48
RISKMANAGEMENT
ACT
JANUARY 2015
Bill Smith
explains that
the new Coalition for
Crane Operator Safety was
formed as a response to
the uncertainty and delay
surrounding the crane
operator certification
requirements found in the
“new” OSHA crane and
derrick standard.
brought upby industry stakeholders,
OSHAhadno choicebut to seeka
deadline extensionon compliance and
partially reopen the rule. The two items
beingaddressedare:whetherornot
certification is theonly component of
qualification that an employerhas tomeet
or if an employermustmake additional
determinations toachievequalification;
and,OSHA’s interpretationof theC-DAC
recommendation to issue certificationby
“type and capacity.” (OSHAhas stated that
it is consideringaddressing these concerns
througha later, separate rulemaking.)
Principal issue
As amemberofCCOS, I can tell you that
ourprincipal issuewithOSHA’sposition
on thesematters is that it ignores the
intent ofC-DACwhile adoptinga literal
interpretationof the languageof the rule
which, in some cases,was insertedby
OSHAafterC-DAChad completedand
submitted itsdraft document. Itwasnever
the intent ofC-DAC that craneoperator
certification shouldbedirectly related
to the capacityof the crane, norwas it
ever the intent ofC-DAC to imply that
craneoperator certificationwas equal to
qualification.
CCOS isprimarily focusingon two
items. First,we’re askingOSHA to
rescind the crane capacity certification
requirement. Secondly,we’re alsoasking
OSHA toget ridof theprovision that
broadly equates employer certification
withqualification. Bothof those
requirements simplydon’t reflect the
original intentionofC-DAC.
In regards to the crane type and
capacity issue, oneof the examples that
hasbeenmaking the rounds is this: The
way the rule is currentlywritten, if a
craneoperatorwas certified tooperate
a100-ton craneof a certain type, that
sameoperatorwouldbe required tohave
another certification tooperate a200-ton
craneof the same type. Toput it simply: it
just doesn’tmakemuch sense. If you can
operate the100-ton crane, thenyou can
operate a200-ton craneof the same type.
The rule is frustrating, unnecessary, and
burdensome.
CCOS shows that it’snot justme that
feels thisway; it’s anumberof folks from
anumberof different sectorsof the
construction industry. Inapress release
THE
AUTHOR:
Bill Smith
is executive
vice president of claims
and riskmanagement for
NBIS.
A
t the endofOctober, ten
of thenation’s leading
constructionorganizations
launched theCoalition forCraneOperator
Safety (CCOS). The coalition, formed
as a response to theuncertaintyand
delay surrounding the craneoperator
certification requirements found in the
“new”OSHA crane andderrick standard,
is comprisedof representatives from labor,
management, equipmentmanufacturing,
insurance companies, andaccredited
certificationorganizations.
TheCoalition isworkingwithmembers
ofCongress and theAdministration to
make sure that the final craneoperator
certification requirementspublished in
the standardareones that everyone can
livewith. Because right now, theway
the rule iswritten, there are somepretty
concerningproblems–whichmost of us
in the industryhave talkedabout almost
ceaselessly sinceOSHA issued its final
standard.
If you recall,OSHAoriginally issued
a final standardon the requirements
for cranes andderricks in construction
workonAugust 9, 2010. The standard
required craneoperatorson construction
sites tomeet oneof fourqualification/
certificationoptionsbyNov. 10, 2014.
Butwith somany issues and concerns
Our principal issue
with OSHA’s position on
thesematters is that
it ignores the intent of
C-DAC while adopting
a literal interpretation
of the language of the
rule which, in some
cases, was inserted by
OSHA after C-DAC had
completed and submitted
its draft document.
announcing the formationof theCoalition
that hit thenewswireonOctober 30,
2014, therewere anumberof people
thatweighed inon the topic. Stephen
Sandherr,CEO, TheAssociatedGeneral
ContractorsofAmerica (AGC), and
alsoaCCOSmember, said “adjudicating
operator certification requirements
basedon capacitywouldadd significant
new complexity for employers and
their employeeswithout yieldingany
discernible improvement in safety.”He
alsowent on to say, “nonational safety
studyhas foundanyadditional safety
benefitsbeyond certificationby type, and
OSHAhasnot analyzed the costs, benefits
orother consequencesof certificationby
capacity.”
Without anydata to say that certification
requirementsbasedon capacitywould
trulyadd safetyvalue,we’re leftwitha
financiallyburdensome requirement
that’snot yieldinganydividends. In that
samepress release, JamesT.Callahan,
general president, InternationalUnionof
OperatingEngineers, anothermember
ofCCOS, said, “Theuncertaintyand
delayaround thenew craneoperator
certification requirements jeopardizes the
Providing
