Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Workplace Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate defeats motion to refuse House amendments on fall‑protection language, strikes enacting clause on occupational‑safety bill
Summary
Lawmakers debated an amendment to Senate Bill 22 that would delay implementation of new federal OSHA fall‑protection rules and direct the state division not to follow them. Senators split over worker safety, costs for small builders and constitutional risk; the motion to refuse the House amendment failed and the Senate later moved to strike the bill—s enacting clause and concur.
The Utah Senate spent more than an hour Tuesday debating House amendments to Senate Bill 22, a package of occupational‑safety changes that includes language dealing with fall‑protection rules adopted by the U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
Senator Robert Steiner, sponsor of the Senate motion, urged rejection of the House amendment, arguing it "tells one of our agencies to disobey federal law" and would invite federal primacy and constitutional problems. "By this amendment, we are directing the state OSHA division to disobey a federal law," Steiner said on the floor, framing his objection in constitutional terms.
Opponents of the House amendment focused on worker safety and on the amendment—s practical effect. Senator Maine said the new federal standards "apply to all people working above 6 feet" and warned that delaying them would leave the state with "nothing on the books" because, he said, the older standards had been replaced. Maine pressed colleagues to avoid a change that, in his view, would eliminate protection for workers at height.
Other senators raised economic concerns for small residential contractors. Several senators described calls from roofers and small builders who worried the amendment would dramatically raise construction costs and push sole‑proprietor roofers out of business; one senator summarized industry estimates but cautioned those figures were not consistent. Senator Blackcomb and Senator Blackham both urged caution about creating a state–federal conflict that would risk federal intervention.
The Senate first considered a motion from Steiner "not to concur" with the House amendment. That motion was called, put to a division and ultimately failed on the floor. Later, Senator Blackcomb offered a substitute motion to concur with the House and to "strike the enacting clause," a procedural step the chamber approved on the floor. The president ruled in favor of that motion.
What it means going forward: senators debated whether the House amendment as adopted would expose Utah to federal takeover or leave workers unprotected while the state seeks waivers or adjustments. On the floor, senators repeatedly urged further work, including possible conference committee discussions, to narrow the exception so it would apply to residential construction rather than to commercial and industrial work.
The Senate—s action was procedural: the motion to refuse the House amendment failed and the chamber adopted a motion that struck the bill—s enacting clause while moving the matter along for further handling. No final statutory repeal or permanent exemption was enacted on the floor Tuesday; sponsors repeatedly said additional work would follow to reconcile worker‑safety protections with concerns about cost and implementation.
Next steps: the bill as amended will move forward consistent with the Senate—s ruling and coordination with House language; senators urged departmental review and, if necessary, a conference committee to craft a targeted residential exemption rather than an across‑the‑board delay.
Quote highlights
"By this amendment, we are directing the state OSHA division to disobey a federal law," — Sen. Robert Steiner, urging refusal to accept the House amendment.
"This standard applies to all people working above 6 feet, whether it's on a 1‑story building or a 50‑story building," — Sen. Maine, warning delay would remove protections.
Outcome and actions
- Motion to refuse to concur with the House amendment: offered by Sen. Steiner; the motion failed on the floor (division called). - Substitute motion to strike the enacting clause and proceed with concurrence: offered by Sen. Blackcomb; the presiding officer ruled in favor of the motion.
Authorities and references
The floor debate repeatedly referenced the new rules issued by the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the constitutional concern over conflict between state directives and federal law. Senators cited federal primacy (Supremacy Clause) when arguing against instructing a state agency to disobey federal rules.
Context: Senators on both sides said they want to preserve worker safety while giving time to resolve implementation issues for residential and small commercial construction; several urged the parties and the Industrial Commission to work on narrowly tailored language or to seek a federal waiver before adopting a permanent exemption.
