Deadline: June 5. 2026
The proposal is narrow on its face, but potentially important in practice. OSHA is proposing to amend 29 C.F.R. § 1910.28(b)(9) by deleting the current November 18, 2036 compliance deadline that would otherwise require all fixed ladders extending more than 24 feet above a lower level to be equipped with a personal fall arrest system or ladder safety system. Under the proposal, existing pre-November 19, 2018 fixed ladders could continue to be equipped with a personal fall arrest system, ladder safety system, cage, or well, while new ladders and replaced ladder sections would still have to use a personal fall arrest system or ladder safety system. OSHA is also expressly seeking comment on a broader alternative: whether it should go further and allow cages or wells to remain an acceptable long-term compliance option instead of requiring personal fall arrest or ladder safety systems on all such ladders.
Legally, this is a deregulatory amendment rather than a wholesale reconsideration of the 2016 Walking-Working Surfaces rule. OSHA is not backing away from its earlier finding that ladder fall hazards present a significant occupational risk or from its earlier conclusion that ladder safety systems and personal fall arrest systems are technologically feasible. Instead, the agency says it is revisiting one compliance assumption from 2016: that a 20-year phase-in period would be long enough for most employers to reach compliance through normal replacement cycles rather than expensive retrofits. OSHA now preliminarily concludes that removing the fixed deadline better reflects the actual service life of many fixed ladders and reduces unnecessary retrofitting costs while preserving the replacement-trigger requirement for ladders that are newly installed or later replaced.
From a workplace-safety standpoint, the proposal relaxes the pace of transition to more protective ladder systems, but it does not eliminate ladder fall protection obligations altogether. Employers would still have to maintain ladders in compliance with the applicable ladder and walking-working surface provisions, including requirements for safe load, access, inspection, maintenance, and good repair. New fixed ladders after November 19, 2018 would still need a personal fall arrest system or ladder safety system, and replaced sections of older ladders would trigger the same requirement. The practical effect is that older ladders with cages or wells may remain in service longer, so long as they are not replaced and remain otherwise compliant.
The safety issue, therefore, is not whether fall protection disappears; it is whether OSHA is permitting a longer reliance on cages and wells that the 2016 rule was designed to phase out. OSHA states that it lacks evidence suggesting that removal of the 2036 deadline will significantly affect the safety benefits identified in the 2016 final rule, and it predicts the impact should be small because the affected universe is limited mainly to fixed ladders between 24 and 30 feet that lack a ladder safety or personal fall arrest system and would not otherwise be replaced by 2036. At the same time, OSHA candidly acknowledges that it cannot determine from the current record whether some portion of the fatalities or injuries prevented by the 2016 rule would occur in that subset of ladders if the deadline is removed. That is an important admission: the proposal is not risk-free; rather, OSHA is making a preliminary judgment that any incremental risk is likely limited.
Economically, the proposed rule is clearly designed to reduce employer costs. OSHA says the amendment imposes no new compliance costs and may produce significant savings by allowing employers to avoid retrofitting fixed ladders that are still within useful service life. The agency relies heavily on an industry petition from AFPM, ACC, and API asserting that retrofitting costs are far higher than OSHA estimated in 2016 and that affected companies could spend very large sums identifying, assessing, and upgrading ladders. OSHA does not fully endorse those figures yet, but it is plainly signaling that cost burden is the main driver of this rulemaking.
In my view, the strongest legal footing for OSHA is the narrower proposal to remove the 2036 deadline while keeping the replacement trigger and the new-ladder requirement intact. That approach still preserves the agency’s overall protective framework and is easier to defend as a recalibration of timing and burden. The broader alternative—allowing cages and wells indefinitely as a substitute for personal fall arrest or ladder safety systems—would likely require a much stronger record demonstrating equivalent safety performance. OSHA appears to recognize that point, which is why it is specifically asking for evidence on comparative safety outcomes across industries and ladder configurations rather than already proposing definitive regulatory text for that broader rollback.
For workplaces, the likely practical effects are mixed. On one hand, facilities with large inventories of older fixed ladders—especially in refineries, chemical plants, terminals, utilities, manufacturing sites, and large process facilities—would gain more flexibility in capital planning and could sequence upgrades with normal maintenance and replacement cycles rather than undertaking costly systemwide retrofits before 2036. On the other hand, older ladders with cages and wells would remain in service longer, which may preserve hazards that some safety professionals view as less protective than active fall arrest or ladder safety systems, particularly where ladders are heavily used, exposed to corrosion, or accessed in emergency or adverse weather conditions.
For IHMM’s CSHM and CSMP credential holders, the proposal has real operational significance even though it does not directly alter credential requirements. These professionals are the people most likely to inventory fixed ladders, classify which ladders are “existing,” “new,” or “replaced,” interpret trigger points for upgrades, manage inspection and maintenance records, train employees on fall hazards, and advise management on whether a ladder that may remain legally compliant is nevertheless a poor risk to keep in service. In that sense, the rule would likely shift part of the burden from deadline-driven compliance to professional judgment, asset management, and defensible risk prioritization.
For CSHMs in particular, the proposal would likely increase the importance of enterprise-level fall protection governance: ladder inventories, replacement criteria, inspection frequencies, capital planning, and integration of ladder decisions into broader safety management systems. For CSMPs, the practical effect is similar but often more hands-on: site audits, JHAs, training, field compliance checks, contractor oversight, and documenting when a repair crosses the line into a “replacement” that triggers installation of a personal fall arrest system or ladder safety system. If this rule is finalized, the technical compliance question will often become less “must we retrofit by 2036?” and more “when does our maintenance activity or risk profile make upgrade the prudent or required course?”
A further issue for credential holders is potential variation under State Plans. OSHA states that because this proposal is not more stringent than the existing federal standard, State Plans would not be required to amend their own rules, though they could choose to do so. That means multi-state employers and the CSHM/CSMP professionals advising them may need to monitor whether particular State Plan jurisdictions retain the stricter phaseout approach even if federal OSHA relaxes it.
Bottom line: this proposal does not dismantle OSHA’s fixed-ladder fall protection scheme, but it would materially soften it by removing the hard 2036 retrofit deadline. The likely effect is lower compliance cost and more employer flexibility, paired with a longer service life for caged or well-protected ladders that may not offer the same level of protection as newer systems. For IHMM’s CSHMs and CSMPs, that means more reliance on professional safety judgment, documentation, inspection discipline, and risk-based decision-making, especially in older industrial facilities with large ladder inventories.
