoor advertising workers wear
body harnesses with rest lanyards is that employers must ensure workers
tie off to the fixed ladder when they need to rest during the climb.
    The final rule differs from proposed (b)(10)(i) and outdoor
advertising directive, both of which permit outdoor advertising
employers to provide a body harness or body belt for workers to use for
resting during a climb. However, as discussed in final Sec.  1910.140,
the final rule does not permit the use of body belts as a part of a
personal fall arrest system; thus, OSHA deleted body belts from final
paragraph (b)(10)(ii)(B). This revision also makes the final provision
consistent with OSHA's construction industry rule, which also does not
allow use of body belts for personal fall arrest (Sec.  1926.502(d)).
    Final paragraph (b)(10)(ii)(C) requires employers to ensure that
workers engaged in outdoor advertising keep both hands free of tools or
material when climbing fixed ladders. This requirement ensures that
workers use their hands exclusively for climbing and not carrying tools
and material up and down fixed ladders. When workers climb fixed
ladders without fall protection, it is essential that they maintain
balance and body control. Carrying tools and materials in their hands
while they climb may cause workers to lose their balance, which could
result in a fall. Both the proposed rule at paragraph (b)(10)(vi) and
the outdoor advertising directive include this requirement. In
addition, it is consistent with final paragraphs Sec.  1910.23(b)(12)
and (13), the construction standard (Sec.  1926.1053(b)(21) and (22)),
and ANSI A14.3-2008 (Section 9.2.1 and 9.2.2).
    Final paragraph (b)(10)(ii)(D), like the proposed rule at paragraph
(b)(10)(vii) and the outdoor advertising directive, requires outdoor
advertising employers to provide workers who climb fixed ladders with,
and ensure that they use, a fall protection system once they reach the
work position/platform. Thus, when workers step onto the work platform,
they must be tied off or otherwise protected from falling (e.g.,
guardrails). OSHA believes this requirement is necessary because
outdoor advertising employers typically install platforms at great
heights. The final provision allows employers to use any type of fall
protection system specified by final paragraph (b)(1) to protect
workers from falling off an unprotected side or edge, including
guardrail, safety net, travel restraint, positioning, or personal fall
arrest systems.
    OSHA requested comment in the proposed rule about eliminating the
qualified climber exception for the outdoor advertising industry and
instead require fixed ladders used in outdoor advertising to be
equipped with the same fall protection as other fixed ladders under the
general industry standard (75 FR 28869). In response, OSHA received
many comments. A number of commenters, including several fall
protection equipment manufacturers, safety organizations, and safety
professionals who provide fall protection services, opposed retaining
the qualified climber exception in the final rule (Exs. 155; 185; 198;
250). For several reasons, these commenters opposed including in the
final rule a qualified climber exception for any industry. These
reasons included the dangers of climbing without fall protection; the
questionable need for the qualified climber exception in the outdoor
advertising industry when compared to other industries; and the ready
availability of feasible and easy to use fall protection (e.g., Exs.
155; 185; 198; 205; 250). For example, American Society of Safety
Engineers (ASSE) said:

    The idea that it is somehow acceptable to climb high distances
without fall protection contradicts OSHA's proposed fixed ladder
standard requiring a ladder safety system or a cage/well when the
total length of a climb exceeds 24 feet. Our members fail to
understand why fixed ladders between 24-50 feet in height used in
outdoor advertising should be different than other industry ladders
used at the same heights. Further, the technology is readily
available to provide protections for the fixed ladder (Ex. 127).

    ISEA and CSG also voiced opposition to a qualified climber
exception for outdoor advertising:

    Their situation is not unique. Right now there are many systems
available to provide fall arrest as soon as these workers leave the
ground. In fact, this type of equipment is used today, so the burden
on employers is slight.
    OSHA asks about technological and economic feasibility of fall
protection for this type of work. Because this industry is
constantly improving its offerings and developing new solutions for
employers and employees, it is safe to say there has been marked
improvement in ladder systems over the past 20 years. In addition,
ladder climbing systems are becoming increasingly common.
    Finally, Assistant Secretary Michaels has been speaking about
fostering a greater culture of safety in U.S. workplaces. Providing
an exemption from use of fall protection for those working at
dangerous heights seems to run counter to this message (Exs. 185;
198).

The Society of Professional Rope Access Technicians (SPRAT) agreed,
saying:

[I]n light of advances in technology and accepted practices for safe
alternatives such as Rope Access, twin lanyards, and lead climbing,
elimination of the Qualified Climber provision may be timely and
appropriate. Variations on these concepts are already accepted
methodologies in international fall protection regulations,
including ISO, BSA, and Australia. Granted, a 100% tie-off approach
may be onerous to implement all at once, but implementation could be
phased over several years to help ameliorate the impact (Ex. 205).

Ellis made a similar comment:

    This concept of a safe climber who does not need fall protection
on ladders or step bolts for climbing towers is a timeworn concept
whose day has passed. Protection should be required. Use of rope
access teams for work at heights . . . and always using fall
protection is what has already arrived in many countries of the
world including most of Europe, Australia and South Africa (Ex.
155).

    Finally, Damon, Inc., opposed the qualified climber exception
because it suggests that older, experienced workers climb better with
age while data actually shows that ``older workers have a
disproportionate share of fatal falls from ladders'' (Ex. 250).
    Many commenters, primarily those in the outdoor advertising
industry (Exs. 121; 260; 359; 369) and employees of Lamar Advertising
(Lamar) (e.g., Exs. 75; 80; 81; 82; 83; 84; 85; 86; 87; 88; 89; 90; 91;
92; 93; 94; 95; 99; 104; 105; 106; 128), supported codifying the
outdoor advertising directive for fixed ladders used in outdoor
advertising. For example, Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. (CCO), and the
Outdoor Advertising Association of America (OAAA) supported codifying
the outdoor advertising directive because the industry has been
operating under it for over two decades (Exs. 121; 329 (1/18/2011, pgs.
113-116)). Many Lamar employees also said they followed the
requirements of the outdoor advertising directive for more than two
decades and are familiar with the requirements. In this regard, Joseph
Shopshear, a Lamar operations manager, said Lamar based its worker
safety programs on the Gannett variance, and that ``[t]he Gannett
Variance is a very important first step in our safety program and other
safety related programs and has been since my employment began with
Lamar'' (Ex. 81). Similarly, William DeVine, another Lamar operations
manager, said the Gannett variance is the ``forefront'' of the
company's safety meetings, the qualified climber qualifications, and
the ``backbone'' of their training program (Ex. 94). Therefore, he:

[U]rge[s] OSHA to allow this variance to remain in effect. Any other
legislation could immediately affect my job and others around me . .
. I do support the Gannet[t] Variance wholeheartedly and request
that it remain permanent in the newest legislation . . . The Gannett
Variance as written will continue to protect me and my fellow
climbers and provide the safest of work environments . . . (Ex. 94)

    Several commenters said that OSHA should codify the qualified
climber exception for outdoor advertising because they have not
experienced any fatalities related to climbing fixed ladders without
fall protection, and falls are ``extremely rare'' (Exs. 106; 260; 329
(1/18/2011, pgs. 113-19); 369). For example, Mike Gentile, another
Lamar operations manager, said, ``There has been over a million climbs
made by all billboard personnel in California in the past ten (10)
years on fixed ladders. To date, I am not aware of one single fall''
(Ex. 106). CCO, which asserted in its comments on the proposed rule
that ``CCO employees simply do not fall from fixed ladders'' (Ex. 121),
expanded on this assertion in its post-hearing comments, stating:

    The past eighteen years has clearly established that the Gannett
Variance works very well for this industry. There have been zero
fatalities and industry is aware of only one fall from a fixed
ladder, one, despite literally millions of climbs. The hard evidence
proves that the variance works and the numbers could only get worse
if the variance is not codified into the new regulations (Ex. 369).

    OAAA, reporting on information from industry members, said, ``From
a safety standpoint, our companies report that no deaths due to falls
from fixed ladders have occurred in the past five years; of the
15,840,000 climbs over the past 5 years, our companies are aware of
only one fall from a fixed ladder'' (Ex. 260). OAAA estimated that its
members, which it said comprise 90 percent of the market, have a total
of 1,800 climbers.
    The International Sign Association (ISA) also supported retaining
the qualified climber exception because of the industry's safety
record, noting, ``It is our understanding that the safety record of
outdoor advertising professionals has been excellent over the last
decade, and that changing the rule would impose unnecessary costs and
technical requirements'' (Ex. 161).
    CCO said it would be too costly to retrofit fixed ladders with fall
protection (Exs. 121; 369). They claimed that it would cost the company
in excess of $80 million to retrofit its 60,000 existing structures
(Ex. 121).\55\ In its post-hearing comments, CCO revised and
supplemented its cost information on retrofitting fixed ladders with
fall protection, noting, ``[T]he installation of cages and wells would
cost approximately $1,400 for first 20 feet and $1,050 for each twenty
foot section after. Accordingly the cost depends upon the height of the
unit'' (Ex. 369). CCO stated further:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ CCO submitted a pre-hearing comment, Ex. 121, and a post-
hearing comment, Ex. 369. In the earlier of CCO's two comments, the
company appeared to be describing compliance costs for the entire
set of billboard ``faces'' owned and operated by the company (60,000
structures, $80 million), whereas in the later comment the company
appeared to be restricting its cost discussion to 20,000 billboard
structures that reach elevations above a certain height and require
a compliance response.

    Clear Channel Outdoor is one of the largest outdoor advertising
businesses in the USA. Many of the remaining companies are very
small ``mom and pop'' types of operations. While Clear Channel has
always met or exceeded regulatory requirements, the additional cost
to comply would not only be a significant impact on the company, it
could potentially put the smaller operations out of business due to
additional financial burden to meet the new requirements.
    Clear Channel Outdoor has in excess of 20,000 structures
domestically. If one were to remove the structures greater than
fifty feet that were address[ed] earlier in these

questions you would be left with approximately 16,000 structures. If
one were to divide that number in half to allow for structures less
than twenty-four feet of ladder climber and specialty structures
without ladders, there would still be around 8,000 structures that
would be affected by the proposed codification of the Gannett
Variance with heights in excess of twenty-four feet of climb
(twenty-five feet is the typical average mentioned in question 1).
To install cages on this number of structures would be approximately
$12,000,000. To install vertical fall protection would be
approximately $2,200,000. While looking at the percentage of cost on
new builds individually may not appear to be that much, to retrofit
structures that are already in existence to meet new requirements
would be extremely expensive.
    Additionally, guardrails, cages and wells could potentially
obscure advertising copy. This could result in a diminishment of
sales and possibly have a catastrophic financial impact on all
outdoor advertisers (Ex. 369).

    Citizens for a Scenic Wisconsin, Inc. (CFSW), raised a similar
concern about requiring fall protection on fixed ladders used for
outdoor advertising. CFSW pointed out that the Federal Highway
Administration allows catwalks or handrails for non-conforming
billboards, and the Highway Beautification Act (HBA) of 1965 allows
non-conforming billboards to remain in place until they are destroyed,
abandoned, discontinued, or removed. CFSW concluded, ``If existing non-
conforming billboards cannot be safely serviced then their advertising
message will eventually become obsolete or so weathered and worn that
it will become discontinued or abandoned, and ordered removed without
compensation as the HBA intended'' (Ex. 217).
    Two commenters supported applying the qualified climber option to
industries other than outdoor advertising. For example, Verallia said
limiting the qualified climber option only to outdoor advertising was
``too restrictive,'' and recommended that OSHA expand the qualified
climber provision to other industries, stating:

    There are many other tasks that are routinely performed in
general industry that are comparable. Without attempting to provide
a comprehensive list of such tasks, one example is the infrequent,
but not uncommon, need to climb a ``smoke stack'' in order to
perform emissions testing. The ``stack tester'' is only at the
elevated level for a relatively short amount of time. This task, and
surely many others, are comparable to that of the ``outdoor
advertiser'' and should also come within the proposed standard at
1910.28(b)(10) (Ex. 171).

    OSHA notes that neither CCO nor OAAA supported allowing existing
fixed ladders used for outdoor advertising to remain in place and
prospectively applying the fall protection requirements to fixed
ladders erected in the future. OAAA said, ``It could be difficult to
support a grandfather provision due to the fact that a new regulatory
requirement could foster inconsistent application of climbing methods
which ultimately could increase overall risk to climbers. Essentially a
double standard is created'' (Ex. 359). OAAA stated further that
``[t]here is concern that two training systems will be required in the
future, one for grandfather structures and another separate program for
new structures and fixed ladders. Thus, this can be costly as well as
potentially strain overall company safety efforts'' (Ex. 359). Finally,
OAAA noted that ``[w]e concur with the use of new technologies to
protect our workers and professional climbers,'' but ``recommend that
OSHA not list specific equipment in the standard so as to give
employers the flexibility to use new technologies as they become
available'' (Ex. 260). A number of Lamar employees agreed, saying that
listing fall protection system in the final rule would make the rule
``outdated as soon as it was published'' (e.g., Exs. 75; 92; 93; 99;
101).
    For a number of reasons, OSHA believes that it is necessary and
appropriate to eliminate the qualified climber exception in the outdoor
advertising industry. First, workers are at risk of death and injury
climbing to elevated heights on fixed ladders without fall protection
(no matter how often) and OSHA believes employers in outdoor
advertising are aware of these risks. For example, CCO, one of the
largest companies in the outdoor advertising industry, said they
already have equipped a number of fixed ladders with fall protection
systems (Ex. 369). CCO added that the average height at which those
fall protection systems protect their workers is 18 feet, which is well
below the height at which fall protection is required in the outdoor
advertising directive. OSHA also notes that the outdoor advertising
industry did not oppose the proposal's requirement that fixed ladders
used in outdoor advertising be equipped with ladder safety systems or
personal fall arrest systems when those ladders exceed 50 feet or for
climbs that exceed 65 feet, which is an acknowledgement that workers
climbing fixed ladders without fall protection are exposed to great
risk.
    As demonstrated in the FEA, falls from ladders are a significant
cause of worker deaths and injuries. The FEA indicates that on average,
falls kill 47 general industry workers and injure 10,716 workers each
year. OAAA said their member companies reported no deaths and only one
fall involving their 1,800 climbers for the years 2005 to 2010 (Ex.
260). OSHA's Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) data
indicate that since the 1991 Gannett Variance there have been at least
three falls from fixed ladders in the outdoor advertising industry, one
of which resulted in death.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ OSHA derives IMIS data from investigations of employer
accident reports. Since OSHA only requires that employers report
accidents that involve a fatality or the hospitalization of three or
more workers, the Agency believes that IMIS data may understate the
number of non-fatal injuries. IMIS Fatality and Catastrophe
Investigation Summaries are found on OSHA's Web site at: http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/accidentsearch.html.
    The referenced falls are in Ex. 393 under the following
inspection numbers: 310696489; 126063924; and 126062694.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The IMIS data also show a large number of falls, in servicing
outdoor advertising structures; however, the data do not identify the
location of the workers on the structures when they fell (Ex. 393).
Therefore, OSHA cannot determine definitively whether the falls were
from fixed ladders. However, OSHA believes that at least some of these
falls could have occurred while workers were climbing the fixed ladder
or transitioning from the fixed ladder to the work platform because the
incident narratives state that workers were not using fall protection
(or were not tied off) when they fell. Since the outdoor advertising
directive requires that employers ensure their workers use fall
protection at all times when they are on work platforms, OSHA believes
that workers may have been on fixed ladders or transitioning from fixed
ladders to the work platform when they fell. As such, OSHA believes
that there may actually be more than the three falls (noted above)
related to climbing without fall protection.
    Second, OSHA believes that requiring outdoor advertising employers
to ensure their workers use ladder safety systems or personal fall
arrest systems when they are on fixed ladders will reduce the risk of
falls when workers are transitioning from fixed ladders to work
platforms (or from the work platform to the fixed ladder).
Stakeholders, including many Lamar Advertising workers, admitted that
transitioning from fixed ladders to work platforms is an ``important''
safety concern (e.g., Exs. 85; 86; 90; 92; 103; 104; 105. See also, Ex.
329 (1/18/2011), p. 333). OAAA agreed, saying the final rule must
ensure ``safe transitions'' from fixed ladders to landing surfaces (Ex.
260). IMIS data show falls occurred in the outdoor advertising industry
when workers were

transitioning between the fixed ladder and the landing/work platform
(Ex. 393). As such, OSHA finds that qualified climber training programs
have not adequately addressed the significant risk associated with
transitioning to/from fixed ladders without work platforms and the
requirement that employers ensure workers use ladder safety systems or
personal fall arrest systems while climbing fixed ladders is needed.
Requiring that workers must be tied off at all times (both on the fixed
ladder and work platform) will reduce the risk of worker falls during
fixed ladder/platform transitions. For example, when workers leave the
work platform they can slip or lose their balance when turning to climb
back down the ladder. At this point the workers may not see the first
rung on the ladder and must feel for a foothold as they transition from
the platform to the fixed ladder. If workers are tied off, falls will
be stopped even if their balance is lost, their foot slips off a ladder
rung, or they lose their grip on the ladder or other hand hold.
    Third, OSHA believes that requiring outdoor advertising employers
to use fall protection on fixed ladders will help to ensure that their
workers also continue to use fall protection (i.e., be tied off) at all
times when they are on outdoor advertising work platforms, which will
reduce fatal falls from those platforms. The outdoor advertising
directive, issued in 1993, requires that employers ensure their workers
use fall protection at all times while on work platforms. However, IMIS
data from 1993-2010 indicate that 23 falls from outdoor advertising
work platforms occurred during that time because either employers did
not provide fall protection for workers or did not ensure workers were
properly tied off. Of those falls, 13 resulted in worker deaths (Ex.
393). OSHA believes if employers must provide and ensure workers use
fall protection when they start climbing fixed ladders to work
platforms that those workers will be more likely to remain tied off
when they reach, and work on, the platforms.
    OSHA notes that requiring that workers in outdoor advertising use
fall protection when they climb fixed ladders makes the final rule
consistent with the construction ladder standard (Sec.
1926.1053(a)(18) and (19)) and other standards the Agency recently
revised (Sec. Sec.  1910.269 and 1926.954). Those standards require
that workers, including specially trained workers similar to qualified
climbers in outdoor advertising, use fall protection while climbing
fixed ladders, poles, towers, and similar structures. For example, the
construction ladder standard requires that employers provide workers
climbing fixed ladders above 24 feet with, and ensure that they use,
ladder safety devices, self-retracting lifelines (i.e., personal fall
arrest system), cages, or wells (Sec.  1926.1053(a)(19)).
    OSHA's revised general industry (Sec.  1910.269) and construction
(29 CFR part 1926, subpart V) electric power generation standards added
a requirement that qualified employees must use fall protection while
climbing or changing locations on poles, towers, or similar structures,
unless the employer can demonstrate that fall protection is not