Issue link: http://read.dmtmag.com/i/101441
Regulatory (���A Matter of Interpretation: Crane Industry Unites Against Potentially Hefty Testing Costs��� continued from page 26) for mobile cranes; now with capacity included, there are an unlimited number of possible certificates. Even with three capacity bands, we are looking at 12 certificates.��� A Billion-Dollar Impact The uncertainty over the NCCCO program and current operator certificates is compounded by concerns over the cost of training operators on the highest capacity machine they may work on. Currently, practical exams are carried out on a small machine. If OSHA���s interpretation is that operators of 600-ton machines need to be tested on a machine that big, it will add to costs, both in carrying out the test and having one of these rare and expensive cranes available. Billy Smith, of specialist insurers NBIS, attended the same SBA meeting as Weiss, and also worked on developing the cranes and derricks rule. He said, ���The total industry cost when we first looked at this would be $50.7 million to certify under our old interpretation; if we go to a different interpretation, with an unlimited range of capacity certificates needed, we reckon this could cost into the hundreds of millions.��� One member of the SBA���s small business regulatory enforcement fairness group reportedly estimates this could reach into an industry impact of $1 billion. United Opposition It���s not just crane owners and the NCCCO who object to OSHA���s interpretation. Since the SC&RA meeting, NCCCO has told this author of widespread opposition to OSHA���s position. The Association of Equipment Manufacturers (AEM) has sent a letter to OSHA affirming its position that the workplace regulator���s FAQ on the capacity issue is without foundation and proposing its own ���bands.��� AEM says it has proposed that OSHA endorse a banding proposal of 14 groupings of cranes and capacities that should be considered equivalent in operating requirements for training and certification purposes. Endorsement of these bands will allow certifying bodies to continue to certify operators and issue cards with type and capacity without needing to test on the largest crane in a band. Both of the relevant certification accrediting bodies (ANSI and NCCA) have held meetings with OSHA and separately with their accredited bodies, and are preparing ���position papers��� on their concerns. Both have expressed concerns about whether ���capacity��� is featured in any or all of the job task analyses that the certification bodies are required to conduct prior to developing a certification program. The IUOE has sent a 21-page letter of opposition to the certification-by-capacity OSHA requirement, requesting OSHA to issue a Direct Final Rule to remove capacity from the requirement. The crane operators��� union has won the support of insurers, with NBIS, the biggest insurer in the sector, endorsing the IUOE position. OSHA Says Speaking at the SC&RA conference that opened the public debate on this issue, Jim Maddux, director of construction with OSHA, was hesitant to prescribe an approach to certification, saying, ���The preamble to the final [cranes and derrick] rule, makes it clear we think capacity is a safety issue. I am not convinced someone certified to work on a very small crane is qualified to work on bigger crane. ���I don���t think anybody really did think through the long-term consequences of the language in the rule. The language in the final rule matters, and language is very clear. Of the four relevant certification bodies, two have already agreed with [OSHA���s interpretation]. I haven���t heard anyone come screaming that the costs will break their organizations. I don���t think it will cost anything like a billion dollars. In the previous rule, the language was that the ���employer shall ensure operator is qualified to operate crane.��� That language was removed by CDAC, and replaced with certification. I think that puts a real pressure point on certification, Maddux said. ���The idea is this has just popped up,��� he continued. ���Everyone has been reading this rule for a long time. The language on capacity was very clear. This is a discussion that needs to take place between certification agencies and accreditation bodies. It doesn���t mean you need to test on type and model. One option is to certify for the exact crane to be used ��� that is what some people do. Some small businesses [where operators always work on the same crane] do this. One accreditation body certifies on the capacity of machine on which the person took the examination: that size or smaller. ���There is also an option for some sort of bands, maybe small, medium and big. The way the rule is written, if a person is certified for a particular type of crane, it is okay to work on smaller cranes. Another option is to use a modeling exercise, so different elements of the test satisfy the accreditation body that the test shows the person is capable of operating a bigger crane, say, using a smaller crane with a longer boom test.��� Maddux concluded with, ���The primary thing is to work this out with the accreditation body. We at OSHA are a regulator, we are certainly not experts at certification and testing.��� Ready to (Re-)Certify? Graham Brent, executive director of the NCCCO, at least, was reassured by Maddux���s take that the interpretation will allow certification bodies to develop programs with (continued on page 30) 28 | www.cedmag.com | Construction Equipment Distribution | January 2013 26_Crane_Certif_Feature_KP.indd 28 12/21/12 3:38 PM