View Rule

Printer-Friendly Version Download RIN Data in XML

DOL/OSHA

RIN: 1218-AA65

Publication ID: Fall 1995

Title: Steel Erection (Part 1926) (Safety Protection for Ironworking)
Abstract: On December 29, 1992, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced its intention to form a negotiated rulemaking advisory committee to negotiate issues associated with a revision of the existing steel erection standard. Four of the primary issues to be negotiated include the need to expand the scope and application of the existing standard, construction specifications and work practices, written construction safety erection plan, and fall protection. The Steel Erection Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee (SENRAC), a 20-member committee, was established, and the SENRAC charter was signed by Secretary Reich on May 26, 1994. The first meeting was held in the Washington area on June 14-16, 1994, and the Committee has met nine times since. ^PThe negotiated rulemaking process has been successful in bringing together the interested parties that will be affected by the proposed revision to the steel erection rule to work out contrasting positions, find common ground on the major issues, and achieve consensus on a proposed rule. The use of this process and a neutral facilitator allowed the stakeholders to develop an ownership stake in the proposal that they would not have had without the use of this process. ^PThe process has led to a draft revision to Subpart R of 29 CFR 1926 that contains innovative provisions that will help to minimize the major causes of steel erection injuries and fatalities. Many of these provisions could not have been developed without this process, which has brought together industry experts, via face-to-face negotiations, to discuss different approaches to resolving the issues. This process has proved mutually beneficial to all the parties involved (including OSHA), with each Committee member participating in resolving the issues and developing practical and effective rules to make the steel erection industry safer. ^PThe Agency benefitted from this process by having industry members participate and add to the Agency's knowledge about steel erection. Also, the Agency has been able to work together constructively with the various parties and has avoided the adversarial environment that sometimes develops during OSHA rulemaking. The negotiated rulemaking process will enable the Agency to publish a proposal and go from proposal to final rule more quickly and with less controversy than would otherwise have been possible.
Agency: Department of Labor(DOL)	Priority: Economically Significant
RIN Status: Previously published in the Unified Agenda	Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Stage
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926.750 (Revision) 29 CFR 1926.751 (Revision) 29 CFR 1926.752 (Revision)
Legal Authority: 29 USC 655 40 USC 333

Statement of Need: In 1989, OSHA was petitioned by the Iron Workers Union and National Erectors Association to revise its construction safety standard for steel erection through the negotiated rulemaking process. OSHA asked an independent consultant to review the issues involved in a steel erection revision, render an independent opinion, and recommend a course of action to revise the standard. The consultant recommended that OSHA address the issues by using the negotiated rulemaking process. Based on the consultant's findings and the continued requests for negotiated rulemaking, OSHA decided to use the negotiated rulemaking process to develop a proposed revision of Subpart R. The use of negotiated rulemaking was thought to be the best approach to resolving steel erection safety issues, some of which have proven intractable in the past.

Alternatives: An alternative to using the negotiated rulemaking process is to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking developed by Agency staff and consider the concerns of the affected interests through the public comment and public hearing process. It is anticipated that using this alternative would result in an extremely long and contentious rulemaking proceeding, with subsequent challenge in the Court of Appeals. This alternative was therefore rejected. Another alternative would be not to revise the Agency's current steel erection rules for construction. This alternative was rejected because it would permit steel erection-related injuries and fatalities to continue.

Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The scope and nature of the proposed rule are currently under development, and thus estimates of costs and benefits have not been determined at this time. Costs are not likely to exceed $100 million annually, and benefits will include the prevention of numerous fatalities and hundreds of injuries associated with steel erection activities.

Risks: The magnitude of the risk associated with steel erection activities is great. It is estimated that about 40 workers are killed every year during steel erection activities. Falls are currently the number one killer of construction workers, and since the erection of buildings necessarily involves high exposure to fall hazards, the central focus of this rule will be to eliminate or reduce the risks associated with falls. All other construction trades are afforded a higher level of protection from falls by other rules in the construction safety and health standards.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite
Notice of Committee Establishment	05/11/1994	59 FR 24389
NPRM	06/00/1996

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined	Government Levels Affected: None
Included in the Regulatory Plan: Yes
Agency Contact: Thomas H. Seymour Acting Director, Safety Standards Programs Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration Room N3605, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210 Phone:202 219-8061