in a citation (OSHA, 2006a); see Table V-15. The first column in the
table presents cases for which OSHA issued a citation for any reason,
and the other columns in the table indicate cases of non-compliance
with a section of 29 CFR part 1910, subpart D. Table V-15 may overstate
the noncompliance rate because it does not include inspections for
which no citations were issued.

BILLING CODE 4510-29-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18NO16.210

    Based on the analysis presented in Table V-15, OSHA determined that
upper-bound non-compliance rates for floor-guarding requirements in
current Sec.  1910.23 vary by industry. For example, the Finance,
Insurance, and

Real Estate category has the lowest non-compliance rate (2.8 percent),
while Wholesale Trade has the highest non-compliance rate (13.6
percent). For the requirements for fixed industrial stairs, the non-
compliance rates are quite low, ranging from 0 percent (Finance,
Insurance, and Real Estate) to 2.7 percent (Wholesale Trade). For the
remaining sections (portable wood ladders, portable metal ladders,
fixed ladders, scaffolding, and manually propelled mobile ladder stands
and scaffolds), non-compliance rates do not exceed 1.9 percent.
    Thus, for Sec. Sec.  1910.25 through 1910.29, the assumption of 100
percent industry compliance with the existing requirements may be
reasonable.\119\ That is, employers will incur costs only when the
final requirements exceed the existing requirements. OSHA requested
comments on rates and levels of non-compliance with respect to existing
requirements in subpart D, but received no comments; therefore, OSHA
applied the preliminary compliance estimates for existing subpart D in
this FEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ OSHA implicitly considered the costs for all industrial
sectors to meet the existing standards when it published those
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If meeting an existing requirement also would meet the final
requirement, OSHA did not assign costs to the provision. For example,
the existing language for Sec.  1910.27(b)(1)(iii) states that the
clear length of a rung or cleat in a fixed ladder shall be a minimum of
16 inches. Final Sec.  1910.23(b)(4)(iii) states that rungs and steps
on rolling ladders used in telecommunication centers must have a
minimum clear step or rung width of 8 inches (20 cm). A rolling ladder
in telecommunications that meets existing requirements (16 inches)
would also meet the new requirements (a minimum of 8 inches); hence,
OSHA assigned no costs to the final requirement. Later in this cost
analysis, a detailed provision-by-provision examination of potential
costs will provide further concrete examples of OSHA's application of
estimates of current industry compliance and practices.
b. Compliance With National Consensus Standards
    In some instances, the final rule's provisions reflect existing
national consensus standards, and OSHA used information on adherence to
those standards to estimate compliance rates with the concerned
provisions. Due to general adherence to national consensus standards,
for purposes of this analysis, national consensus standards serve as
the ``baseline'' against which OSHA measured the incremental costs and
benefits of the final standard. If the final standard requires a level
of safety equivalent to that in an existing consensus standard, then
there is no difference between the final standard and the baseline
except that the final standard would be mandatory rather than
voluntary. Thus, the costs are those costs associated with the change
from a voluntary standard to a mandatory standard. In such cases, OSHA
assumes employers in compliance with the voluntary consensus standard
incur no additional costs to meet the final rule's requirements. Only
that part of the employer population that currently does not comply
with the voluntary standards would incur these costs. If, however, the
final standard is more stringent than the consensus standard, OSHA
assumed that employers who are not already following practices that
would constitute compliance with the final standard would incur
compliance costs solely attributable to the final OSHA standard.
    ERG developed a logic-flow diagram outlining the process for
identifying costs associated with new regulatory language (see ERG,
2007, Figure 3-2). The starting point is a side-by-side, provision-by-
provision comparison of the existing and final regulatory language. In
many cases, the language changed to enhance comprehension of the
regulation without changing the scope of activities covered or its
requirements. In some cases, the final language gives the employer
alternative methods of compliance that provide protection for employees
equivalent to the original standard, thereby resulting in no costs to
the employer.
    If there is a change from the existing to the final standard, the
second decision point is to determine whether the final standard is
equivalent to an existing consensus standard. If it is, then there
would be no costs associated with the final standard for those
employers already meeting the consensus standard, but there would be
costs for those employers currently not meeting the consensus standard.
    Table V-16 lists the national consensus standards used in subparts
D and I and the associated section of the final rule for subparts D and
I that refer to each of these consensus standards.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18NO16.211

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18NO16.212

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18NO16.213

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18NO16.214

    At the next decision point, if the final standard differs from the
existing requirements, the presence or absence of a ``grandfather''
provision determines whether employers incur costs to retrofit and
upgrade to the new requirements when the standard becomes effective or
when employers replace infrastructure or equipment at a time of their
choosing. OSHA discusses the cost effects of grandfather provisions in
more detail below and in the ERG report (ERG, 2007).
    Some equipment addressed by the final standard, such as portable
ladders or mobile ladder stands, is commercially available to employers
in ready-to-use condition. OSHA believes that manufacturers design and
fabricate such equipment, in virtually all cases, to meet current
consensus standards because equipment manufacturers seek to avoid: (1)
The small market represented by employers that would purchase non-
compliant equipment, and (2) the liabilities associated with
manufacturing non-compliant equipment.
    Typically, employers use architects, engineers, and/or contractors
to design, fabricate, and install certain types of site-specific
equipment. While it is conceivable that an employer might insist on
installing nonconforming equipment, OSHA believes that professional
standards for architects and engineers, local building codes, and
potential liability concerns dictate that virtually all employers
voluntarily use equipment conforming to existing national consensus
standards. For these reasons, OSHA concludes that compliant equipment
will be available to meet the final requirements of subparts D and I.
For example, final Sec.  1910.23(b)(1) specifies that ladder rungs and
steps must be parallel, level, and uniformly spaced when the ladder is
in a position for use. While existing Sec.  1910.25(c)(2)(i)(b) covers
steps, no existing OSHA standard covers rungs. However, current
national consensus standards cover both rungs and steps (see Table V-
16).
    Likewise, the spacing requirements for the steps of step stools and
the rungs, steps, and cleats of ladders covered by final paragraphs
Sec.  1910.23(b)(3) and (4) are new (i.e., not in the existing
standard); however, the current consensus standard for ladders includes
these spacing requirements. Similarly, final Sec.  1910.23(d)(7)
requires that grab bars on fixed ladders extend 42 inches (1.1 m) above
the access level or landing platform served by the ladder. While the
existing standard does not have a similar provision, the provision is
in the ANSI 14.3-2008 standard for fixed ladders. Therefore, OSHA did
not assign costs to final Sec.  1910.23(d)(7).
    In conclusion, for establishing a baseline, OSHA assumed that
equipment and work practices met the national consensus standard in
effect at the time of installation, and did not estimate costs when the
provisions in the final standard and the current national consensus
standards were equivalent. For additional analysis of the interface
between national consensus standards and OSHA standards, see ERG, 2007,
pp. 3-6 and 3-14.
c. Compliance Using the Least-Cost Method
    Consistent with past practice, OSHA assumed that employers would
meet a regulatory requirement by choosing the least expensive means to
do so. For example, under final Sec.  1910.28(b)(1), an employer can
meet the duty to have fall protection for an employee on a walking-
working surface with an unprotected side or edge by using: (A)
Guardrail systems, (B) safety net systems, or (C) personal fall
protection systems such as personal fall arrest, travel restraint, or
work-positioning systems. If (A)-(C) are not feasible or create a
greater hazard for residential roofing work, the final standard permits
a fourth option, i.e., developing and implementing a specified fall
protection plan. The existing standard only specifies options (A)-(C);
therefore, OSHA assigned no costs to Sec.  1910.28(b)(1) except when
there were ambiguities in the scope of the existing standard, such as
its application to loading docks or teeming platforms.
    In some cases, when the final rule gives an employer a lower-cost
compliance option than is currently available, the employer could
realize a cost savings. However, OSHA did not estimate such savings in
this analysis.
d. No Costs Due to Grandfathering Provision
    Table V-17 lists the paragraphs in the final standard with new
requirements, but which also have a ``grandfather'' provision for
existing conditions. A grandfather provision exempts equipment that
currently is in place from requirements that strengthen or upgrade the
safety features of the equipment. Therefore, employers do not incur
costs associated with modifying or replacing equipment covered by these
paragraphs.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18NO16.215

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18NO16.216

4. Cost Impacts for Final Subparts D (Walking-Working Surfaces)
    This subsection provides a brief paragraph-by-paragraph review of
the final rule. OSHA took a two-step approach to determining the cost
impacts of the final rule. First, the Agency looked at requirements
that represent changes from the existing walking working surfaces and
personal protective equipment standards to determine whether they might
involve additional incremental costs. That analysis is described in
this subsection and subsection 5. In subsection 6, ``Cost Estimates,''
OSHA discusses how it reached an estimate of the costs for each
provision OSHA identified as involving additional costs.
    Table V-18 summarizes the paragraphs in the final subparts D and I
that represent changes from the existing standards and might result in
costs to employers if current industry practice falls short of the
requirements of the rule. In the PEA, these costs primarily involved
inspection and training; for this FEA, OSHA also identified significant
costs for engineering and administrative controls and personal
protective equipment. For the purpose of this analysis, OSHA
distinguished between informal and formal training. For example, final
Sec.  1910.23(b)(11) states that an employee must face the ladder when
ascending or descending. For this provision, OSHA assumed that
employers provide such instruction on an in-house basis (e.g., ``on-
the-job'' training), using materials such as OSHA training videos. When
employers deliver training on an ongoing, less formal basis, OSHA did
not assign a tracking or recordkeeping cost to it. However, as
indicated in the table, OSHA attributed employer costs (and employee
benefits, as discussed later in this FEA) to such provisions, where
OSHA judged that additional training would be required beyond baseline
practice.\122\ When the regulatory text uses the words ``trained'' or
``training,'' OSHA assumed that employers would deliver the instruction
on a more formal basis, possibly hiring a contractor to deliver the
training. OSHA assumed that an employer would maintain documentation of
all formal training and, thus, assigned a cost for this administrative
task.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ See the discussion later in this section and Ex. [OSHA
Excel Workbook], tabs one_time_23 and annual_23, for details on the
training costs attributed to the final requirements for ladders
under Sec.  1910.23(b) and (c).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18NO16.217

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18NO16.218

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18NO16.219

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18NO16.220

    Finally, three requirements in the standard specify that employers
must provide training in accordance with Sec.  1910.30 or the
equivalent:
     Sec.  1910.27(b)(2)(iii): Rope descent systems;
     Sec.  1910.28(b)(1)(ii)(C): Unprotected sides and edges;
and
     Sec.  1910.28(b)(4)(ii)(C): Dockboards.
    The costs for Sec.  1910.30 include the costs for the three
paragraphs listed above.
    In the following subsection, organized by regulatory provision,
OSHA discusses the potential cost implications of the new requirements.
OSHA described earlier in this cost analysis final changes to the
existing standard that likely will result in little or no costs; OSHA
does not address these changes in the discussion below.
General Requirements (Sec.  1910.22)
    Sec.  1910.22(b). This provision specifies general requirements,
one of which is that employers must ensure that the walking-working
surface has the strength to support employees safely. From the
standpoint of compliance costs, OSHA believes that employers can meet
this requirement by performing a 5- to 10-minute inspection of the
surface or reviewing engineering diagrams of the structure. In rare
circumstances, an employer might need to spend 15 to 30 minutes
determining if the work can proceed. OSHA discusses the costs for this
provision later in this subsection in connection with the duty to
inspect walking-working surfaces as part of the general requirements
specified under Sec.  1910.22(d) (see ``Cost estimates'' below).
    Sec.  1910.22(c). The employer must provide employees with, and
ensure that they use, a safe means of access to, and egress from, one
walking-working surface to another. The language in existing Sec.
1910.22(b) specifies that employers must keep aisles and passageways
clear, in good repair, and with no obstruction across or in the aisles
that could create a hazard to employees. For the PEA, OSHA generalized
the terms ``aisles'' and ``passageways'' in proposed Sec.  1910.22(c)
to cover all means of access and egress. The terminology in the
proposed rule was consistent with that in a National Fire Protection
Association consensus standard (NFPA 101). Thus, OSHA assigned no costs
to proposed Sec.  1910.22(c) in the PEA and, with no comment in the
record objecting to that decision, OSHA assigned no costs to Sec.
1910.22(c) in this FEA.
    Sec.  1910.22(d). This new provision sets forth requirements for
the employer to inspect regularly and as necessary, and maintain in a
safe condition, walking-working surfaces; guard hazardous conditions to
prevent employee use until the employer corrects or repairs the hazard;
and have a qualified person inspect perform or supervise any correction
or repair work that involves the structural integrity of a walking-
working surface. OSHA considered the costs for these safe work
practices below under ``Cost estimates'' (for the duty to have fall
protection; Sec.  1910.28).
Ladders (Sec.  1910.23)
    Sec.  1910.23(a). This paragraph specifying the application final
standard covers all ladders, except when the ladder is used in
emergency operations such as firefighting, rescue, and tactical law
enforcement operations, or training for these operations or designed
into or is an integral part of machines or equipment. Special wood
ladders specifically excluded in the existing standard, including fruit
picker's ladders, combination step and extension ladders, stockroom
step ladders, aisle-way step ladders, shelf ladders, and library
ladders are now included under the final standard. In the PEA, OSHA
assumed that these ladders met consensus standards for wooden ladders
(see Table V-16) and, therefore, OSHA expected that employers would
incur no costs with the expanded application. After reviewing the
record, OSHA reached the same conclusion for this FEA.
    Final Sec.  1910.23(b)(4) specifies a minimum clear rung, step, or
cleat width of 11.5 inches for portable ladders and 16 inches for fixed
ladders; thus, the distance from the centerline to the inside edge of
the ladder ranges from roughly 6 to 8 inches. Adding the existing
requirement of 2.5 inches from the nearest edge of the ladder to the
nearest edge of the structure or equipment to the 6- to 8-inch
centerline width required by the final standard results in a step-
across width of 8.5 to 10.5 inches for the purposes of the final
standard. Thus, any fixed ladder that meets the existing requirements
also meets the final requirements. OSHA assigned no costs to this
paragraph in the PEA. Therefore, absent comment by the public or any
other evidence in the record that would alter this preliminary
assessment, the Agency assigned no costs for this paragraph in this
FEA.
    Sec.  1910.23(b)(4)(iii). This paragraph concerns rolling ladders
in communications centers, which OSHA moved to this final rule from
existing Sec.  1910.268(h)(5), Telecommunications. Thus, as this is not
a new requirement, it has no costs.
    Sec.  1910.23(b)(4)(iv). This paragraph is a new requirement that
addresses the minimum clear width for stepstools, which OSHA defines as
a type of portable ladder (Sec.  1910.21(b)). The final rule specifies
that stepstools must have a minimum clear width of at least 10.5 inches
instead of the 11.5-inch minimum clear width that the final rule
requires for other portable ladders. Although OSHA did not receive any
comments on this issue, the Agency

added this provision to make the rule consistent with ANSI/ALI national
consensus standards for wood and metal portable ladders (A14.1-2007 and
A14.2-2007). OSHA assigned no costs to this paragraph in the PEA, and
absent comment by the public or any other evidence in the record that
would alter this preliminary assessment, the Agency assigned no costs
for this paragraph in this FEA.
    Sec.  1910.23(b)(9). Both the existing and proposed standards had a
requirement to inspect ladders before use. In the PEA, OSHA determined
that the inspection frequency would not increase under the proposed
standard. Therefore, OSHA concluded that employers would incur no
additional costs associated with this requirement and, after reviewing
the record following publication of the NPRM, reached the same
conclusion for this FEA.
    Sec.  1910.23(b)(11)-(13); Sec.  1910.23(c)(5) and (6) and (9)-
(11). These eight paragraphs include instructions to employees on the
proper use of ladders. Final Sec.  1910.23(c)(5) prohibits the use of
single rail ladders, which OSHA finds is a training requirement. The
wide availability of permitted ladders means that there are no
equipment costs associated with this prohibition. In the PEA, OSHA also
concluded that training would cover the other six provisions, and
reached the same conclusion for this FEA. OSHA considered training
costs below under ``Cost estimates.''
    Sec.  1910.23(c)(12) and (13). These provisions state that
employers are not to tie or fasten ladders and ladder sections together
to provide added length unless the design of the ladders permits such
use, nor are employers to place ladders on boxes, barrels, or other
unstable bases to obtain additional height. These provisions are
essentially identical to current paragraphs Sec. Sec.  1910.25(d)(2)(v)
and 1910.26(c)(3)(vi), which specify that neither wood nor metal
portable ladders may be spliced, tied, or fastened together or elevated
on unstable surfaces to create a longer section or higher reach unless
the manufacturer has designed the equipment for such a purpose. These
provisions, both in the existing and final standards, might cause
employers to incur a cost if it is necessary to purchase longer
ladders, or ladders that they can fasten together. During the comment
period, OSHA received no data estimating the frequency of such
occurrences but, presumably, they are rare. Thus, OSHA did not assign a
cost to these paragraphs in this final analysis.
    Sec.  1910.23(d)(1). As proposed, fixed ladders installed 90 days
after the effective date of the final standard must be capable of
supporting two live loads of at least 250 pounds each, additional
concentrated loads of 250 pounds each, plus anticipated loads caused by
ice build-up and other conditions. Each rung must be capable of
supporting at least a single concentrated load of 250 pounds. The
language in this proposed requirement reflected the consensus standard
in ANSI A14.3-2002. The language in the existing standard, however,
specifies a single concentrated load of 200 pounds.
    As discussed earlier in this preamble, OSHA removed paragraph
(d)(2) of the proposed rule from the final rule because OSHA believes
that the performance criteria specified in final Sec.  1910.23(d)(1)
provide an adequate level of safety for employees. Therefore, because
paragraph (d)(1) reflects industry practice as documented in ANSI
A14.3-2002, there are no costs associated with this provision.
    Sec.  1910.23(d)(12)(i). This final provision requires that
employers measure ``step-across distance'' from the centerline of the
steps or rungs of a fixed ladder. The existing definition measures
step-across distance from the nearest edge of the ladder to the nearest
edge of the structure or equipment. The minimum distance under the
final standard is 7 inches, and under the existing standard it is 2.5
inches; the maximum distance in the final standard is 12 inches,
identical to the current standard. OSHA assigned no costs to this
paragraph in the PEA and, although the minimum step-across distance in
the proposed standard differed significantly from that in the current
standard, no commenters objected to the proposed expansion in minimum
step-across distance. Therefore, OSHA assigned no costs to this
provision in this FEA.
    Sec.  1910.23(d)(12)(ii). The final standard specifies that the
step-across distance from the centerline of the steps or rungs of a
fixed ladder to the access point of the platform edge for side-step
ladders must be not less than 15 and not more than 20 inches. Based on
Figure D-10 in the existing standard, the maximum space from the edge
of the ladder to the platform (i.e., access point) is 12 inches. As
noted in the previous paragraph, the centerline width for a fixed
ladder ranges from roughly 6 to 8 inches. The total step-across
distance under the existing standard ranges from 18 to 20 inches. Thus,
a fixed ladder that meets the existing requirements also meets the
final requirements. Therefore, OSHA assigned no costs to this paragraph
in the PEA and OSHA assigned no costs to this provision in this FEA.
    Sec.  1910.23(e). Paragraph (e)(1)(viii) (which impede or prohibit
moving occupied mobile ladder stands and platforms) are the only
paragraphs in this provision that do not have a corresponding
requirement in a national consensus standard. However, these are work
practice requirements that employers can meet through ladder safety
training and enforcement. See the subsection titled ``Cost estimates''
below.
    All other provisions in Sec.  1910.23(e) meet the national
consensus standard in the ANSI A14 series. An analysis of fiscal year
2005 OSHA inspection data for violations of existing subpart D indicate
that the failure to provide safe ladders is low (e.g., 0.2 percent of
the violations were for portable wood ladders, 0.4 percent were for
metal ladders, and 0.8 percent were for fixed ladders). Based on these
data, OSHA infers that there is nearly 100 percent compliance with the
provisions of the current consensus standards. Therefore, OSHA assigned
no costs for equipment upgrades required by these paragraphs. However,
OSHA assigned costs for the time it would take to ensure new ladders
meet the technical specifications found in Sec.  1910.23(e); see ``Cost
estimates'' below.
Step Bolts and Manhole Steps (Sec.  1910.24)
    The requirements for step bolts are new to subpart D. In the
preliminary regulatory impact analysis for the 1990 proposed rule, OSHA
noted, ``Manufactured products, such as ladders, step bolts, manhole
steps . . . generally meet or exceed proposed OSHA specifications''
(OSHA, 1990a). A 2003 OSHA interpretation document comments that OSHA
believes that the IEEE 1307-1996 consensus standard, in most cases,
prevents or eliminates serious hazards (OSHA, 2003a). IEEE 1307-1996
defines ``failure'' in a step bolt as occurring when it is bent more
than 15 degrees below the horizontal, and Sec.  1910.24(a)(9) in the
final standard for subpart D mirrors that definition. Because IEEE
revised the standard in 2004, OSHA, in the most recent PEA for subparts
D and I, assumed that industry was using the more up-to-date consensus
standard. For this FEA, OSHA continues to assume that industry is
complying with the 2004 IEEE standard.
    Sec.  1910.24(a)(1). This provision reads, ``[The employer must
ensure:] Each step bolt installed on or after January 17, 2017] in an
environment where corrosion may occur is constructed of,

or coated with, material that protects against corrosion.'' The
national consensus standard applicable to this requirement is ASTM
A394-08, Specification for Steel Transmission Tower Bolts, Zinc-Coated
and Bare. The appendix to the consensus standard notes that the
purchaser shall specify the dimensions of ladder bolts, step bolts, and
equipment-support bolts. The ASTM standard describes three types of
bolts covered by the standard:
     Type 0: Hot-dip, zinc-coated bolts made of low or medium
carbon steel (ASTM 394-08, Section 1.1.1);
     Type 1: Hot-dip, zinc-coated bolts made of medium carbon
steel, quenched and tempered (ASTM 394-08, Section 1.1.2); and
     Type 3: Bare (uncoated), quenched and tempered bolts made
of weathering steel (ASTM 394-08, Section 1.1.4).\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ ATSM removed type 2 bolts from the standard in 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Appendix A.2 of the consensus standard mentions that bolts should
be Type 0 unless agreed upon by the manufacturer and purchaser. That
is, the default condition is to use zinc-coated bolts; therefore, such
bolts would meet the OSHA requirement for corrosion resistance.
Presumably, the use of any other bolt type means that the manufacturer
and purchaser agreed that the bolt is appropriate for the intended
environment and use. Since manufacturers of step bolts are unlikely to
make non-compliant step bolts, OSHA assigned no costs to Sec.
1910.24(a)(1) in the PEA and also assigned no cost to this provision in
this FEA.
    Sec.  1910.24(a)(6). This provision reads, ``[The employer must
ensure:] Each step bolt installed before January 17, 2017 is capable of
supporting its maximum intended load.'' In the final standard, OSHA
revised the proposed text by reducing the implementation period after
the publication date of the final standard from 90 days to 60 days, a
change that OSHA believes will not impose significant costs on
employers.
    The requirement that a step bolt must be capable of supporting its
maximum intended load is consistent with IEEE 1307-2004, Standard for
Fall Protection for Utility Work. Section <IP_ADDRESS>(d) in that standard
reads:

    Step bolts shall [b]e capable of supporting the intended
workload [as defined for the application specified by the
appropriate ANSI standard(s)], but in no case shall the minimum
design live load be less than a simple concentrated load of 271 kg
(598.4 lb) applied 51 mm (2 inches) from the inside face of the step
bolt head.

    Therefore, OSHA assigned no costs to this provision in the PEA and,
after considering all factors associated with this provision, did not
alter this estimation for this FEA.
    Sec.  1910.24(a)(7). This paragraph requires that step bolts
installed on or after 60 days after publication of the final rule be
capable of supporting four times their maximum intended load. As
discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA considered a \5/
8\-inch bolt as meeting this requirement, and bolts of that size are
readily available. Therefore, in the PEA OSHA determined that there
would be no incremental costs associated with this provision.
    In prehearing comments, The Southern Company questioned OSHA's
proposed load criterion, stating, ``Instead of using the four times the
maximum intended load, OSHA should consider using the criteria of the
NESC or IEEE 1307'' (Ex. 192, p.3). OSHA noted earlier in the summary
and explanation for this paragraph that, under this performance-based
final rule, employers may use a range of methodologies, including
criteria found in consensus standards, to determine the load
capabilities of step bolts. Therefore, since bolt manufacturers are
producing bolts that meet these design criteria, OSHA believes that
there will be little, if any, additional cost burden on employers who
must use step bolts that meet OSHA's load requirement, and, therefore,
assigned no compliance costs to this provision in the final rule.
    Sec.  1910.24(a)(8) and Sec.  1910.24(b)(3). Under these paragraphs
of the final standard, employers must inspect step bolts and manhole
steps at the start of each workshift. OSHA considered inspection costs
below under ``Cost estimates.''
    Sec.  1910.24(b). Table V-19 summarizes the language in the final
standard for manhole steps, along with the corresponding section of
ASTM C478-13. The following three requirements in this provision exceed
the requirements specified in a national consensus standard for steps
in precast concrete manhole sections:
     Manhole steps must have slip-resistant surfaces such as
corrugated, knurled, or dimpled surfaces;
     Manhole steps must be constructed of, or coated with,
material that protects against corrosion in an environment where
corrosion may occur; and
     The design of manhole steps must prevent the employee's
foot from slipping or sliding off the end of the manhole step.
    ASTM C478-13 permits the use of uncoated or untreated ferrous steps
as long as they are at least 1 inch in cross-section, but is silent
with regard to a slip-resistant surface or design. Because the final
requirements appear to exceed the requirements in the consensus
standard, the PEA determined that there would be incremental costs for
slip-resistant and corrosion-resistant surfaces when employers rebuild
or replace a manhole section. Moreover, the specifications in the final
standard, unlike the consensus standard, define when a step fails while
still in the manhole; thus, as noted in the PEA, there would also be
step replacement costs associated with this provision. OSHA discusses
these costs below under ``Cost estimates.''

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18NO16.221

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ ASTM C478-13, Section 16.5.3, specifies that the rung or
cleat shall project a uniform clear distance of four inches minimum
\1/4\ in. from the wall to the embedment side of the
rung. The OSHA distance in the final standard measures from the
centerline of the manhole step. Thus, if a step is at least an inch
wide, a step that meets the ASTM 4-inch requirement also would meet
the OSHA 4.5-inch requirement.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stairways (Sec.  1910.25)
    Sec.  1910.25(b)(5). The existing standard states that employers
must provide a platform for doors or gates that open directly onto a
stairway, and the swing of the door must not reduce the effective width
to less than 20 inches. In the final standard, platforms installed
before 60 days after the publication date of the final rule need only
comply with the existing requirements; therefore, there are no retrofit
costs to employers. For platforms installed on or after 60 days from
the publication date of the final rule, the effective width increases
to 22 inches.\127\ Employers will have an incremental cost when
replacing a platform with one that has two inches of additional
clearance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ The 22-inch clearance requirement for new structures
matches ANSI A1264, Section 6.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenting on the proposed revision to this paragraph, Ameren
Corporation expressed concerned about the proposed 90-day
grandfathering timeline:

    Lead time for material orders are often quite longer than three
months often up to years to order material for large capital
projects. Small projects with possibly only a small amount of
material being required shouldn't have much of an issue of complying
depending on the manufacturer capabilities and their imposed
deadlines. Stipulations of ``ordered'' material should be imposed in
regard to the date of the final rule because the time between
ordering and placing into service is often greater than 90 days.
(Ex. 189, p. 6.)

In response, OSHA recognizes that, as Ameren indicates, some large
projects may require a lead-time longer than 60 to 90 days. However,
OSHA also believes that most, if not all, manufacturers of such
platforms should be familiar with the associated consensus standard,
ANSI A1264.1-2007, and, therefore, produce platforms now that meet the
22-inch clearance requirement. OSHA believes that most contracts, as a
usual and customary practice, already incorporate into the cost of the
product the minimal increase in material cost borne by the employer to
meet the clearance specification. For the reasons given above under the
subsection titled ``Compliance with national consensus standards,''
OSHA estimated no incremental costs for this provision (Sec.
1910.25(a)(6)) in the PEA and, for these same reasons, did not take
incremental costs for the provision (Sec.  1910.25(b)(5)) in the final
standard.
    Sec.  1910.25(d). Existing Sec.  1910.24(b) does not permit spiral
stairways except under special conditions. Employers cannot use spiral
stairs under final Sec.  1910.25(d) unless the stairs meets specific
design specifications. Therefore, employers must modify or replace
existing spiral staircases that do not meet these requirements.
However, spiral staircases are likely to be relatively rare in
commercial or industrial settings given that they are exceptions to the
existing rule. Thus, OSHA did not assign costs to Sec.  1910.25(d) in
the PEA. Given that no commenters objected to this preliminary cost
estimate, OSHA is estimating no costs for this paragraph in this FEA.
    Sec.  1910.25(e). OSHA developed this paragraph in response to a
comment made to an OMB-initiated, government-wide effort to reform
regulation in the U.S. manufacturing sector. This comment, submitted by
the Copper and Brass Fabricators Council, stated that OSHA required the
use of fixed stairs when ship stairs or spiral stairways would be safer
(OMB, 2005).
    Employers typically install ship stairs with slopes of 50 degrees
or greater; however, the existing standard for fixed stairs addresses
stairs installed at angles between 30 and 50 degrees, but does not
specifically address ship stairs. Recently, OSHA issued an
interpretation stating that if ship stairs conformed to the 1990
proposed standard for subpart D,\128\ the Agency would consider slopes
up to 70 degrees to be de minimis violation of the existing standard
\129\ (OSHA, 2006b and 2006c). OSHA believes that most existing ships
stairs conform to the 1990 proposed standard, and therefore the Agency
assigned no costs to Sec.  1910.25(e) in the PEA, nor did it assign
costs to Sec.  1910.25(e) in this FEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ The 1990 proposed standard allowed ship stairs that are
designed with slopes between 50 degrees and 70 degrees from the
horizontal; have open risers; have treads that are four inches (10
cm) in depth, 18 inches (46 cm) in width, and a vertical rise
between tread surfaces of six and one-half inches to 12 inches (16
cm to 30 cm); and have handrails that are installed on both sides of
the ship stairs and meet Sec.  1910.28 (within the existing
standard). (55 FR 13400.)
    \129\ See OSHA's Field Operation Manual: https://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/Directive_pdf/CPL_02-00-148.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sec.  1910.25(f). The existing standard does not expressly mention
alternating tread-type (tread) stairs. A letter of interpretation from
OSHA to a manufacturer of alternating tread stairs concluded that these
stairs are safe (OSHA, 1981). NFPA 101, Section 7.2.11 (NFPA, 2012)
also addresses alternating tread stairs. As discussed in the PEA, any
alternating tread stair that meets the requirements of NFPA 101 would
also meet the requirements in Sec.  1910.25(f); accordingly, the PEA
determined that this provisions does not impose a new cost burden on
employers. Thus, in this FEA, OSHA did not assign costs to this
provision.
Dockboards (Sec.  1910.26)
    Sec.  1910.26(b). The text for this provision states that the
employer must ensure dockboards put into initial service on or after
January 17, 2017 are designed, constructed, and maintained to prevent
transfer vehicles from running off the dockboard edge. Exception: When
the employer demonstrates there is no hazard of transfer vehicles
running off the dockboard edge, the employer may use dockboards that do
not have run-off protection.
    The definition of a dockboard in ANSI MH30.2-2005, Section 2.2,
contains the language ``as well as providing a run-off guard, or
curb,'' similar to the requirement in this final provision. OSHA
believes, as it stated in the PEA, that nearly all dockboards
manufactured currently conform to the ANSI standard; however, should an
employer encounter an older, out-of-compliance dockboard, OSHA believes
that the costs for them to comply with the final standard will be
minimal. Therefore, in the absence of comment on this analysis, OSHA is
not assigning costs in this FEA for final Sec.  1910.26(b).
    Sec.  1910.26(e). The text for this provision reads, ``[The
employer must ensure:] Portable dockboards are equipped with handholds
or other means to permit safe handling of dockboards.'' The requirement
in final Sec.  1910.26(e) that portable dockboards have handholds or
other means to permit safe handling is essentially the same requirement
specified in existing Sec.  1910.30(a)(4), which OSHA based on ANSI/
ASME B56.1, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Safety Standard
for Low Lift and High Lift Trucks. Therefore, OSHA believes that
commercial dockboards likely come equipped with handholds and that any
additional costs associated with this provision will be minimal. Thus,
OSHA in this FEA did not assign costs for final Sec.  1910.26(e).
Scaffolds and Rope Descent Systems (Sec.  1910.27)
    Sec.  1910.27(a). This paragraph extends the construction industry
requirements for scaffolds (except rope descent systems) to general
industry. OSHA believes that many general industry employers who use
scaffolds also perform work covered by the construction industry
standards and are already familiar, and in compliance, with the
construction industry scaffold standards. Therefore, linking the final
standard for scaffolds in general

industry to the scaffold requirements in 29 CFR part 1926 resolves any
inconsistencies between the scaffold requirements for the construction
and general industries. OSHA received no comment on this analysis in
the PEA. Thus, as in the PEA, OSHA attributed no costs to this
paragraph in this FEA.
    Sec.  1910.27(b)(1). When employers use rope descent systems (RDS;
also known as controlled-descent devices) for building maintenance, the
final standard requires that the building owner or its representative
provide to the building-maintenance contractor (the employer) written
documentation of identified, tested, certified, and maintained
anchorages capable of supporting at least 5,000 pounds (268 kg), in any
direction, for each employee attached. As OSHA noted in the PEA, it
would appear from the documentation associated with the industry
consensus standard, ANSI/IWCA I-14.1, that the International Window
Cleaning Association (IWCA) customarily finds from information its
members receive that many buildings lack the required anchorages. A key
provision of that consensus standard is a written work plan (Section
1.7), and the IWCA Web site urges window cleaning enterprises to
develop written plans and coordinate their operations with building
owners. Accordingly, the IWCA Web site states:

    The intent of the [IWCA I-14.1] standard was not to stop window
cleaning, it was to improve the level of safety of our industry by
having a shared responsibility between the window cleaner and the
building owner. If you have outdated equipment or are using
equipment that doesn't meet the standard, phase it out. If you have
buildings you're working on that are dangerous and are using
creative rigging, phase them out and work with the building owners
toward compliance. (IWCA, 2014.)

    ANSI/IWCA I-14.1, Section 17, lists options for roof support
equipment, including:
     Parapets, cornices, and building anchorages (Section
17.1);
     Davits and davit fixtures (a crane-like structure, Section
17.2);
     Sockets (Section 17.3);
     Tiebacks (Section 17.4);
     Counterweighted outriggers (Section 17.5);
     Parapet clamps and cornice hooks (Section 17.6); and
     Overhead monorail tracks and trolleys (Section 17.7);
    Several of these options, such as counterweighted outriggers, are
transportable and likely supplied by the contractor. Thus, the work
plan delineates how the employer is to perform the work using a mix of
contractor and property-owner equipment. The consensus standard
provides several acceptable options for roof support equipment, and
specifies that both the contractor and property owner concur with the
work plan, and that the work plan describe how the contractor will
perform the job safely. For the PEA, OSHA presumed that voluntary
compliance with the consensus standard is likely to be high. However,
as described in detail below, comments in the record indicate that
industry compliance with the provision for sound anchorages varies
considerably. In the PEA, OSHA assigned no costs for equipment;
however, the Agency did estimate costs for inspections and
certification that anchorages meet requirements. OSHA discusses these
costs below in the subsection titled ``Cost estimates.''
    Sec.  1910.27(b)(2)(i). Rope descent systems are an alternative to
powered platforms. The final rule states that employers cannot use rope
descent systems at heights greater than 300 feet unless they
demonstrate that it is not feasible to access such heights by any other
means or that those means pose a greater hazard to employees than using
a rope descent system. The wording of the final rule is consistent with
the industry consensus standard, ANSI/IWCA I-14.1, 2001. Accordingly,
both the IWCA consensus standard and the final OSHA standard (1)
prohibit the use of rope descent systems for descents exceeding 300
feet, and (2) contain an exclusion clause, which, in the case of the
IWCA standard, provides that the requirement apply unless ``access
cannot safely and practicably be obtained by other means.'' Because
both the IWCA and OSHA standards contain a similar exclusion clause,
the OSHA requirement is no more restrictive than the consensus
standard.
    Since this is a work-practice as opposed to an equipment-
specification requirement, incremental costs are attributable to the
OSHA standard only to the extent that employers would not voluntarily
comply with the IWCA standard and to the extent that employers provide
excess-risk documentation to OSHA. Employers, therefore, would incur
costs from this provision only when (1) a building is 300 feet tall or
higher, and (2) there is an alternative to the rope descent system that
is feasible and at least as safe as an RDS. For the PEA, ERG examined a
database developed by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat
(CTBUH) and identified slightly more than 1,900 buildings in the United
States that are 300 feet (91.7 m) tall or higher (CTBUH, 2006). Over 25
percent of these buildings are in New York City, where state law does
not allow the use of rope descent systems for window cleaning
(DiChacho, 2006). Accordingly, ERG derived an estimate of 1,500
potentially affected buildings nationwide (ERG, 2007). For the PEA,
OSHA assumed that some of these 1,500 buildings have permanently
installed power platforms for access to the exterior of the building,
and further assumed that using a platform would be less expensive than
setting up an RDS.
    For this FEA, OSHA examined the CTBUH database described above and
determined that, currently: Approximately 1,960 existing buildings are
300 feet or higher; of that total, roughly 600 buildings with a height
of 300 feet or greater are in New York City; and two states--California
and Minnesota--have statutes that limit the RDS descent distance to,
respectively, 130 feet and 300 feet (CA-DIR, 2012; Minnesota, 2012).
After subtracting the number of buildings in those three states from
the total, OSHA conservatively estimates that the 300-foot limit
specified by this final standard would affect 1,300 buildings with a
height of 300 feet or greater.\130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ Valcourt Building Services estimated that 2.6 percent of
its window washing operations involve buildings that are 300 feet or
greater in height (Ex. 358). If OSHA applies that percentage to the
number of all commercial buildings subject to the suspended
scaffolds standard and, therefore, potentially affected by the 300-
foot limit (DOE, 2006), the resulting estimate is significantly
greater than the CTBUH estimate. This finding suggests that
Valcourt's operations involve an unusually large proportion of
buildings that are taller than 300 feet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final set of buildings for which Sec.  1910.27(b)(2) could
result in costs are those buildings for which employers use RDS due to
technical factors specific to a building's history, architecture, or
style of operation. For example, to wash regularly the windows of a
tall building with many sharp angles or tiered levels, management may
find it cost-effective to contract for RDS rather than powered
platforms. OSHA expects that there will be additional costs to the
building owners in these situations because of factors discussed below
under ``Cost estimates.''
    Sec.  1910.27(b)(2)(ii)-(xiii). With one exception, these
paragraphs in the final standard codify safety provisions presented in
the 1991 memorandum to OSHA's Regional Administrators, which are
similar to the requirements now specified in the national consensus
standard, ANSI/IWCA I-14.1 (OSHA, 1991b). The safety provisions in this
ANSI standard that mirror the OSHA memo are:
     Training employees in the use of the equipment;

     Inspecting the equipment each day before use and removing
of damaged equipment from service;
     Using proper rigging, including sound anchorages and
tiebacks, in all cases, with particular emphasis on providing tiebacks
when using counterweights, cornice hooks, or similar non-permanent
anchorage systems;
     Using a separate personal fall arrest system;
     When installing lines, using knots, swages, or eye splices
when rigging RDS that are capable of sustaining a minimum tensile load
of 5,000 pounds;
     Providing prompt rescue of employees;
     Effectively padding ropes where they contact edges of a
building, anchorage, obstructions, or other surfaces that might cut or
weaken the rope; and
     Providing stabilization at the work location when descents
are greater than 130 feet.
    A provision in the OSHA memo not duplicated in the ANSI standard is
the requirement in final Sec.  1910.27(2)(b)(xi), which specifies that
no employee may use an RDS under hazardous weather conditions, such as
storms or gusty or excessive wind. OSHA estimates that this new
provision is not likely to present a significant burden on employers
because of the relatively high levels of current compliance with the
provision (see, for example, Ex. 329 (1/19/2011), pp. 213, 346, 411-
412) and the Agency's expectation, based on comments in the record (Ex.
329 (1/19/2011), pp. 235-236, 361), that employers will respond to wind
conditions by adjusting window cleaning operations to minimize lost
revenue and added project costs (for example, scheduling window
cleaning operations on short buildings when weather conditions would
create a hazard for window cleaning operations on tall buildings).
    The proposed regulatory text updated the 1991 OSHA memo by using
terminology such as ``prompt rescue'' rather than ``rescue'' and
``harness'' rather than ``body belt,'' but, as it stated in the PEA,
OSHA did not believe that these revision would increase compliance
costs. Other revisions to the 1991 OSHA memo made in the proposal, and
now in the final standard, include the addition of three safety
provisions to the original list of safety provisions described above.
These three provisions include:
     Using equipment in accordance with the instructions,
warnings, and design limitations set by manufacturers or qualified
persons (final Sec.  1910.27(2)(b)(ii));
     Securing equipment by a tool lanyard or similar method to
prevent equipment from falling (final Sec.  1910.27(2)(b)(xii)); and
     Protecting suspension ropes from exposure to open flames,
hot work, corrosive chemicals, or other destructive conditions (final
Sec.  1910.27(2)(b)(xiii)).
    In the PEA, OSHA stated that the eight safety provisions listed in
the 1991 OSHA memo, the provision dealing with wind and other weather
hazards, and the additional three provisions described in the previous
paragraph, would not impose significant costs on employers. None of the
comments submitted to the proposal provided any evidence contradicting
this analysis.
    OSHA determined in the PEA that the training requirements in
proposed Sec.  1910.27(b)(2)(ii), now codified as final Sec.
1910.27(b)(2)(iii), imposed costs on employers. Final Sec.
1910.27(b)(2)(iii) specifies that employers provide training in
accordance with Sec.  1910.30. Therefore, OSHA assigned the costs for
training beyond that noted in its 1991 memorandum to Sec.  1910.30.
OSHA discusses these costs under ``Cost estimates'' below.
    The Agency identified two additional provisions, final Sec.
1910.27(b)(2)(xii) and (b)(2)(xiii), in the PEA as having potential
costs.\131\ The requirement specified by final Sec.  1910.27(b)(2)(xii)
to secure equipment is consistent with consensus standard IWCA I-14.1-
2001, Section 3.10. Thus, OSHA did not assign incremental costs to this
requirement in either the PEA or this FEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ In the proposal, these two provisions are Sec.
1910.27(b)(2)(x) and (xi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The requirement in final Sec.  1910.27(b)(2)(xiii) that employers
protect suspension ropes from exposure to open flames, hot work,
corrosive chemicals, or other destructive conditions, is an extension
of the requirement to protect the integrity of the ropes specified in
OSHA's 1991 OSHA memorandum. OSHA attributed the costs for meeting this
requirement under the training costs estimated in Sec.  1910.30, and
described below under ``Cost estimates.''
Duty To Have Fall Protection and Falling Object Protection (Sec.
1910.28)
    The revised regulatory text for final Sec.  1910.28 consolidates
the fall protection requirements in the existing rule, with two major
revisions. First, comments submitted in response to the reopening of
the rule in 2003 recommended that the fall protection requirements in
subpart D be consistent with the requirements in subpart M of the
construction standards. The final text for Sec.  1910.28 makes the
general industry fall protection requirements consistent with the
construction requirements, which may impose additional costs on
employers in general industry. In addition, the existing standard does
not address the use of restraint systems, designated areas, or safety
net systems, nor does the existing standard clarify when employers can
use personal fall protection systems. In contrast, the final standard
allows employers to choose from various options in providing fall
protection, i.e., it is not as restrictive as the existing standard,
which primarily requires use of guardrails.
    In the proposal, OSHA requested public comment on the expenses that
employers typically would incur to comply with this requirement.
Stakeholders raised concerns about the compliance burden of this
provision when conducting routine inspections on roofs. These
stakeholders included the Property Casualty Insurers Association of
America (Ex. 98), the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT; Ex.
156), the National Roofing Contractors Association (NRCA; Ex. 197), and
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (Ex. 202). MIT's comments, presented
below, are typical of these responses:

    Under Subpart D--Walking-Working Surfaces, Section 1910.21(a)
reads as follows: (a) Scope and application. This subpart applies to
all general industry workplaces. It covers all walking-working
surfaces unless specifically excluded by individual sections of this
subpart. Following paragraph (a), MIT recommends adding the
following narrow exception: ``Exception: The provisions of this
subpart do not apply when employees are making routine inspections,
investigations, or assessments of workplace conditions.'' Reason for
comment: Periodic routine inspections, investigations, and
assessments should be allowed on flat roof tops without installing
guard rails, designated areas, or fall restraint/arrest systems.
Employees engaged in routine inspections, investigations, and
assessments of workplace conditions are exposed to fall hazards for
very short durations, if at all, since they most likely would be
able to accomplish their work without going near the danger zone.
Requiring the installation of fall protection systems under such
circumstances would expose the employee who installs those systems
to falling hazards for a longer time than the person performing an
inspection or similar work. As a result, the Proposed Rule could
potentially create a greater hazard, rather than reducing a hazard.
As stated above, the fall protection exemption anticipates that
inspectors likely would be able to accomplish their work without
going near the danger zone; yet installing such protections for a
short time period would be

expensive and time-consuming. If the exception is not included, the
Proposed Rule would have a significant impact on EHS personnel
checking monitors, researchers inspecting research equipment on
roofs, facilities operations investigating roof drains, facilities
operations assessments prior to beginning project work, and other
similarly-situated employees who regularly conduct such inspections.
In addition, individuals who conduct these types of inspections are
trained to be very focused on their footing, ever alert, and aware
of the hazards associated with falling. Therefore, employees who
inspect, investigate, or assess workplace conditions will be more
aware of their proximity to an unprotected edge. This proposed
exception would be in line with the existing OSHA Construction
Standard, 29 CFR 1926.500(a)(1). (Ex. 156.)

OSHA notes that final Sec.  1910.28(a)(2)(ii) provides an exemption
stating that when employees are making an inspection, investigation, or
assessment of workplace conditions prior to the starting work or after
completing all work, the employer does not have to provide fall
protection unless fall protection systems or equipment meeting the
requirements of Sec.  1910.29 have been installed and are available for
workers to use for pre-work and post-work inspections, investigations,
or assessments.
    Sec.  1910.28(b)(1). Under this final provision, if a walking-
working surface (vertical or horizontal) has an unprotected side or
edge that is four feet or more above a lower level, an employer must
protect employees from falling by using a guardrail system, safety net
system, or personal fall protection system. If the work is on
residential roofs and the employer demonstrates that it is infeasible
or creates a greater hazard to use a guardrail system, safety net
system, or personal fall protection system, then the employer must
develop a fall protection plan that meets the requirements of 29 CFR
1926.502(k) and training that meets the requirements of 29 CFR
1926.503(a) and (c). In the existing rule, employers must implement
fall protection under the following provisions when the fall hazard is
four or more feet:
     Sec.  1910.23(b): Wall openings;
     Sec.  1910.23(c)(1): Open-sided floors or platforms; and
     Sec.  1910.23(c)(2): The open sides of any runway.

Thus, there is no change in the height requirement for fall protection
between the existing and final rules. OSHA believes that the language
and organization for the final rule is less complex than for the
existing rule and provides additional flexibility in the methods used
for fall protection. The final rule also allows for exceptional
conditions. For example, if it is not feasible or creates a greater
hazard to install guardrails or other fall protection systems on a
residential roof, then the employer does not have to install these
systems and must instead develop and implement the requisite fall
protection plan, including implementing other control measures to
eliminate or reduce fall hazards for workers, and training. As
discussed below under ``Cost estimates,'' OSHA anticipates that the
costs for fall protection plans will not exceed the costs for
guardrails and fall protection systems and, as demonstrated in employer
response to the Construction standard (29 CFR 1926.502(k); 29 CFR
1926.503(a) and (c)), those compliance costs are economically feasible.
    Comments to the proposal informed OSHA that chimney cleaning
exposes workers to fall hazards resulting from work on residential
roofs, and that protection from these fall hazards would require
additional control measures. OSHA's analysis of the compliance costs
for chimney cleaning, one industry among several industries found in
NAICS 56179, Other Services to Buildings and Dwellings, appears below
under ``Cost estimates.''
    Sec.  1910.28(b)(2). This final provision requires fall protection
in hoist areas when the fall hazard is four feet or greater, and also
clarifies the requirements for hoist areas found in existing Sec.
1910.23(b)(1) and (c)(1). Therefore, OSHA assigned no costs to this
paragraph in either the PEA or in this FEA.
    Sec.  1910.28(b)(3). The existing rule requires guarding every hole
and skylight floor opening. This final provision specifies that
employers must use fall protection when an employee might fall more
than four feet through a hole. Thus, the new language harmonizes the
fall protection requirement for holes with the requirements for
unprotected sides and edges and hoist areas. The new language also
permits employers to meet the requirement using covers, guardrail
systems, travel restraint systems, or personal fall arrest systems.
    The final revision to Sec.  1910.28(b)(3) also provides protection
for stairway floor holes, ladderway floor holes, and hatchways and
chute-floor holes, and updates existing Sec.  1910.23(a) by
incorporating the best practices found in industry consensus standards
(notably ANSI/ASSE A1264.1-2007). This subparagraph also clarifies
application of the provision (e.g., provides an exception for stairways
used less than once per day). Furthermore, employers must construct
guardrail systems to protect holes in accordance with final Sec.
1910.29, Fall protection criteria. OSHA noted in the PEA that these
requirements have been part of an OSHA standard or industry consensus
standards for at least 15 years and, therefore, the incremental cost
burden to employers would likely be minimal. OSHA could identify no
data in the record that contradicted its preliminary finding of minimal
cost impact and, therefore, carried the minimal impact estimate forward
in this FEA.
    Sec.  1910.28(b)(4). This final provision requires guardrails or
handrails on dockboards to protect an employee from falls of four feet
or more. There is an exception for cases when employers use dockboards
exclusively for material handling operations performed with motorized
equipment. In these cases, neither guardrails nor handrails are
necessary if the fall hazard is 10 feet or less and employees received
the training specified by Sec.  1910.30. OSHA discusses the costs for
installing handrail or guardrail systems for dockboards later in this
subsection, and assigned the training costs to Sec.  1910.30 (see
``Cost estimates'' below).
    Sec.  1910.28(b)(6). The existing rule Sec.  1910.23(c)(3) requires
a standard railing and toe board for walking-working surfaces above
dangerous equipment. This final provision bases the required controls
on the potential fall distance. For potential falls of less than four
feet onto or into dangerous equipment, the employer can cover or guard
the dangerous equipment to eliminate the hazard. For potential falls of
four feet or more, the employer must use guardrail systems, safety net
systems, travel restraint systems, or personal fall arrest systems to
protect employees from the fall hazard. For both the PEA and this FEA,
OSHA assumed that employers already implemented the required controls
under the existing standard using the least-cost method; therefore,
OSHA assigned no costs to this paragraph in either the PEA or this FEA.
    Sec.  1910.28(b)(7). For openings, the final standard limits the
need for fall protection to cases for which the inside bottom edge of
the opening is less than 39 inches above a walking-working surface and
the bottom edge of the outside of the opening is four feet (1.2 m) or
more above a lower level. The employer can use a guardrail system, a
safety net system, a travel restraint system, or a personal fall arrest
system to meet this requirement. In the PEA, OSHA stated that it
believed that current industry practice was to protect employees
exposed to openings; therefore, the Agency estimated no costs

for this paragraph in the PEA. OSHA received no comments in the record
that contradicted this preliminary assessment and, therefore, assigned
no costs to paragraph (b)(7) in this FEA.
    Sec.  1910.28(b)(8). Existing Sec.  1910.21(a)(2) classified pits,
in general, as floor openings. In this final provision, pits that are 4
feet and less than 10 feet in depth used for repair, service, or
assembly operations need not have a fall protection system provided
employers demarcate, with floor markings, warning lines, stanchions, or
some combination thereof, a (minimum) 6-foot perimeter around the pit,
limit access to that demarcated area to trained and authorized
employees, and post readily visible caution signs. In the PEA, OSHA did
not assign incremental costs to paragraph (b)(8) because an employer
would only incur costs for caution signs and floor markings if they
were less expensive than the fall protection system required under the
existing standard. In addition, existing Sec.  1910.145 already
requires an employer to post caution signs where needed, and existing
Sec.  1910.144 specifies the content of the signs. OSHA assumed that
most employers have signs and marking materials readily available and,
therefore, assigned no incremental costs to this paragraph in the PEA.
There was no evidence submitted to the record to justify revising this
preliminary assessment; therefore, OSHA in this FEA estimates that any
additional compliance costs associated with this paragraph will be
minimal.
    The final rule provides more than one method to comply with Sec.
1910.28(b)(8). That is, an employer may use a conventional fall
protection system or implement specific safe work practices (i.e.,
marking, stanchions, posting, and limiting access). When the
alternative method--the use of safe work practices--is less expensive
than the method specified in the existing rule (guardrails), an
employer likely would incur lower costs to comply with the paragraph.
As stated in the PEA, OSHA concluded that the new provision may reduce
costs for some employers; however, OSHA did not quantify the cost
savings in the preliminary analysis, nor did it do so in this final
analysis.
    Sec.  1910.28(b)(9). The existing regulatory text specifies landing
platforms, cages, wells, or ladder safety devices as means of providing
fall protection for fixed ladders. The 1990 proposal for subpart D
permitted some workers to climb fixed ladders without the use of ladder
safety devices, cages, or wells if they were qualified climbers and met
other, specified conditions. In particular, employers could use
qualified climbers to climb fixed ladders only if they did so no more
than twice a year and it would be a greater hazard to the employee to
install the fall protection system than to climb the ladder without
fall protection (which OSHA believed rarely occurs).
    In paragraph (b)(9) and elsewhere in the final standard, OSHA no
longer permits employers to use qualified climbers beginning two years
after publication of the final rule. In addition, after two years
employers must equip new fixed ladders and replacement ladders and
ladder sections with ladder safety systems or personal fall arrest
systems. However, employers still can meet the fall protection
requirement for existing fixed ladders extending more than 24 feet
above a lower level by using cages, wells, personal fall arrest
systems, and ladder safety systems for 20 years after publication of
the final rule; after 20 years, employers must use either personal fall
arrest systems or ladder safety systems for fixed ladders. For this
FEA, OSHA assigned costs for using ladder safety systems on fixed
ladders. OSHA's describes its analysis of costs for fall protection on
fixed ladders below in ``Cost estimates.''
    Sec.  1910.28(b)(10). These final paragraphs address fall hazards
in outdoor advertising, also known as billboards. Existing subpart D
has no requirements specific to billboards. However, for analytical
purposes, the existing fixed ladder requirements cover the fixed ladder
portion of a billboard. Existing Sec.  1910.27(d)(1) requires cages or
wells for ladders more than 20 feet in length. In the PEA, OSHA assumed
that under proposed Sec.  1910.28(b)(10)(i), an employee climbing the
fixed ladder portion of a billboard up to 50 feet in length would need
to use either a body belt or a body harness with an appropriate 18-inch
rest lanyard to tie off to the fixed ladder, and that these additional
options, when not already deployed, would be less expensive than cages
or wells. Further, proposed Sec.  1910.28(b)(10)(iv) required employers
to properly maintain and use any ladder safety system installed on
fixed ladders; according to ERG, this requirement is consistent with
widespread industry practice (ERG, 2007). Thus, in the PEA, OSHA
assigned no incremental compliance costs to these paragraphs. However,
OSHA received a comment from the outdoor advertising industry in
response to the proposal stating that ladder safety systems are not in
widespread use for the initial 50-foot climb (or 65 feet from grade) on
fixed ladders connected to billboards (see Exs. 329 (1/18/2011), pp.
143-146; 359, pp.7-8). Therefore, OSHA revised its preliminary analysis
in this FEA to indicate that a significant percentage of outdoor
advertising employers will need to install ladder safety systems on
fixed ladders. OSHA presents its estimate of the costs for those
systems below in ``Cost estimates.''
    Final Sec.  1910.28(b)(10)(ii)(A) requires employees in outdoor
advertising who climb a fixed ladder be qualified climbers as specified
in Sec.  1910.29(h) when the fixed ladder does not come equipped with a
cage, well, personal fall arrest system, or a ladder safety system.
Therefore, OSHA assigned the costs for this paragraph to Sec.
1910.29(h). In doing so, the Agency conservatively assumed in both the
PEA and in this FEA that all employees in NAICS 5418 (Advertising and
Related Services) who climb fixed ladders will receive training as
qualified climbers (see the discussion for Sec.  1910.29(h) below).
OSHA notes that the provision for qualified climbers in outdoor
advertising will expire two years after publication of the final rule,
at which time employers must use other means and methods of fall
protection. The Agency assigned the costs of fall protection for these
workers after the second year as initial and ongoing costs (see the
discussion below under ``Cost estimates).''
    Final Sec.  1910.28(b)(10)(ii)(B) requires that qualified climbers
in outdoor advertising wear a body harness equipped with an 18-inch (46
cm) rest lanyard. Both the proposed rule at paragraph (b)(10)(i) and
OSHA's outdoor advertising directive contain a similar requirement. The
lanyard allows workers to tie off to the fixed ladder and rest during
the climb. Proposed paragraph (b)(10)(i) and outdoor advertising
directive both include a requirement permitting employers to provide,
and allow workers to use, a body harness or body belt. However, 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
Sec.  1910.28(b)(10)(ii)(B). This also makes the final provision
consistent with OSHA's construction industry rule, which does not allow
body belts to be used for personal fall arrest (Sec.  1926.502(d)).
    According to comment from the Outdoor Advertising Association of
America (OAAA), OAAA's training program emphasizes ``the duty to
provide fall protection for employees working above 4-6 feet including
equipment such as harnesses, lanyards and any supplemental PPE uses.''
(Ex. 359) Therefore, because the use of harnesses and lanyards is
central to the training program of the leading outdoor advertising
industry association, OSHA

anticipates that there will be no additional costs associated with the
requirement in the final standard that qualified climbers be outfitted
with full body harnesses. Proposed Sec.  1910.28(b)(10)(vi), now
codified as final Sec.  1910.28(b)(10)(ii)(C), specifies that the
employee is to have both hands free of tools and material while
climbing up or down the ladder. In the PEA, OSHA assigned a cost to
this paragraph; in this FEA, the Agency discusses these costs below
under ``Cost estimates.''
    Under final Sec.  1910.28(b)(10)(ii)(D), climbers must use an
appropriate fall protection system after they reach their work
positions. OSHA attributed the cost of these systems to the existing
standard for fixed ladders. Thus, the Agency estimated no additional
costs for equipment required by this provision in either the PEA or in
this FEA.
    Proposed Sec.  1910.28(b)(10)(iii) required that employers follow
inspection procedures for ladder safety systems. Final Sec.  1910.29(i)
now delineates the inspection procedures identified in the proposed
requirement. OSHA did not specify in the proposed rule the frequency of
inspection, but in the PEA assumed that inspections would occur prior
to each use. OSHA assigned costs to this paragraph in the PEA, and
discusses these costs below under ``Cost estimates'' in this FEA.
    Final paragraph (b)(11) requires that employers protect workers
from falling off stairway landings and the exposed sides of all
stairways. Stairways, as defined in the final rule in Sec.
1910.21(b)), includes standard stairs, ship stairs, spiral stairs, and
alternating tread-type stairs. As noted earlier in the summary and
explanation of the final standard, final paragraph (b)(11)(i), like the
proposal, requires that employers ensure each worker exposed to an
unprotected side or edge of a stairway landing that is four feet or
more above a lower level is protected by a guardrail or stair rail
system. The final requirement is consistent with the requirements for
stairway landings specified by the existing general industry standard
in Sec.  1910.24(h) and the construction standard in Sec.
1926.1052(c)(12). The final provision is also consistent with A1264.1-
2007 (Section 7.1), NFPA101-2012 (Sections 7.1.8 and <IP_ADDRESS>.5), and
ICC IBC-2012 (Section 1013.2), except that NFPA and IBC require guards
on open-sided walking surfaces that are located more than 30 inches
above the floor or grade below.
    Final paragraph (b)(11)(ii), consistent with existing Sec.
1910.23(d)(1) and proposed paragraph (b)(11)(ii), requires that
employers ensure each flight of stairs having at least three treads and
at least four risers is equipped with a stair rail system and handrails
as specified in Table D-2.
    Final paragraph (b)(11)(iii), like the proposal, requires that
employers ensure ship stairs and alternating tread-type stairs are
equipped with handrails on both sides. Both of those types of stairs
have slopes that are 50 to 70 degrees from the horizontal, and OSHA
believes that workers need handrails on both sides to safely climb
those stairs. This requirement is consistent with ICC IBC-2012 (Section
1009.15) and NFPA 101-2012 (Section <IP_ADDRESS>).
    In the PEA, OSHA recognized that compliance with existing consensus
standards for stairways and stairway landings will eliminate much of
the employee exposure to fall hazards addressed by proposed Sec.
1910.28(b)(11). Therefore, the Agency estimated no costs for this
paragraph in the PEA. OSHA received no comments in the record that
contradicted this preliminary assessment. Because as shown above in
Table V-16, updated versions of the same consensus standards for
stairways apply to the final standard, OSHA assigned no costs to
paragraph (b)(11) in this FEA.
    Sec.  1910.28(b)(12). Final Sec.  1910.28(b)(12)(i), which
addresses the duty to provide fall protection for employees on
scaffolds, refers to the construction standards at 29 CFR part 1926,
subpart L (Scaffolds), thereby avoiding any inconsistencies between the
general industry and construction standards. Fall protection on
scaffolds in the construction standards generally follows consensus
standards; thus, in the PEA, based on the estimated high level of
current compliance with the construction standards or consensus
standards, OSHA assigned no costs to this paragraph, and retained that
cost estimate for this FEA.
    Final Sec.  1910.28(b)(12)(ii) requires that employers ensure that
each employee using a rope descent system more than four feet (1.2 m)
above is protected from falling by a lower level using a personal fall
arrest system. Such systems must meet the requirements of 29 CFR part
1910, subpart I. OSHA addresses the costs associated with rope descent
systems in ``Cost estimation'' below as part of the discussion of Sec.
1910.27, Scaffolds and rope descent systems.
    Sec.  1910.28(b)(13) and (14). These two paragraphs are new to
final subpart D and introduce additional compliance costs for employers
specializing in, respectively, rooftop services (paragraph (b)(13)) and
work on platforms and other elevated surfaces in animal slaughtering
and animal processing plants (paragraph (b)(14)). Discussion of these
costs appears in the next subsection, ``Cost estimates.''
    Sec.  1910.28(b)(15). OSHA proposed this paragraph covering
walking-working surfaces not otherwise addressed by the standard to
clarify existing Sec.  1910.23(c)(3), which requires a railing and
toeboard for these types of surfaces. In the final rule, the revised
language restricts the requirement to working surfaces four feet or
more above a lower level, and permits the employer to comply with the
paragraph by using a guardrail, safety net system, travel restraint
system, or personal fall arrest system. Assuming that employers will
choose the least-cost compliance option and that current industry use
of conventional fall protection is widespread, OSHA in the PEA assigned
costs to one surface, stepbolts, that appeared to be newly affected.
OSHA determined that this requirement for protection on stepbolts will
primarily affect establishments in NAICS 51, Information, and NAICS
7113, Promoters of performing arts, sports, and similar events, and
that the preferred fall protection will be ladder safety systems. In
the next subsection, ``Cost estimates'', OSHA discusses its final
analysis of costs for this paragraph.
    Sec.  1910.28(c). Final paragraph (c) requires that employers
protect workers from being hit by falling objects, such as objects
falling through holes or off the sides or edges of walking-working
surfaces onto workers below. In addition, final paragraph (c) requires
that employers protect workers using one or more of the following
measures:
     Erecting toeboards, screens, or guardrail systems to
prevent objects from falling to a lower level (final paragraph (c)(1));
     Erecting canopy structures and keeping potential falling
objects far enough from an edge or opening to prevent them from falling
to a lower level (final paragraph (c)(2)); or
     Barricading the area into which objects could fall,
prohibiting workers from entering the barricaded area, and keeping
objects far enough from the edge or opening to prevent them from
falling to the lower level (final paragraph (c)(3)).
    Final paragraph (c) simplifies the final rule by consolidating into
a single paragraph all of the provisions that address falling objects
found in the existing standard at Sec.  1910.23(b)(5) and (c)(1) and
the proposed rule at paragraphs (b)(3)(iii), (b)(5)(i), (b)(14)(ii)).
The final rule is consistent with the proposal and patterned on the
construction standard (Sec.  1926.501(c)).

Therefore, because the final standard introduces no additional burden
on employers beyond existing requirements, and because there were no
comments in the record suggesting that additional economic impacts
would result, OSHA expects that final paragraph (c) will impose no new
costs.
Fall Protection Systems and Falling Object Protection--Criteria and
Practices (Sec.  1910.29)
    Final Sec.  1910.29, like the proposed rule, establishes system
criteria and work practice requirements for fall protection systems and
falling object protection specified by final Sec.  1910.28, Duty to
have fall protection and falling object protection, and Sec.  1910.140,
Personal fall protection equipment.
    Final Sec.  1910.29 requires that employers ensure the fall
protection system and falling object protection they select meets the
specified criteria and practice provisions. In general, OSHA patterned
the system criteria and work practice requirements in final Sec.
1910.29 to be consistent with its construction standards (Sec. Sec.
1926.502 and 1926.1053). As mentioned in the preamble to final Sec.
1910.28 and Sec.  1910.29, many commenters supported making the general
industry fall and falling object protection requirements consistent
with those in the construction industry (e.g., Exs. 124; 155; 194).
    Final Sec.  1910.29 reorganizes the existing rule so that the
format of the final rule is consistent with the format in the
construction fall protection standard at Sec.  1926.502 and also draws
provisions from, and is consistent with, national consensus standards
addressing personal fall protection systems and falling object
protection, including:
     ANSI/ASC A14.3-2008: American National Standards for
Ladders-Fixed (A14.3-2008) (Ex. 8);
     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)(Ex. 13); and
     ANSI/ASSE A10.18-2012, Safety Requirements for Temporary
Roof and Floor Holes, Wall Openings, Stairways, and Other Unprotected
Edges in Construction and Demolition Operations (ANSI/ASSE A10.18-2012)
(Ex. 388).
    Final paragraph (b) contains system requirements employers must
follow to ensure guardrail systems they use will protect workers from
falling to lower levels. In developing final paragraph (b), OSHA
carried forward, with some revision, many of the requirements from the
existing rule (e.g., existing Sec.  1910.23), and drew the requirements
from the construction fall protection standard at Sec.  1926.502(b).
    OSHA analyzed the potential economic impacts of final Sec.
1910.29(b) and anticipates that only paragraphs (b)(13) and (15) could
potentially impose significant cost impacts, while the existence of the
consensus standards listed above and other factors affecting current
practice will result in no costs for all other paragraphs in Sec.
1910.29(b). The Agency's review of the impacts associated with
paragraphs (b)(13) and (15) is given immediately below.
    Sec.  1910.29(b)(13). This final paragraph revises a related
provision in the proposed standard by specifying that guardrail systems
used around points of access (e.g., ladderways) must have a self-
closing gate that slides or swings away from the hole, with the gate
constructed with a top rail, midrail, and latch or, alternatively, are
offset to prevent a worker from walking or falling into the hole.
    In two separate comments, Intrepid Industries, Inc. (Intrepid),
recommended that OSHA clarify the proposed requirement by recognizing
recent technological developments in ladderway gates. Intrepid noted in
its comments that when OSHA published the 1990 proposal, multiple
horizontal rails were `` `foreign' to industry,' '' that since
publication of the 1990 proposal, ``a majority of protection devices
have both a top rail and a mid rail similar to that of the guardrail .
. . ,'' and that such gates are equivalent in strength and design to
guardrail systems and are widely available throughout industry (Exs.
68; 366). Therefore, having adopted Intrepid's recommended
clarification in the final rule, OSHA estimates that few affected
employers will need to replace current ladderway gates, resulting in a
negligible cost burden for employers. Accordingly, as in the PEA, OSHA
did not assign any costs to this provision.
    Sec.  1910.29(b)(15). This final paragraph, as did the proposal,
requires that employers inspect manila, plastic, or synthetic rope used
for top rails or midrails as frequently as necessary to ensure that it
meets the specified strength requirements. OSHA addresses the
inspection costs for this final paragraph below in ``Cost estimates.''
    Sec.  1910.29(c). Both the proposed and final paragraphs require
that employers ensure safety net systems meet the requirements in the
construction standards at 29 CFR part 1926, subpart M, thus avoiding
any inconsistencies between general industry and construction
standards. Given that the safety net system requirements in the
construction standards follow current consensus standards, OSHA in the
PEA estimated that this requirement had no incremental costs. OSHA
received no comments to the proposal addressing this analysis and,
therefore, attributed no costs to final Sec.  1910.29(c) in this FEA.
    Sec.  1910.29(h). This final paragraph outdoor advertising
operations, and sets forth the criteria for the use of qualified
climbers, which it limits to these operations. In the PEA, OSHA modeled
the costs to train and, as necessary, retrain qualified climbers. That
is, OSHA assumed that qualified climbers required training beyond that
now required for fixed ladders and, furthermore, OSHA believed that
employers would incur additional costs associated with the requirement
that the employer observe the performance to ensure the qualified
climber has the skills necessary to perform the climb safely.
    The final standard permits the use of qualified climbers up to two
years after publication of the rule, after which outdoor advertising
employers must protect employees engaged in outdoor advertising from
fall hazards in accordance with provisions of Sec.  1910.28. Therefore,
although OSHA's estimate of costs associated with the criteria
enumerated in Sec.  1910.29(h) would not apply two years after
publication of the final rule, OSHA retained those costs in this final
analysis to account for any training costs connected with transitioning
to the use of ladder safety systems or other fall protection measures
on fixed ladders. OSHA discusses the cost estimates for final Sec.
1910.29(h) below under ``Cost estimates.''
    The other requirements in final Sec.  1910.29, include the
requirements found in final paragraphs (d) Designated areas, (e)
Covers, and (f) Handrail and stair rail systems, (g) Cages, wells, and
platforms used with fixed ladders, (i) Ladder safety systems, (j)
Personal fall protection systems, (k) Protection from falling objects,
and (l) Grab bars (specified as ``Grab handles'' in the NPRM). OSHA in
the PEA noted that there already is significant, widespread compliance
with the proposed requirements among general industry employers,
resulting in the proposed requirements imposing minimal incremental
cost burden on employers. OSHA requested feedback from the public on
this analysis, but received no comments to this request. Therefore, in
this FEA, OSHA assigned no costs to paragraphs (d) Designated areas,
(e)

Covers, (f) Handrail and stair rail systems, (g) Cages, wells, and
platforms used with fixed ladders, (i) Ladder safety systems, (j)
Personal fall protection systems, (k) Protection from falling objects,
and (l) Grab bars.
Training Requirements (Sec.  1910.30)
    This new section requires that employers in general industry train
their employees regarding fall and equipment hazards, and retrain them
when necessary. In the PEA, OSHA assumed that an employer that trains
employees in compliance with Sec.  1910.30 would choose to maintain
records of the training, and the cost estimates in the PEA took account
of this time burden on employers. The training costs estimated for
proposed Sec.  1910.30 included requirements from other proposed
paragraphs that specify that the employer must conduct the training in
accordance with proposed Sec.  1910.30 (see Table V-18 for examples).
OSHA discusses these costs in more detail below under ``Cost
estimates''; in this analysis, incremental training costs apply only to
the percentage of establishments that do not already provide regular
safety training.
5. Cost Impacts for Final Subpart I (Personal Protective Equipment)
    In the NPRM, OSHA proposed to add a new section, Sec.  1910.140, to
29 CFR part 1910, subpart I, to address personal fall protection
equipment. The proposed text for Sec.  1910.140 added specific design
and performance requirements for personal fall protection systems to
existing subpart I. In addition, the proposed standard required that
the provisions for hazard assessment found in existing Sec.  1910.132
apply as well to personal fall protection systems.
    The text of the final standard is virtually identical to that of
the proposed rule, and although a number of commenters raised concerns
about the technical specifications and criteria that would apply to
personal fall protection systems, OSHA received few, if any, comments
directly addressing the PEA. The discussion below describes OSHA's
general treatment of costs for subpart I; the next subsection, ``Cost
estimates,'' provides additional details on the specific method for
estimating costs.
    Sec.  1910.132(g). Existing Sec.  1910.132(g) lists the personal
protective equipment standards under 29 CFR part 1910, subpart I, that
are subject to the requirements specified in existing Sec.  1910.132(d)
and (f). Paragraph (d) of Sec.  1910.132 requires employers to assess
the workplace to identify any potential hazards and the need for PPE,
while Sec.  1910.132(f) requires employers to train employers, at
specified times, on the application limits of the equipment; proper
hook-up, anchoring, and tie-off techniques; methods of care, use, and
disposal; and proper methods of equipment inspection and storage. Final
Sec.  1910.132(g) adds the personal fall protection equipment regulated
under Sec.  1910.140 to the list of covered personal protective
equipment. In the PEA, OSHA identified significant costs in connection
with the proposed requirement; the Agency discusses the costs
associated with this final requirement below under ``Cost estimates''
(for Sec. Sec.  1910.140, Personal fall protection systems, and
1910.30, Training).
    Sec.  1910.140(c)(18). 29 CFR 1910.140 is a new section that OSHA
is adding to subpart I Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) (29 CFR part
1910, subpart I) to address personal fall protection systems, which
include personal fall arrest, travel restraint, and positioning
systems. The new section establishes requirements for the design,
performance, use, and inspection of personal fall protection systems
and system components (e.g., body harnesses, lifelines, lanyards,
anchorages).
    Similar to the final rule revising 29 CFR part 1910, subpart D,
final Sec.  1910.140, when appropriate, also draws from national
consensus standards addressing personal fall protection systems,
details of which are provided in Section IV.B. of this document.
Therefore, with the exception of one paragraph in Sec.  1910.140,
paragraph (c)(18), OSHA in the PEA estimated that current industry
practice is widespread, and there were no comments objecting to that
preliminary estimate. Final Sec.  1910.140(c)(18) requires that
employers inspect personal fall protection systems prior to the initial
use during each workshift. In the PEA, OSHA identified significant
costs in connection with the proposed requirement; the Agency discusses
costs for this final paragraph below under ``Cost estimates.''
6. Cost Estimates
    This subsection presents OSHA's detailed estimates of the costs
associated with the final rule, provision by provision. These
compliance costs represent the incremental burden incurred by employers
beyond the current baseline of fall-related safety expenditures. OSHA
did not estimate potential cost savings to industry from increased
flexibility in meeting specific requirements, such as using personal
fall protection systems rather than the currently mandated handrail/
guardrail systems, even if some of the new requirements might be safer
than the currently mandated requirements.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ The Agency assumed that the new requirements are at least
as effective in employee protection as the requirements provided by
the existing requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For a number of cost categories, there were no public comments on
the PEA. For those cases, OSHA updated the applied unit wage and the
numbers of affected employers and employees to reflect the revised
profile, but retained the cost methodology used in the PEA. For
provisions in the final standard for which OSHA adjusted the
preliminary cost estimate, the Agency describes the form of the cost
revision and the public comments that lead to the final cost estimate.
a. Estimated Compliance Costs by Provision in the Final Standard for
Subpart D
    Labor costs associated with compliance with the final standard
generally involve additional employer and supervisor time for training
and inspection. OSHA took the number of establishments and employees
from Statistics of U.S. Businesses: 2007. The Agency based the number
of employees covered by subparts D and I on the share of employees
working in building and grounds; construction; \133\ installation,
maintenance, and repair; production; and material-moving occupations
reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment
Statistics (BLS, 2007). See section C above in this FEA for additional
industry-profile information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ As noted earlier in this FEA, production workers include
workers in building and grounds; construction; installation,
maintenance, and repair; production; and material-moving
occupations. It is possible that employees in construction and
related occupations, even though not employed by establishments in
construction industries, might perform work regulated by OSHA under
its construction standards in 29 CFR part 1926. Therefore, the
employers of these workers, depending on the type of work performed,
also may have to meet the requirements for fall protection and
walking-working surfaces specified in the construction standards.
For the purpose of estimating costs, however, OSHA assumed that the
general industry standards cover these employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA based employee and supervisor wages (see Table V-5) on data
reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics through their Occupational
Employment Statistics program (BLS, 2010). OSHA adjusted wages to
include the cost of benefits, and determined estimated benefits from
data provided from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for
Employee Compensation--

June 2011 (released September 2011).\134\ The Agency based current
compliance rates on OSHA inspection statistics for fiscal year 2005
(see Table V-15); it determined the fraction of businesses that already
provide regular safety training from information in the National
Occupational Exposure Survey conducted by the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH, 1988). See Table V-20, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ Throughout the discussion below, wages that include
benefits are also referred to as ``loaded'' wages.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18NO16.222

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18NO16.223

General Requirements (Sec.  1910.22)
    Final Sec.  1910.22 contains three paragraphs with new
requirements:
     Sec.  1910.22(d)(1): Perform regular and periodic
inspection, and maintenance, of walking-working surfaces;
     Sec.  1910.22(d)(2): Correct and repair hazardous
conditions on walking-working surfaces, and guard unsafe conditions
until corrected or repaired; and
     Sec.  1910.22(d)(3): Have a qualified person perform or
supervise any

correction or repair that involves the structural integrity of a
walking-working surface.
    There were no public comments that addressed OSHA's preliminary
approach to estimating costs the costs for these paragraphs. For the
final standard, OSHA revised all three provisions from the proposed
language for clarification.
    For the purpose of estimating costs for Sec.  1910.22(d)(1), OSHA
in the PEA assumed that a significant percentage of facilities already
include regular and periodic inspections of walking-working surfaces.
OSHA used the non-compliance rates for floor-guarding in proposed Sec.
1910.23 (which has the highest non-compliance rates, see Table V-15) to
estimate the number of establishments that need to perform regular and
periodic inspections of walking-working surfaces. OSHA assumed that a
supervisor would spend 15 minutes every quarter performing the
inspection, for a total of 1 hour per year. Based on these unit costs,
OSHA preliminarily estimated that the total annual inspection cost
would be $15.3 million.
    Relative to the existing and proposed standards, the final standard
provides more specificity in the types of hazards for which employers
will be inspecting walking-working surfaces (namely, protruding or
sharp objects, loose boards, corrosion, leaks and spills). Included
among the inspected surfaces will be residential roofs (addressed in
Sec.  1910.28(b)(1)), low-slope roofs (Sec.  1910.28(b)(13)), and
slaughtering facility platforms (Sec.  1910.28(b)(14)), surfaces whose
inclusion in the scope of the proposed standard is recognized by OSHA
in this final notice. As a result of further analysis of these affected
surfaces, OSHA believes that regular and periodic inspections will be
more extensive than determined in the PEA. For this final analysis,
OSHA raised the quarterly inspection time from 15 minutes to 30
minutes. Therefore, OSHA estimated the final cost for paragraph Sec.
1910.22(d)(1) to be $32.8 million.\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ For timber tract operations (NAICS 1131), costs are
estimated by multiplying together 450 establishments (see Table V-
1), 9.6 percent noncompliance rate for existing floor guarding
requirements (see Table V-15), two hours per supervisor, and a
$26.10 hourly loaded wage (see Table V-5), yielding a result of
$2,263. Analogous calculations are performed for each industry and
summed to produce the total of $32.8 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For estimating the costs of Sec.  1910.22(d)(2), OSHA in the PEA
projected that within a year, 10 percent of affected establishments
would identify an unsafe condition, and that it takes an employee 15
minutes to set up a guard mechanism (e.g., cones, barriers). The Agency
assumed incremental material costs to be negligible since it is likely
that most employers currently stock guard equipment but only
occasionally deploy it. Estimated compliance costs for this provision
were $0.23 million in the PEA and are $0.25 million in this FEA.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ For example, OSHA estimated the costs to correct unsafe
conditions for timber tract operations (NAICS 1131) in the following
way. Total guarding cost = no. of affected establishments * (1 -
current compliance rate) * percent with an unsafe condition * time
to set up guarding * employee hourly loaded wage = 450
establishments (1 - 90.4 percent) * 10 percent * 0.25 hours * $19.99
= $22. Analogous calculations are performed for each industry and
summed to produce the total of $0.25 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Sec.  1910.22(d)(3), OSHA in the PEA estimated that it takes
five minutes for a supervisor or qualified person to inspect the repair
of the unsafe condition. Final Sec.  1910.22(d)(3) was revised to read
that when any correction or repair involving the structural integrity
of the walking-working surface is conducted, a qualified person must
perform or supervise the correction or repair. Applying the five-minute
time unit across all affected employers, OSHA preliminarily estimated
that the costs for a supervisor or qualified person to inspect repairs
would total $0.13 million, and, applying the five-minute unit for this
FEA, determined that final costs will be slightly higher, at $0.14
million for performance or supervision of the correction or repair.
    Summing costs for the three paragraphs in final Sec.  1910.22(d)
with cost impacts, the total estimated cost for compliance with Sec.
1910.22(d) is, after rounding, $33.2 million per year.
Ladders (Sec.  1910.23)
    In the PEA, eight paragraphs in proposed Sec.  1910.23 specify new
training requirements for protecting employees from slip, trip, and
fall hazards during operations involving ladders. Table V-21 summarizes
these eight new training requirements.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18NO16.224

    The PEA determined that employers could address all eight of these
new provisions in a single training session. In addition, OSHA
determined that employers can comply with these provisions using
informal training; therefore, the Agency did not include administrative
costs for employers. For this FEA, OSHA added a ninth provision, Sec.
1910.23(c)(9), addressing stabilization of ladders on slippery
surfaces, to its analysis of costs, and applied the same cost modeling
parameters here as it did in the PEA.
    OSHA's Web site includes a resource center with a loan program for
training videos (OSHA, 2012b). The index lists 12 training videos for
ladders and stairways, with run times ranging from 5 to 19 minutes, for
an average of 12 minutes. Accordingly, for the purposes of estimating
costs for ladder safety training, OSHA in the PEA and this FEA applied
a 15-minute training period per video.
    In OSHA's cost model, employers can train 10 employees per session,
with one supervisor in attendance. OSHA further assumed that employers
incur $1 in materials cost for handouts for each employee trained.
    Some establishments already provide regular safety training. For
each affected NAICS industry, OSHA applied an estimate for the
percentage of employees already providing training. OSHA's derived its
industry-by-industry baseline estimate for safety training from the
NIOSH National Occupational Exposure Survey (NOES) database (NIOSH,
1988). Although these data are over 25 years old, the NIOSH NOES survey
is still the primary source for such information, and covers a broad
range of industries. No comment in the record suggested that the NIOSH
NOES survey data are no longer accurate. Furthermore, OSHA believes
that the proportion of employees already offered regular safety
training likely increased over the past two decades; hence, the Agency
most likely overestimated the training costs.
    The cost to train employees at establishments that do not offer
regular safety training is a one-time cost annualized over a 10-year
period at a discount rate of 7 percent. Summing across all affected
employers, the total first-year cost is $11.5 million, with an
annualized cost of $1.6 million.\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ For gambling industries (NAICS 7132), costs are estimated
by first multiplying together 5,240 employees (see Table V-1) and
the 33.6 percent rate of not yet providing training (=1-0.664 shown
in Table V-20), yielding an estimate of 1,761 employees that do not
yet receive training. Next, this estimate is multiplied by the sum
of worker time costs (0.25 hours times an $18.80 hourly production
worker loaded wage (see Table V-5)), materials costs ($1 per
employee) and instructor time costs (0.25 hours times a $38.66
hourly supervisor loaded wage (see Table V-5), divided by 10 to
reflect a 10-worker class size), yielding a result of $11,736 (=
$8,274 labor cost + $1,761 materials cost + $1,701 instructor cost).
Analogous calculations are performed for each industry and summed to
produce the total of $11.5 million.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New employees who begin affected jobs also will need training. For
the purpose of estimating this cost, OSHA in the PEA assumed that
training received from a prior employer was not sufficient to meet the
proposed subpart D requirement. ERG's analysis of 2002 hires data
collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (ERG, 2007) formed the
basis in the PEA for OSHA's analysis of the annual costs of training
employees new to the workforce; for this FEA, OSHA used 2007 BLS
industry hires-rate data to correspond to the employment levels (2007)
used in the analysis. Table V-22 below summarizes these data for the
NAICS codes affected by this final standard. Under these assumptions,
the estimated cost is $5.4 million per year to train new employees in
ladder safety.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18NO16.225

    In the PEA, to estimate the costs of mobile ladder stands and
mobile ladder stand platforms that conform to the design requirements
specified in Sec.  1910.23(e), OSHA's cost formula included all
establishments potentially covered by proposed subpart D. OSHA assumed
that the typical lifetime for a ladder is five years; thus, one-fifth
of the establishments would purchase a ladder meeting the design
requirements each year.\138\ Furthermore, OSHA assumed that a
supervisor from each establishment would take five minutes to read
ladder specifications to ensure that, prior to purchase, the ladder met
the requirements for that type ladder. With these assumptions, the
estimated annual cost for Sec.  1910.23(e) was $3.8 million in the PEA;
in this FEA, allowing for the increase in the number of affected
establishments and updated wage rates (generally upward), annual total
costs for final Sec.  1910.23(e) are $4.2 million.\139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ Underlying this assumption is the likelihood that some
establishments will purchase more than one ladder in a given year,
or will purchase more than one ladder over the five-year span.
    \139\ For grantmaking and giving services (NAICS 8132), costs
are estimated by first multiplying together 16,356 establishments
(see Table V-1) and the 20 percent rate applied in ladder
replacement, yielding an estimate of 3,271 establishments that will
be purchasing a ladder. Next, this estimate is multiplied by the sum
of worker time costs (5 minutes/60 minutes = 0.083 hours times a
$29.89 hourly production supervisor loaded wage (see Table V-5)),
yielding a result of $8,147. Analogous calculations are performed
for each industry and summed to produce the total of $4.2 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Step Bolts and Manhole Steps (Sec.  1910.24)
    Step bolts. In estimating the cost of the step-bolt inspection
requirement specified by proposed paragraph (a)(8) in the PEA, OSHA
identified three types of structures requiring step bolts and pole
steps:
     Utility poles;
     Communication structures; and
     Pole-mounted lights in sports and performance arenas.

Final paragraph (a)(8) requires that employers ensure step bolts are

inspected at the start of each work shift and maintained in accordance
with Sec.  1910.22. OSHA addresses the cost impacts of final paragraph
(a)(8) in the following discussion.
    Utility poles. According to the 2007 Utility Data Institute
Directory of Electric Power Producers and Distributors, there are
6,297,596 miles of distribution lines in the United States (Platts,
2007).\140\ According to ERG, the most recent mileage estimate
available for overhead distribution lines was 4.1 million miles in
1996, or about two-thirds of total line miles (NCAMP, 1997).
Considering the maturity of the electric-power industry in the United
States, OSHA assumed that there has not been a significant increase in
overhead line miles since 1996, with most new lines probably built
underground. Assuming one utility pole for every 100 feet of line, OSHA
estimated that there are 216,480,000 utility poles in the United
States. According to a 2004 highway safety study, this estimate is 2.5
times the number of reported utility poles on highways in 1999 (NCHRP,
2004); therefore, OSHA's estimate appears to be reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ The final Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and
Distribution; Electrical Protective Equipment standard requires that
employers follow the fall protection requirements in 29 CFR part
1910, subpart I (79 FR 20315 (4/11/2014); see Sec.  1910.269(g) in
this final rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA assumed that employees in the affected industry group--NAICS
2211, Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution--climb
one percent of the poles once each year and that it takes a production
worker (at an hourly wage of $45.11, including benefits) one minute to
inspect the step bolts on a pole. Therefore, the estimated annual cost
in the PEA for inspecting step bolts was $1.5 million. In the absence
of any comment on the record taking exception to this analysis, in this
FEA, OSHA estimated the cost for this requirement to be $1.6 million,
allowing for an increase in wages since publication of the NPRM.
    Communication structures. For the PEA, ERG estimated that there are
roughly 190,000 fixed-ladder structures in the communications industry
(see ERG, 2007, Appendix A). This estimate encompasses communication
structures with fixed ladders and step bolts. Fixed ladders, however,
have an existing requirement for inspection, while step bolts do not.
To narrow the estimate to fixed ladders with step bolts, ERG searched
an FCC database (Antenna Structure Registration (ASR)) and determined
that most communication structures meet at least one of the following
criteria:
     Height is 200 feet or higher;
     Height <199 feet if within 5 miles of an airport and fails
the glide calculation (part 17 requirement); or
     Height of the extension (e.g., beyond the building roof)
is 20 feet or more.

ERG assumed that these structures are more likely to have fixed ladders
rather than step bolts. As of May 2007, there were approximately 93,000
structures in the ASR database. Communication structures that are not
in the ASR database are smaller and, thus, more likely to have step
bolts. ERG calculated that the difference between the total number of
structures (190,000) and the number in the ASR database (93,000) would
represent the number of structures that could potentially have step
bolts. Following ERG's methodology, OSHA's cost model projected that
employees climb each of the 97,000 structures with step bolts once a
year and that spend one minute inspecting the structure before climbing
it. These unit estimates resulted in an annual cost of $0.05 million
($50,000) for NAICS 51 (Information) in the PEA; with 2010 loaded
hourly wages ranging from $21.64 to $32.60 for production workers
across sixteen four-digit industry codes in NAICS 51, the annual cost
is approximately $0.04 million ($43,000) in this FEA (average wages for
production workers in NAICS 51 fell from 2008 to 2010).
    Sports and performance arenas. According to the 2002 census, there
were 1,699 establishments in NAICS 7113, Promoters of performing arts,
sports, and similar events, with facilities (Census, 2002). For the
PEA, ERG was unable to estimate the number of step bolts at each
facility, but instead assumed that employers spent one hour per year
inspecting all step bolts at each facility (OSHA assumed that a
production worker would conduct the inspection). Therefore, in the PEA,
OSHA calculated that annual costs would total $0.034 million ($34,000)
for NAICS 7113. For this FEA, annual costs for NAICS 7113 total $0.050
million ($50,000) after updating the number of facilities (2,613) per
the 2007 Census and applying the 2010 loaded hourly wage of $19.08 for
production workers in NAICS 7113.
    Summing costs for utility poles, communication structures, and
sports and performance arenas, OSHA estimated in the PEA that the total
annual inspection costs for step bolts would be $1.54 million; for this
FEA, total inspection costs are $1.72 million. In the proposal, OSHA
requested, but did not receive: (1) Comment on the extent to which
employers currently conduct visual inspection \141\ of step bolts in
the telecommunications and electric-utility industries, and in sports
and performance arenas; (2) comment on the assumptions underlying its
analysis of costs; and (3) information on the potential impacts of the
proposed requirements on climbing surfaces with step bolts safely.
Therefore, in this FEA, OSHA adjusted the cost estimates in the PEA
only to the extent that wages and the number of establishments changed
since it published the PEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ The requirement in the proposed standard that step bolts
be ``visually inspected'' was revised in the final standard to read
that step bolts be ``inspected''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this final economic analysis, OSHA included, within the total
costs for the final standards for step bolts under final Sec.  1910.24,
the costs for repairing or replacing defective step bolts identified in
inspections required by the final rule. Based on a review of OSHA 2005
inspection data for the Transportation and Utility sectors, OSHA
calculated that 0.34% of inspected step bolts will be found to be out
of compliance.\142\ Applying this step bolt failure rate to the total
number of step bolts in affected NAICS industries (see above) yields an
estimated 7,727 step bolts repaired or replaced yearly. At a unit cost
of $4.50 or $14.75 per step bolt depending on the NAICS code \143\ and
an installation time of fifteen minutes, annual costs for repair or
replacement of step bolts are expected to total approximately $0.3
million. (See Ex. [OSHA Excel Workbook], Tab annual_24_stepbolts.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ Of 38,714 OSHA inspections in 2005, 11,469 resulted in
citations, of which 1,301 were in Transportation or Utility
industries. One hundred and fifty-six citations in Transportation/
Utility referenced Subpart D, and of that total, 15 citations
referenced 1910.24, Fixed industrial stairs, the existing standard
judged by OSHA to be most closely associated with the final
provision for step bolts. (See https://www.osha.gov/dep/enforcement/enforcement_results_05.html). Therefore, (11,469 citations/38,714
inspections) * (156 Transportation/Utility citations in Subpart D/
1,301 total Transportation/Utility citations) * (15 industrial
stairs citations/156 Subpart D citations) = 0.34% probability of a
scaffolds citation in Transportation/Utility sector.
    \143\ NAICS 22: $4.50; NAICS 51, 71: $14.75. See Ex. [OSHA Excel
Workbook], Tab annual_24_stepbolts).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Summing costs for inspection of step bolts and repair or
replacement of defective step bolts, OSHA estimates that the costs for
the provisions addressing step bolts under final Sec.  1910.24 will
total $2.0 million.
    Manhole steps. Final paragraph (b) addresses the design, capacity,
and use of manhole steps. As discussed earlier,

three requirements in final paragraph (b)(2) exceed the requirements
specified in a national consensus standard, ASTM C478-13, for steps in
precast concrete manhole sections:
     Manhole steps must have slip-resistant surfaces such as
corrugated, knurled, or dimpled surfaces;
     Manhole steps must be constructed of, or coated with,
material that protects against corrosion in an environment where
corrosion may occur; and
     The design of manhole steps must prevent the employee's
foot from slipping or sliding off the end of the manhole step.
    OSHA expects that employers will identify any deficiencies in
manhole steps through compliance with final paragraph (b)(3); that
provision requires that employers ensure manhole steps are inspected at
the start of the work shift, and maintained in accordance with Sec.
1910.22. In estimating the cost of the manhole-step inspection
requirement specified by proposed paragraph (b)(3) in the PEA, OSHA
estimated there are between 6.6 million and 13.2 million manholes, with
a mid-point estimate of 9.9 million, nearly all of which are in water,
sewage, and related utilities. Of these manholes, approximately 85
percent, or 8.4 million manholes, are 20 feet or less in depth, while
the remainder, 15 percent or 1.5 million manholes, are more than 20
feet in depth. In the PEA, OSHA estimated that employees would enter 10
percent of all manholes, on average, and that it would take one minute
to inspect the steps prior to entering the manhole. That analysis
resulted in an estimated annual cost of $0.4 million for the industry
most affected by this requirement, NAICS 2213 (Water, sewage, and other
systems). After updating the wage rate for production workers in NAICS
2213, OSHA's final estimate for inspection of manhole equipment,
including steps, totals $0.5 million.
    Other industries also use manholes for access, such as electric-
power generation, transmission, and distribution (NAICS 2211) and
natural-gas distribution (NAICS 2212). ERG, however, had no data on the
number of manholes for those industry groups, and although OSHA assumed
in the PEA that the costs would be proportional to the number of
manholes estimated for water and sewage systems, OSHA was not able to
estimate costs for NAICS 2211 and 2212. The Agency requested, but did
not receive, public comment in the proposal on the impact of the
inspection requirement on these and any other affected industries.
Therefore, for this FEA, OSHA assumed that, for NAICS 2211 and 2212,
employers seldom encounter manholes, and that when they do encounter
manholes, they routinely inspect the manhole steps to ensure that the
steps meet or exceed the requirements of the final rule. Therefore,
OSHA determined that, under the final standard, any incremental costs
for manhole fall protection in NAICS 2211 and 2212 will not be
significant.
    Employers would incur costs for slip-resistant and corrosion-
resistant manhole step surfaces required by proposed paragraphs
(b)(2)(i) and (ii) in the future because employers would replace
manholes with steps at the end of their useful life. As described
above, OSHA estimates there are 9.9 million manholes, of which 85
percent are 20 feet or less in depth and 15 percent are more than 20
feet in depth. In the PEA, OSHA assumed that manholes less than or
equal to 20 feet in depth used portable ladders, fixed ladders, and
steps in equal shares, resulting in 2.9 million manholes with steps,
while it assumed that manholes more than 20 feet in depth used fixed
ladders and steps in equal shares, resulting in 0.7 million manholes
with steps. This analysis, therefore, indicates that the proposed
requirement would affect 3.6 million manholes. The manhole step
selected from vendor lists in the PEA had a per-unit cost of $8.50, and
OSHA assumed that this price included a 10 percent premium for the
steps to meet the proposed requirements (ERG, 2007).
    Applying the unit values and methodological assumptions described
above for this FEA, OSHA estimated annual replacement costs for steps
by applying a 10 percent rate for annual entry of manholes and, of that
number, applying a 10-percent rung failure rate. At the incremental
cost of $0.85 each (10 percent of $8.50 per rung), the estimated annual
replacement cost for steps is $0.03 million ($31,000). OSHA estimated
annual replacement costs for all manhole-access equipment (including
steps, but excluding manhole covers) assuming a baseline of ten percent
and further assuming that employers would replace 5 percent of this
equipment each year and would install steps every 16 inches.
Accordingly, the estimated yearly manhole replacement cost is $1.6
million, and combining this cost with OSHA's final estimate of costs
for inspection of manhole equipment, including steps ($0.5 million),
OSHA derives a total cost of $2.1 million for manhole fall protection
under the final rule (after rounding).
    For this FEA, OSHA has included the labor costs for annual
replacement of manhole steps or rungs that are judged to be out of
compliance with the final standard. OSHA applied a baseline compliance
rate of ten percent for affected utilities, estimated that removal of
the old rung or step and replacement with a new one will involve 15
minutes of labor per rung or step (hourly loaded wage of $30.47 for a
production worker in NAICS 2213 (water, sewage utilities)), and
multiplied unit labor cost times the total number of affected steps, or
1.83 million steps after adjusting for baseline.\144\ Combining those
cost factors, the Agency estimates that labor costs for removal and
replacement of defective rungs or steps will total $13.9 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ 1.06 million steps or rungs in manholes less than 20 ft.
deep (28,611 in single-rung manholes and 1,144,440 in multi-rung
manholes) + 780,000 steps or rungs in manholes more than 20 ft. deep
(7,425 in single-rung manholes and 853,875 in multi-rung manholes) =
2.03 million steps or rungs (100%-10% baseline) = 1.83 million steps
or rungs. See Document ID [OSHA Excel Workbook], Tab
materials_24_manholes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Combining costs for inspections and repair of step bolts and
manhole steps, OSHA estimates that the final costs associated with
Sec.  1910.24, Stepbolts and manhole steps, will total $16.0 million.
Scaffolds and Rope Descent Systems (Sec.  1910.27)
    Training. Paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of proposed Sec.  1910.27 and
paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of the final Sec.  1910.27 specify training
requirements for rope descent systems. As described earlier in this
``Costs of Compliance'' section, OSHA attributed costs for any training
beyond what is done as a result of the 1991 OSHA memorandum on descent-
control devices to final Sec.  1910.30 (see below).
    Sound anchorages. In the PEA, costs assigned to ensure sound
anchorages as required by proposed Sec.  1910.27(b)(iv) involved: (1) A
qualified/competent person who would inspect the rigging and anchorages
on buildings annually, and (2) a professional engineer who would
certify the soundness of the rigging and anchorages every 10 years.
    According to an industry expert contacted by ERG, an estimated 3.0
million window cleaning descents take place annually at 750,000
buildings in the U.S. (ERG, 2007). In the absence of comments on the
PEA in the proposal, OSHA is retaining these estimates in this FEA for
the inspection and certification requirements specified by final Sec.
1910.27(b)(1)(i). Using data collected by the Department of Energy
(DOE) for surveys on energy use, ERG compared this estimate with the
number of commercial and residential buildings with four or more
floors. The 2003

Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey identified about 140,000
commercial buildings nationwide (DOE, 2006). The 2001 Residential
Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) identified about 2.4 million apartment
buildings with 5 to 10 floors, 0.9 million apartment buildings with 11
to 20 floors, and an unspecified number of buildings with more than 20
floors (DOE, 2004). Summing the three categories of residential
buildings, ERG estimated that there are approximately 3.3 million
residential buildings in the U.S. with five or more floors.\145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ Since publication of the PEA, DOE released the results
from its 2009 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) (DOE,
2013). According to the 2009 RECS, 1.9 million apartment buildings
have 5 to 10 floors, 0.9 million apartment buildings have 11 to 20
floors, and 0.4 million apartment buildings have more than 20
floors. Summing the three categories of residential buildings, OSHA
estimates that there are approximately 3.3 million residential
buildings with five or more floors, a total that is identical to
OSHA's preliminary estimate of 3.3 million residential buildings
with at least five floors. Therefore, OSHA applied its preliminary
estimate of tall residential buildings for this final analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA assumed that each commercial building has its windows cleaned
annually, thereby accounting for 140,000 of the estimated 750,000
window cleanings per year. If the 3.3 million residential buildings
account for the remaining 610,000 cleanings, each of these buildings
would, on average, have its windows cleaned every five to six years.
    ERG's industry expert estimated that a minimum of 20 percent of the
building owners complied with the anchorage-inspection requirement, and
that the number was increasing. However, comments submitted to the
Agency in response to the 2003 reopening were inconsistent regarding
the likelihood that building owners inspect their anchorages on a
periodic basis. Amodeo (2003) noted that some clients view ANSI I-14.1
as voluntary and resist having inspections. Kreidenweis (2003)
commented that engineers seldom inspect anchorages.\146\ In contrast,
Lebel (2003) noted that many buildings have a roof plan and identified
anchorages (i.e. anchorages designated for use in window cleaning),
certified by a professional engineer. Zeolla (2003) stated that most
buildings that invest in anchors are inspecting them. On the basis of
these comments, OSHA in the PEA estimated that 25 percent of the
approximately 750,000 buildings cleaned every year undergo anchor