Update on Operator Certification Deadline

OSHA’s proposed delay for the operator certification deadline is still just that—proposed, and not finalized.  If you’re frustrated by the lack of clarity on this subject, you’re not alone.  The fact that it is still proposed means that legally, the current deadline is still November 10th of this year, and no one knows when the extension will become official, or even how long the extension will be.

While we can’t give you any clear answers, we can tell you what’s been happening with the dialogue during the last several months.  On May 19th, an informal public hearing was held in Washington, DC and many stakeholders testified before OSHA on the subject of the proposed delay and the extension of the employer duty to ensure qualification.  Testimony from various stakeholders proposed everything from a one year delay to a five year delay and even an indefinite delay, and there was little if any agreement on how much time is needed in order to address the type and capacity issue.  There was, however, widespread agreement that “certified” does not mean “qualified,” and that therefore the employer’s duty to ensure qualification should never end. 

OSHA asked a lot of questions during the hearing but did not outline any next steps, according to the transcript.  If you’re interested in reading the transcript, go to the OSHA website and search for “May 19th public hearing crane operator certification” or email anna@newenglandcraneschool.com and I’ll send you a copy in Word.

On July 10th, another meeting took place in DC with many of the same stakeholders in attendance, but without OSHA.  The CIC called it a “meeting of the initials” and its purpose was to see if stakeholders could create language that the industry would accept and that would keep the regulation intact, in order to make a unified proposal to OSHA.  Attendees included CIC, NCCCO, NCCER, ABC, AGC, AED, Ironworkers, OECP, NBIS, IUOE, and SC & RA.  In a recent ITI webinar entitled “Crane Operation and OSHA: What You Need to Know,” CIC’s executive director Debbie Dickinson described this meeting.  You can hear a recording of the webinar on ITI’s website here. 

According to Dickinson the attendees at this meeting came to an amazing amount of consensus on key issues and talking points for OSHA:

1.  The end date for the employer’s duty to ensure qualification should be stricken from the regulation so that the requirement becomes permanent and is never replaced by the certification requirement.  All parties agree that “certified” does not mean “qualified,” and that employers must always have a duty to ensure qualification.
2. The language “type and capacity” could be struck and replaced by “accredited certification.”  This would allow each accredited certification body to continue to conduct testing the way they see fit when it comes to the capacity issue.  The group also created language that aligned with ASME B30.5 standards for defining “type.” 
3. OSHA should set a firm date for the certification requirement, keeping the length of the extension as short as practically possible but no less than one year in order for the industry to recover from all the confusion of the past year.

Given that some of the stakeholders were in violent disagreement with each other a mere few months ago, the consensus is truly remarkable.  It seems reasonable to hope that OSHA will accept the proposals of the group, although there has been no indication of a timeline for such consideration.   We will continue to keep you updated as we hear more.  In the meantime we recommend, as always, that you be proactive and continue with your certification efforts in the interest of better safety, efficiency and cost savings, regardless of the official deadline.