[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 65 (Monday, April 6, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17165-17170]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-06578]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Part 1910
[Docket No. OSHA-2025-0072]
RIN 1218-AD73
Walking-Working Surfaces
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule removes a deadline in OSHA's Walking-
Working Surfaces standard by which all fixed ladders that extend more
than 24 feet above a lower level must be equipped with personal fall
arrest systems or ladder safety systems. Additionally, OSHA is seeking
comment on repealing or revising the requirement that employers use
personal fall arrest systems on all fixed ladders over 24 feet tall and
instead permitting employers to continue to use ladder cages or wells.
DATES: Comments and other information, including requests for a
hearing, must be received on or before June 5, 2026.
Informal public hearing: OSHA will schedule an informal public
hearing on the rule if requested during the comment period. If a
hearing is requested, the location and date of the hearing, procedures
for interested parties to notify the agency of their intention to
participate, and procedures for participants to submit their testimony
and documentary evidence will be announced in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES:
Written comments: You may submit comments and attachments,
identified by Docket No. OSHA-2025-0072, electronically at https://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Follow
the instructions online for making electronic submissions.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency's name and
the docket number for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-2025-0072). When
uploading multiple attachments to https://www.regulations.gov, please
number all of your attachments because https://www.regulations.gov will
not automatically number the attachments. This will be very useful in
identifying all attachments. For example,
Attachment 1--title of your document,
Attachment 2--title of your document,
Attachment 3--title of your document.
For assistance with commenting and uploading documents, please see
the Frequently Asked Questions on https://www.regulations.gov.
All comments, including any personal information you provide, are
placed in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions
commenters about submitting
[[Page 17166]]
information they do not want made available to the public or submitting
materials that contain personal information (either about themselves or
others), such as Social Security Numbers and birthdates.
Docket: The docket for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-2025-0072)
is available at https://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking
Portal. Most exhibits are available at https://www.regulations.gov;
some exhibits (e.g., copyrighted material) are not available to
download from that web page. However, all materials in the dockets are
available for inspection at the OSHA Docket Office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For press inquiries: Contact Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, Occupational Safety and Health Administration;
telephone: (202) 693-1999; email: [email protected].
General information and technical inquiries: Contact Andrew
Levinson, Director, OSHA Directorate of Standards and Guidance,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration; telephone: (202) 693-
1950; email: [email protected].
Copies of this Federal Register notice: Electronic copies are
available at https://www.regulations.gov. This Federal Register notice,
as well as news releases and other relevant information, also are
available at OSHA's web page at https://www.osha.gov. A ``100-word
summary'' is also available on https://www.regulations.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Legal Authority and Preliminary Findings
III. Background
IV. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Requirements
V. Preliminary Economic Analysis
VI. Additional Requirements
VII. Authority and Signature
VIII. Regulatory Text
I. Executive Summary
This proposed rule is intended to provide greater compliance
flexibility for employers subject to the requirements in OSHA's
Walking-Working Surfaces standard (29 CFR, Subpart D). OSHA is
proposing to remove a provision that sets a deadline (November 18,
2036) for the installation of personal fall arrest systems or ladder
safety systems on all fixed ladders that extend more than 24 feet above
a lower level. This change is based on the agency's reassessment of
certain assumptions in the 2016 final rule (81 FR 82494) that
established this deadline. The requirement to ensure that any new or
replacement fixed ladders are equipped with a personal fall arrest
system or ladder safety system would be maintained. Consistent with the
agency's original intent for this provision, this change will allow
employers to update their ladders when the ladders reach the end of
their service lives, accommodating the lengthy service life of fixed
ladders while significantly reducing costs and offering greater
flexibility.
II. Legal Authority and Preliminary Findings
The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C.
651 et seq.) (``the Act'' or ``the OSH Act'') is ``to assure so far as
possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful
working conditions and to preserve our human resources'' (29 U.S.C.
651(b)). To achieve this goal, Congress authorized the Secretary of
Labor (``the Secretary'') to promulgate standards to protect workers,
including the authority ``to set mandatory occupational safety and
health standards applicable to businesses affecting interstate
commerce'' (29 U.S.C. 651(b)(3); see also 29 U.S.C. 654(a)(2)
(requiring employers to comply with OSHA standards), 29 U.S.C. 655(a)
(authorizing summary adoption of existing consensus and established
federal standards within two years of the Act's enactment), 29 U.S.C.
655(b) (authorizing promulgation, modification or revocation of
standards pursuant to notice and comment)). An occupational safety and
health standard is ``. . . a standard which requires conditions, or the
adoption or use of one or more practices, means, methods, operations,
or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or
healthful employment and places of employment'' (29 U.S.C. 652(8)).
Before OSHA may promulgate a health or safety standard, it must
find that a standard is reasonably necessary or appropriate within the
meaning of section 652(8) of the OSH Act. As required by the OSH Act,
OSHA determined when promulgating the Walking-Working Surfaces standard
that the standard would substantially reduce a significant risk of
material harm (see 81 FR 82494, 82497 (November 18, 2016)). When, as
here, OSHA has previously determined that its standard substantially
reduces a significant risk, it is unnecessary for the agency to make
additional findings on risk for every provision of that standard (see,
e.g., Pub. Citizen Health Research Grp. v. Tyson, 796 F.2d 1479, 1502
n.16 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (rejecting the argument that OSHA must ``find
that each and every aspect of its standard eliminates a significant
risk'')). Rather, once OSHA makes a general significant risk finding in
support of a standard, the next question is whether a particular
requirement is reasonably related to the purpose of the standard as a
whole (see Asbestos Info. Ass'n/N. Am. v. Reich, 117 F.3d 891, 894 (5th
Cir. 1997); Forging Indus. Ass'n v. Sec'y of Labor, 773 F.2d 1436, 1447
(4th Cir. 1985); United Steelworkers of Am., AFL-CIO-CLC v. Marshall,
647 F.2d 1189, 1237-38 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (``Lead I'')). The revision
proposed here does not affect the agency's previous determination that
the fixed ladder requirements in 29 CFR 1910.28(b)(9) are reasonably
related to the purpose of the Walking-Working Surfaces standard.
A standard is technologically feasible if the protective measures
it requires already exist, can be brought into existence with available
technology, or can be created with technology that is reasonably
expected to be developed (see Am. Iron and Steel Inst. v. OSHA, 939
F.2d 975, 980 (D.C. Cir. 1991)). Courts have also interpreted
technological feasibility to mean that a typical firm in each affected
industry or application group will reasonably be able to implement the
requirements of the standard in most operations most of the time (see,
e.g., Public Citizen v. OSHA, 557 F.3d 165, 170-71 (3d Cir. 2009)
(citing Lead I at 1272)).
In the 2016 final rule, OSHA determined that the fixed ladder
requirements in 29 CFR 1910.28(b)(9) are technologically feasible (see
81 FR 82801). OSHA is not revisiting that finding. Because this
proposed rule would merely remove a deadline for compliance with the
existing requirement, OSHA preliminarily finds that this proposal would
present no technological feasibility issues for employers.
In determining economic feasibility, OSHA must consider the cost of
compliance in an industry rather than for individual employers. In its
economic analyses, OSHA ``must construct a reasonable estimate of
compliance costs and demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that these
costs will not threaten the existence or competitive structure of an
industry, even if it does portend disaster for some marginal firms''
(Am. Iron and Steel Inst., 939 F.2d at 980, quoting Lead I 647 F.2d at
1272). OSHA has preliminarily determined that this proposal is
economically feasible because this action is deregulatory and imposes
no additional costs. OSHA's
[[Page 17167]]
economic analysis is presented in Section V.
The Administrative Procedures Act directs agencies to include in
each rule adopted ``a concise general statement of [the rule's] basis
and purpose'' (5 U.S.C. 553(c)); cf. 29 U.S.C. 655(e) (requiring the
Secretary to publish a ``statement of reasons'' for any standard
promulgated). This notice satisfies this concise statement requirement.
III. Background
OSHA first promulgated the Walking-Working Surfaces standard in
1971 (36 FR 10466). OSHA finalized the current Walking-Working Surfaces
standard in 2016 (81 FR 82494). The standard contains fall protection
requirements for fixed ladders that extend more than 24 feet above a
lower level, among other provisions. In the 2016 final rule, OSHA noted
that the revised standard reflected advances in technology and made the
standard consistent with more recent OSHA standards and national
consensus standards (81 FR 82494).
On July 28, 2025, OSHA received a letter on behalf of member
companies of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM),
American Chemistry Council (ACC), and American Petroleum Institute
(API) (the ``industry petition''), petitioning the agency to initiate
rulemaking that would repeal the requirement to use personal fall
arrest systems on all fixed ladders that extend more than 24 feet above
a lower level and allow employers to continue to use cages and wells
or, alternatively, that would allow the use of cages and wells on these
ladders and require installation of personal fall arrest systems or
ladder safety systems only on the ladders installed or modified after a
new final rule (Ex. OSHA-2025-0072-0002). The letter states that
retrofitting existing fixed ladders with personal fall arrest systems
or ladder safety systems imposes extraordinary costs on the industry
with ``very little, if any, safety enhancement.'' The member companies
contend that these expenses are unjustified, as there have been very
few incidents involving fixed ladders.
This rulemaking proposes removing the fixed deadline from 29 CFR
1910.28(b)(9)(i). For the reasons discussed below and consistent with
Executive Order (E.O.) 14219, ``Ensuring Lawful Governance and
Implementing the President's `Department of Government Efficiency'
Deregulatory Initiative,'' E.O. 14192, ``Unleashing Prosperity Through
Deregulation,'' and the goal of significantly reducing the private
expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations to secure
American's economic prosperity and national security and the highest
possible quality of life for each citizen, OSHA preliminarily concludes
that removing the fixed deadline from 29 CFR 1910.28(b)(9)(i) will
reduce the compliance burden on the regulated community while
effectuating OSHA's original intent for this provision. OSHA seeks
comment on the proposed change and this preliminary conclusion.
IV. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Requirements
OSHA is proposing to revise paragraph (b)(9) of its general
industry Walking-Working Surfaces fall protection standard (29 CFR
1910.28) by removing the deadline for employers to install a personal
fall arrest system or ladder safety system on fixed ladders (that
extend more than 24 feet above a lower level) by November 18, 2036 (29
CFR 1910.28(b)(9)(i)(D)). Removing this deadline will allow fixed
ladders with cages or wells to remain in use until the end of their
service lives without an installed personal fall arrest or ladder
safety system. Once these fixed ladders, cages, or wells are replaced,
including due to reaching the end of their service lives, a personal
fall arrest system or ladder safety system would need to be installed
in at least that replaced section of the fixed ladder, cage, or well
pursuant to existing paragraph (b)(9)(i)(C). Similarly, the requirement
in existing paragraph (b)(9)(i)(B) that any new fixed ladders must be
equipped with a personal fall arrest system or ladder safety system
would remain unchanged.
In explaining its decision to adopt a 20-year compliance deadline,
OSHA stated in the 2016 final rule that it ``set the extended phase-out
period to take into account normal replacement and average useful life
of fixed ladders, cages, and wells'' (81 FR 82494). The agency
estimated that, within 20 years, ``the large majority of fixed ladders
will have been replaced or in need of replacement.'' In selecting a
compliance date subsequent to the replacement or service duration of
the ``vast majority'' of fixed ladders, OSHA sought to avoid undue
burdens for employers by providing them ``ample time to plan and carry
out this transition as part of their normal business and replacement
cycles, instead of retrofitting fixed ladders'' (81 FR 82603). Indeed,
OSHA's assessment of the economic feasibility of the requirement relied
on this assumption (81 FR 82611).
The concerns raised by the industry petition draw into question
OSHA's assumption in the 2016 final rule that 20 years is sufficient to
ensure that most employers can come into compliance with the fixed
ladder fall protection requirements through their normal business and
replacement cycles. By removing the fixed deadline in paragraph
(b)(9)(i)(D) while maintaining the replacement requirements in existing
paragraph (b)(9)(i)(C), this proposed revision would accomplish OSHA's
original intent while reducing future economic burdens by avoiding
costly retrofitting of currently compliant fixed ladders that have
cages and wells, are in good repair, and that are not at the end of
their service lives.
As an alternative to removing the compliance deadline as discussed
above, the petitioners requested the repeal of the requirement that
employers use personal fall arrest systems on all fixed ladders over 24
feet tall and that OSHA permit them to continue to use ladder cages or
wells. OSHA therefore requests comment on whether it should remove the
requirement that employers use personal fall arrest systems on all
fixed ladders over 24 feet tall. OSHA welcomes additional evidence
regarding the costs and benefits of cages, wells, and personal fall
arrest systems, and ladder safety systems, and whether cages and wells
provide equivalent safety outcomes compared to personal fall arrest
systems or ladder safety systems across relevant industries and ladder
configurations. Employers must continue to ensure fixed ladders meet
all applicable ladder requirements in 29 CFR 1910.23, Ladders, and the
general requirements for all walking-working surfaces in section
1910.22, which sets requirements for safe loads, safe access and
egress, inspection, general maintenance, and good repair.
The agency preliminarily concludes that the proposed revision to 29
CFR 1910.28(b)(9)(i) would best effectuate the agency's intent in the
2016 final rule while also serving the goals of reducing undue burden
and improving compliance with OSHA's fall protection requirements. OSHA
does not have evidence to suggest that removal of the deadline in
section 1910.28(b)(9)(i)(D) will significantly impact the safety
benefits identified in the 2016 final rule. In the final rule, OSHA
estimated the rule would prevent 11.4 ladder-related fatalities and
2,161 ladder-related lost-workday injuries per year across all ladder
types and all covered employers (81 FR at 82674). This includes
fatalities and injuries prevented by all ladder-related provisions of
the final rule, including the portable and fixed ladder design and use
requirements in section 1910.23 and the fall protection requirements in
section 1910.28. OSHA
[[Page 17168]]
expects this proposed rule to only impact a small subset of affected
ladders: fixed ladders between 24 and 30 feet in length \1\ that do not
currently have a ladder safety system or personal fall arrest system
installed and that would not be replaced by November 2036.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the 2016 final rule, OSHA determined that fixed ladders
more than 30 feet in length already use a ladder safety system or
personal fall arrest system and therefore employers would not need
to retrofit those ladders to comply with section 1910.28(b)(9)(i)
(81 FR at 82930).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA is unable to determine whether any of the potential fatalities
or injuries avoided due to the 2016 final rule would be associated with
the limited scope of this proposal; that is, whether any of those
fatalities or injuries would occur among this subset of ladders in the
time between 2036 and the later date at which these ladders will now be
replaced. However, OSHA expects the impact of this proposal to be
small. One reason is that many if not most fixed ladders covered by the
2016 final rule are still likely to be replaced by 2036. Another is
that this proposal merely extends the time provided for employers to
come into compliance with the fall protection requirements of section
1910.28(b)(9), it does not eliminate the requirement. Finally, OSHA
anticipates that most workplaces with affected ladders are likely to
have at least some ladders with personal fall arrest systems or ladder
safety systems installed and employees of those employers will
therefore have been trained to recognize fall hazards related to these
ladders. As explained in the 2016 final rule, OSHA expects that the
increased level of worker training on personal fall arrest systems and
ladder safety systems required by the final rule, and the heightened
recognition of related fall hazards resulting from this training, will
contribute to the prevention of injuries and fatalities from falls from
ladders (81 FR at 82784-82785). Based on this, the agency preliminarily
determines that this proposal is not likely to result in a meaningful
increase in risk to workers and the standard as a whole would remain
highly protective. OSHA requests comments regarding these changes
including any relevant scientific studies or other evidence.
V. Preliminary Economic Analysis
A. Estimated Cost Savings
This proposed rule would allow employers more time to come into
compliance with 29 CFR 1910.28(b)(9)(i), and therefore OSHA has
preliminarily concluded that there would be no additional costs imposed
by these proposed revisions. OSHA also anticipates that there would be
significant cost savings associated with this rule, based on employers
being able to avoid retrofitting or replacing current fixed ladders
equipped with cages and wells while those fixed ladders are still
within their useful service life. Because this rule would impose no new
costs, OSHA has made a preliminary determination that the rule would be
economically feasible.
In the industry petition cited earlier, the petitioners state that
a survey of their member companies indicated these companies have
``incurred significant costs before the physical work of retrofitting
has begun''; that one company alone ``has spent thousands of hours over
the last two years conducting fixed ladder assessments in anticipation
of the work . . . $1.2 million just to identify which ladders are
affected''; and that another ``company estimates that it will spend $5
million to do the same'' (Ex. OSHA-2025-0072-0002).
The petitioners further state that their members, if made to comply
with the ladder safety/personal fall arrest system requirements, would
spend more than $1.2 billion to bring more than 22,000 ladders into
compliance. They further noted that their member survey ``represents
just over one-third of the petroleum refineries in the country and a
tiny fraction of other chemical manufacturing facilities.''
Extrapolating from these results, petitioners suggest that this
requirement could cost more than $3 billion across the U.S. refining
industry (Ex. OSHA-2025-0072-0002). Based on the limited information
provided by the petitioners, OSHA is unable to ascertain whether there
are unique aspects of the industries represented by the petitioners
that would drive costs higher than OSHA's 2016 estimate. The agency
welcomes comment on whether the petitioner's estimates are
representative of costs in other industries.
In the 2016 final economic analysis, OSHA estimated that annualized
costs of the final rule would total $305 million (81 FR 82847). Of
those total costs, OSHA estimated that retrofitting fixed ladders
between 24 feet and 30 feet in height with ladder safety and personal
fall arrest systems would total $8.5 million in multi-year aggregated
costs, or $1.2 million in annualized costs, for the approximately
109,200 fixed ladders affected by the requirement (29 CFR
1910.28(b)(9)) mandating replacement of cages and wells after November
2036 (81 FR 82841). This estimate accounted for the costs of new
equipment and time for installation (2 hours per ladder) and relied on
the assumptions regarding the useful life of fixed ladders that the
agency is now reconsidering. If OSHA underestimated the useful life of
affected ladders, then a larger percentage of affected employers would
need to retrofit existing ladders to comply with the November 2036
deadline, resulting in higher costs than originally estimated.
Based on petitioners' data, OSHA calculates a compliance cost of
$55,000 per ladder ($1.2 billion divided by 22,000 ladders rounded to
the nearest thousand); however, other entities in the petitioners'
industry not surveyed could indicate different potential cost savings
associated with the other two-thirds of this industry's ladders, thus
the $55,000 estimate may not reflect the true average. By applying
these per-ladder compliance costs to an estimated 66,000 ladders in
this industry sector (extrapolating the petitioner's report of 22,000
ladders in one third of the industry to the whole industry), OSHA
estimates cost savings over $3.6 billion could be achieved in this
sector alone by eliminating the compliance deadline. OSHA seeks public
comment on these estimates.
OSHA requests comments and data on whether and to what extent the
agency underestimated the number of ladders in other covered industries
that would need to be retrofitted or replaced to comply with the
deadline in 29 CFR 1910.28(b)(9)(i)(D). If OSHA also underestimated the
number of affected ladders in other industries, the total cost savings
of this proposal could be significantly higher.
Request for Comment
To assist OSHA in evaluating the potential costs or cost savings
that would result from this proposed rule, the agency requests
comments, data, and information on the following:
1. OSHA requests public comments on the service life of fixed
ladders that extend more than 24 feet above a lower level.
Additionally, OSHA requests details used to evaluate factors affecting
remaining service of these ladders.
2. OSHA requests public comments on what other assumptions might be
driving the difference between the 2016 cost estimates and the costs
claimed in the industry petition, including assumptions regarding the
extent to which ladder safety and personal fall arrest systems are
already installed on fixed ladders above 24 feet.
3. OSHA requests public comments on the petitioners' compliance
cost estimates noted above for identifying, assessing, and retrofitting
fixed ladders affected by paragraph 1910.28(b)(9).
[[Page 17169]]
4. OSHA requests public comments on the agency's estimate of cost
savings that would result from eliminating the need for employers to
retrofit existing fixed ladders in the petitioners' industry sector to
meet paragraph 1910.28(b)(9)'s November 18, 2036, deadline.
5. OSHA requests data and information on the installation costs of
ladder safety systems and personal fall arrest systems on fixed ladders
over 24 feet in height in other industries. The agency requests that
the commenters elaborate on the resource inputs that contribute to the
estimate of total costs, where possible, with specific details on
facility type, the operational use (function) of the ladder, frequency
of climbs, the type and components of the fall safety system currently
installed, the cost of replacing a fixed ladder (on a per-foot or per-
section basis if appropriate), the timing of a retrofit (proximity to
2036) if the 2016 rule were to remain in place without revision, and
the type of fall safety system projected for retrofitting affected
fixed ladders. The petitioners identified 22,000 ladders that would be
affected by the 2016 final rule's deadline for replacement in portions
of two industries. OSHA requests additional information on the number
of fixed ladders in petroleum refineries, chemical manufacturing, and
other industries that might be affected by this proposed rule.
6. OSHA requests data from all interested parties on current
(baseline) practices for the provision of fall protection on fixed
ladders, including survey data on the extent of existing practices
among affected employers for assessing the performance and
effectiveness of fall prevention systems on fixed ladders, as well as
survey data on current, baseline administrative controls such as
manager familiarization, training, and recordkeeping.
7. If employers have already incurred costs or cost savings as a
result of implementing paragraph 1910.28(b)(9)(i), please describe in
detail (for example, cost or cost savings per worker, per process unit,
or per production operation) the size and scope of the costs or cost
savings, and the size and scope of any benefits that have been achieved
from the changes in the use of fall safety systems on fixed ladders.
8. OSHA invites all stakeholders to comment on any technological,
economic, and safety-related impacts of the proposed removal of
paragraph 1910.28(b)(9)(i)(D).
9. OSHA requests comment on whether it should repeal or revise the
requirement that employers use personal fall arrest systems on all
fixed ladders over 24 feet. OSHA welcomes additional evidence regarding
whether cages and wells provide equivalent safety outcomes compared to
personal fall arrest systems or ladder safety systems across relevant
industries and ladder configurations.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a
final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any rule that by law
must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that
the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The Act requires each IRFA
to describe regulatory alternatives that would ``minimize any
significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.'' 5
U.S.C. 603(c). Each FRFA must describe ``steps the agency has taken to
minimize the significant economic impact on small entities.'' Id. Sec.
604(a)(6). The term ``significant economic impact,'' as used in the Act
to trigger IRFA and FRFA requirements, thus refers to adverse economic
impacts that should be minimized.
OSHA reviewed this proposed rule under the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. This rule would eliminate a regulatory
requirement and reduce compliance burdens on both small and large
employers. Therefore, OSHA certifies that the revision would not have a
``significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities,'' and that the preparation of an IRFA is not warranted. OSHA
will transmit this certification and supporting statement of factual
basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under Executive Order 12866
E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735 (Oct.
4, 1993)), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1)
propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that
its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and
costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the
least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory
objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent
practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that
maximize net benefits; (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance
objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance
that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess
available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing
economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user
fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices
can be made by the public.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit
``significant regulatory actions'' to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review. OIRA has determined that this
proposed rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' under the criteria
in section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this proposed rule was
submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866.
VI. Additional Requirements
A. Requirements for States With OSHA-Approved State Plans
Under section 18 of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.), Congress
expressly provides that States may adopt, with Federal approval, a plan
for the development and enforcement of occupational safety and health
standards that are ``at least as effective'' as the Federal standards
in providing safe and healthful employment and places of employment (29
U.S.C. 667). OSHA refers to these OSHA-approved, State-administered
occupational safety and health programs as ``State Plans.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Of the 29 States and U.S. territories with OSHA-approved
State Plans, 22 cover public and private-sector employees: Alaska,
Arizona, California, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland,
Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon,
Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,
Washington, and Wyoming. The remaining six States and one U.S.
territory cover only State and local government employees:
Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York,
and the Virgin Islands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or a more stringent
amendment to an existing standard, State Plans must either amend their
standards to be identical to, or ``at least as effective as,'' the new
Federal standard or amendment, or show that an existing State Plan
standard covering this issue is ``at least as effective'' as the new
Federal standard or amendment (29 CFR 1953.5(a)). However, when OSHA
promulgates a new standard or amendment that does not impose additional
or more stringent requirements than an existing standard, State Plans
do not have to amend their standards, although they may opt to do so.
OSHA has preliminarily determined this proposed rule does not impose
[[Page 17170]]
additional or more stringent requirements than the existing standard,
and therefore State Plans are not required to amend their standards.
OSHA seeks comment on this assessment of its proposal.
B. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) defines ``collection of
information'' to mean ``the obtaining, causing to be obtained,
soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third parties or the public,
of facts or opinions by or for an agency, regardless of form or
format'' (44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)). Under the PRA, a federal agency cannot
conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it is approved by
OMB under the PRA and the agency displays a currently valid OMB control
number (44 U.S.C. 3507). Also, notwithstanding any other provisions of
law, no person shall be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information if the collection of information does not
display a currently valid OMB control number (44 U.S.C. 3512(a)(1)).
The process for OMB approval is found in 5 CFR part 1320. This proposed
rule would impose no new information collection requirements. Because
the proposed revisions do not affect the currently approved information
collections, OMB approval is not required for this proposed rule.
C. Environmental Impacts/National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
OSHA has reviewed this proposed rule according to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as
amended by the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (Pub. L. 118-5, 321,
137 Stat. 10), and the Department of Labor's NEPA procedures (29 CFR
part 11). Under the Department's regulations, the ``[p]romulgation,
modification or revocation of any [OSHA] safety standard'' is
categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental
assessment absent extraordinary circumstances indicating the potential
for significant environmental effects (29 CFR 11.10(a)(1)). OSHA has
preliminarily determined that no such extraordinary circumstances
exist, and that this proposal would have no impact on the quality of
the human environment.
D. Other Statutory and Executive Order Considerations
OSHA has considered its obligations under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) and the Executive Orders on
Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments (E.O.
13175, 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 6, 2000)), Federalism (E.O. 13132, 64 FR 43255
(Aug. 10, 1999)), and Protection of Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks (E.O. 13045, 62 FR 19885 (Apr. 23, 1997)). Given
that this is a proposed deregulatory action that involves the removal
of requirements, does not result in any Federal mandates, and does not
constitute a policy that has federalism or tribal implications, OSHA
has determined that no further agency action or analysis is required to
comply with these statutes and executive orders. Furthermore, OSHA has
determined that this proposal is consistent with the policies and
directives outlined in E.O. 14192, ``Unleashing Prosperity Through
Deregulation.'' If finalized as proposed, this NPRM is expected to be
an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910
Falls, Fall arrest, Fall protection, Fixed ladders, Ladders, Ladder
cages, Ladder safety systems, Ladder wells, Occupational safety and
health, Personal fall arrest systems, Walking-Working Surfaces.
VII. Authority and Signature
This document was prepared under the direction of David Keeling,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. It is
issued under the authority of sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657), 5 U.S.C.
553, Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393), and 29 CFR
part 1911.
David Keeling,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
VIII. Regulatory Text
Proposed Amendments
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, OSHA is amending 29 CFR
part 1910 as follows:
PART 1910--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS
Subpart D--Walking-Working Surfaces
0
1. The authority citation for subpart D is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657; Secretary of Labor's
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR
35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017),
5-2002 (67 FR 65008); 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), 1-
2012 (77 FR 3912), 8-2020 (85 FR 58393), or 7-2025 (90 FR 27878); 29
CFR part 1911; and 5 U.S.C. 553, as applicable.
0
2. Amend Sec. 1910.28 by removing paragraph (b)(9)(i)(D) and revising
paragraph (b)(9)(i) to read as follows:
Sec. 1910.28 Duty to have fall protection and falling object
protection.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(9) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) Existing fixed ladders. Each fixed ladder installed before
November 19, 2018 is equipped with a personal fall arrest system,
ladder safety system, cage, or well;
(B) New fixed ladders. Each fixed ladder installed on and after
November 19, 2018, is equipped with a personal fall arrest system or a
ladder safety system; and
(C) Replacement. When a fixed ladder, cage, or well, or any portion
of a section thereof, is replaced, a personal fall arrest system or
ladder safety system is installed in at least that section of the fixed
ladder, cage, or well where the replacement is located.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2026-06578 Filed 4-3-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P