Walking-Working Surfaces

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) opposes the proposed rule because it would remove the 2036 compliance deadline for installing fall prevention systems on fixed ladders over 24 feet high. The union argues that existing caged ladders provide no protection against severe injury or death and that the 2036 deadline is necessary to give employers sufficient time to implement modern safety technology.

Conn Maciel Carey LLP, representing members of the AFPM, API, and ACC, opposes the proposed rule requiring fall arrest systems (FAS) on ladders in cages and wells. They argue that FAS are less effective than existing cages, create new safety hazards (such as entanglement and ergonomic stress), and impose exorbitant costs on the refining industry.

LJB Engineering, an engineering firm specializing in worker safety, supports the proposed regulations but advocates for specific technical refinements. They argue for stricter oversight by "Qualified Persons," suggest a 30-foot height threshold for consistency, and emphasize that implementation should be based on risk assessments rather than just a mandated timeline.

The Alliance for Chemical Distribution (ACD), representing over 400 chemical distribution companies, supports the proposed rule to remove the 2036 deadline for equipping fixed ladders with personal fall arrest systems. They argue that the deadline is arbitrary, lacks supporting data regarding ladder replacement cycles, and would impose significant and disproportionate costs on small businesses.

The International Safety Equipment Association (ISEA) opposes the proposed removal of the 2036 compliance deadline for retrofitting fixed ladders with personal fall arrest systems or ladder safety systems. They argue that cages and wells do not provide adequate fall protection and that the costs of modern safety systems are reasonable compared to the risk of severe injuries and fatalities.

Diversified Fall Protection (DFP), a fall protection systems manufacturer and provider, opposes the removal of the compliance deadline for personal fall arrest systems on fixed ladders and the reinstatement of ladder cages as an acceptable safety measure. The company argues that cages do not provide effective protection, that the costs cited by petitioners for upgrades are significantly overstated, and that the existing safety requirements should be maintained.