25
NCCCONEWS
MAY 2014
ACT
Industry agreeswith
OSHA’s proposed delay
T
he industry sentOSHAa
clear andunequivocal two-
partmessage lastmonth:
Postpone the craneoperator certification
requirements, and change the crane rule
to reflect industry’s intent on the role that
certification shouldplay inan employer’s
qualificationprocess.
The response toOSHA’s request for
commentson itsproposal to extend
thedeadline foroperator certification
by threeyears toNovember 2017was
overwhelmingly supportive, anda further
validationof prevailing industryopinion
thatOSHA’sunderstandingofC-DAC’s
original intentwith respect to crane
operator certification is flawed.
Among themore than40 lettersof
support receivedbyOSHAbefore the
March12deadlinewereno less than10
fromnational andkey regional industry
associations (see sidebar) representing
tensof thousands of employers fromall
facetsof theU.S. construction industry,
bothunionandopen shop, labor and
management. Contractors, steel erectors,
crane rental, utilities, cranedistributors
and the insurance industrywere all
represented.Apublichearing is scheduled
forMay19.
Perhapsmost significant of allwas a
letter signedby16membersof theCranes
andDerricksCommittee (C-DAC) that
should finallyput to rest anydoubts as
towhat theymeantwhen theywrote the
rule in2003. “Itwasnever the intent of
C-DACmemberswrote individual letters
of support.
Many, including theC-DACmembers,
regretted thedelay, but recognized itwas
necessary togiveOSHA time toaddress
industry’s concerns. “WeurgeOSHA to
actwithall speed to resolve this issue,”
C-DACmembers stated.
Given that nationallyaccredited crane
operator certificationhasbeenproven to
save lives (Cal-OSHA crane study, 2008)
some industryobservershavepointed
to the continued exposure to risk that
suchadelaymight cause craneoperators.
But as leading insuranceprovider
NationsBuilders InsuranceServices (NBIS)
commented, the “major areasof concern
for the future safetyof employeesworking
around cranes . . .must be addressed
before the regulation can effectively save
lives . . . Leaving the rule aswrittenwould
takeusback in timenot forward.”
Employerswill still have to ensure their
operators are trainedandqualifiedduring
the three-yearpostponement,OSHAhas
emphasized.
For those stateswith theirown
requirements (see separate story) and
employerswho followbest practices, the
federalOSHAdelay ismoot.
■
Final Rule to postpone
operator certification
expected by mid-year
C-DAC that craneoperator certification
shouldbe according to the capacityof
the crane,” the letter states, “nor . . . to
imply that craneoperator certificationwas
equal toqualification.” Additionally, five
For many states, it’s business as usual
While attention has been focused on federal OSHA’s proposal to delay the implementation
of a national crane operator certification requirement, many employers continue to seek and
maintain certification for their operators as some have done for almost two decades since
CCO certification became available. Some are driven by a desire to follow best practices,
others by project owners’ requirements. Still otherswork in states that have their own
licensing ormandatory certification. Among the 17 states and six cities thatmaintain their
own requirements, several (including California,Washington, and Philadelphia) have set
standards considerably higher than the federal proposal.
Industry believes its concernsmust be
addressed before the crane operator
certification rule can be effective
The following leading industry associations
filed letters with OSHA in support of
an extension of the crane operator
certification requirement:
■
Associated General Contractors of
America
■
International Union of Operating
Engineers
■
National Association of Home Builders
■
Associated Builders & Contractors
■
National Propane Gas Association
■
Specialized Carriers & Rigging
Association
■
American Road & Transportation
Builders Association
■
Associated Equipment Distributors
■
American Subcontractors Association
■
Allied BuildingMetal Industries (New
York)
■
Crane Owners Association (California)
■
National Rural Electric Cooperative
Association
It was never the
intent of C-DAC that crane
operator certification
should be according to the
capacity of the crane.
CRANEANDDERRICKSADVISORY
COMMITTEEMEMBERS INA LETTER TOOSHA
”
‘‘
