Search form

OSHA Considers Extending Crane Certification Deadline

By Nickole C. Winnett
  • June 27, 2017

The Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH) of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration met on June 20, 2017, to learn about and give recommendations on OSHA’s proposed rule to extend the enforcement date for crane operator certification requirements of the revised Crane Standard, 29 C.F.R. 1926 Subpart CC, issued in 2010.

The ACCSH advises on issues related to the construction industry. This meeting comes after construction industry officials told OSHA the originally extended deadline of November 10, 2017, did not give them enough time to comply with certain portions of the rule. The ACCSH recently hosted the public teleconference to discuss OSHA’s proposed one-year extension of the compliance deadline, to November 10, 2018.

As it stands, the current rule requires operators to be certified according to the type of crane they are using and the lifting capacity of the crane. The rule states, “An operator will be deemed qualified to operate a particular piece of equipment if the operator is certified.” There is still uncertainty on how the certification requirements are to be achieved.

OSHA previously stated an intention to issue clarifications regarding the rule, however, that has yet to be done. OSHA met with stakeholders in 2015 and is still working on proposed changes to the crane operator requirements and preamble language for a proposed rule. In seeking this new extension, OSHA indicates that due to other OSHA standards that required time and resources from both OSHA and the Solicitor of Labor’s offices, the agency was unable to complete the changes and needs an additional year. An extension of the compliance deadline to November 10, 2018, would allow OSHA to provide clarifications for compliance with the rule.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to assist employers with this and other safety requirements.

©2017 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

July 24, 2017

Mine Safety Agency Issues Accident Alert on Haul Truck Operations

July 24, 2017

The Mine Safety and Health Administration issued a “Close Call Accident Alert” after a June 19, 2017, accident involving a haul truck driver. In the incident, MSHA said, a haul truck driver with six weeks of experience traveled into the pit loading area and waited to be loaded. The driver stopped the haul truck about 30 feet from... Read More

July 24, 2017

OSHA Launches New Website for Electronically Filing Injury and Illness Reports

July 24, 2017

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s new electronic portal, the Injury Tracking Application (ITA), where employers can file web-based reports of workplace injuries or illnesses, will be accessible beginning August 1, 2017. Under OSHA’s electronic recordkeeping rule, covered companies with at least 250 employees must... Read More

July 19, 2017

Claim of Massachusetts Employee Fired for Medical Marijuana Use May Proceed, State High Court Rules

July 19, 2017

An employee fired after she tested positive for marijuana on a test administered in the hiring process should be able to proceed with her “handicap discrimination” claim under Massachusetts’ anti-discrimination statute, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ruled. Barbuto v. Advantage Sales & Marketing, LLC, SJC -12226 (July... Read More

Related Practices