Crane Operator Qualification NPRM 05.21.18

23534

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
29 CFR Part 1926
[Docket ID–OSHA–2007–0066]
RIN 1218–AC96

Cranes and Derricks in Construction:
Operator Qualification
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:

OSHA proposes to update its
standard for cranes and derricks in
construction by permanently extending
and clarifying each employer’s duty to
ensure the competency of crane
operators through required training,
certification or licensing, and
evaluation. OSHA is also proposing to
remove an existing provision that
requires different levels of certification
based on rated lifting capacity of
equipment. This proposal would clarify
that while testing organizations are not
required to issue certifications
distinguished by rated capacities, they
are permitted to do so. Finally, it would
establish minimum requirements for
determining operator competency.
OSHA believes that this proposal would
maintain safety and health protections
for workers while reducing employers’
compliance burdens.
DATES:
Comments: Submit comments to this
proposed rule, including comments to
the information collection requirements
(described under the section titled
‘‘Agency Determinations’’), hearing
requests, and other information by June
20, 2018. All submissions must bear a
postmark or provide other evidence of
the date submitted.
Informal public hearing: A hearing
can be requested by following the
procedures listed under ADDRESSES. If a
hearing is requested, OSHA will
announce the hearing on its website,
www.osha.gov, and publish a hearing
notice in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, hearing
requests, and other material, identified
by Docket No. OSHA–2007–0066, using
any of the following methods:
Electronically: Submit comments and
attachments, as well as hearing requests
and other information, electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal
e-Rulemaking Portal. This docket may
include several Federal Register notices
for active rulemakings; therefore it is
necessary to select the correct notice, or
its ID number, to submit comments for

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2

SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 May 18, 2018

Jkt 244001

this rulemaking. After accessing the
docket (OSHA–2007–0066), check the
‘‘proposed rule’’ box in the column
headed ‘‘Document Type,’’ find the
document posted on the date of
publication of this document, and click
the ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ link.
Additional instructions for submitting
comments are available on the http://
www.regulations.gov homepage.
Facsimile: OSHA allows facsimile
transmission of comments that are ten
pages or fewer in length (including
attachments). Fax these documents to
the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693–
1648. OSHA does not require
submission of hard copies of these
documents. For additional attachments
that supplement comments submitted
by facsimile (e.g., studies, journal
articles), commenters must submit these
attachments to the OSHA Docket Office,
Technical Data Center, Room N–3653,
OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20210. These attachments must clearly
identify the sender’s name, the date,
subject, and the docket number (OSHA–
2007–0066).
Regular mail, express delivery, hand
delivery, and messenger (courier)
service: Submit comments and any
additional material to the OSHA Docket
Office, RIN No. 1218–AC86, Technical
Data Center, Room N–3653, OSHA, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20210;
telephone: (202) 693–2350, TTY
number: (877) 889–5627. Contact the
OSHA Docket Office for information
about security procedures concerning
delivery of materials by express
delivery, hand delivery, and messenger
service. The Docket Office will accept
deliveries (express delivery, hand
delivery, messenger service) during the
Docket Office’s normal business hours,
10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., ET.
Information Collection Requirements:
OSHA welcomes comments on the
information collection requirements
contained in this rule on the same basis
as for any other aspect of the rule.
Interested parties may also submit
comments about the information
collection requirements directly to the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for
DOL–OSHA (RIN 1218–AC96), Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10235,
725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC
20503, Fax: (202) 395–6881 (this is not
a toll-free number), email: OIRA_
[email protected]. See
Paperwork Reduction Act section of this
preamble for particular areas of interest.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the Agency’s name, the title of
the rulemaking (Cranes and Derricks in

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

Construction: Operator Qualification),
and the docket number (OSHA–2007–
0066). Absent copyright protections or
other restrictions, OSHA will place
comments and other material, including
any personal information, in the public
docket without revision, and the
comments and other material will be
available online at http://
www.regulations.gov. Therefore,
commenters should not submit
statements they do not want made
available to the public, or submit
comments that contain personal
information (either about themselves or
others) such as Social Security numbers,
birth dates, and medical data.
Docket: To read or download
comments or other material in the
electronic docket, go to http://
www.regulations.gov or to the OSHA
Docket Office at the above address.
Some information submitted (e.g.,
copyrighted material) is not available
publicly to read or download through
this website. All submissions, including
copyrighted material, are available for
inspection at the OSHA Docket Office.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for
assistance in locating docket
submissions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
General information and press
inquiries: Mr. Frank Meilinger, OSHA
Office of Communications; telephone:
(202) 693–1999; email:
[email protected].
Technical inquiries: Mr. Vernon
Preston, Directorate of Construction;
telephone: (202) 693–2020; fax: (202)
693–1689; email: preston.vernon@
dol.gov.
Copies of this Federal Register
notice and news releases: Electronic
copies of these documents are available
at OSHA’s web page at http://
www.osha.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Background
A. Operator Competency Requirements
B. Operator Certification Requirement
C. Certification by Crane Rated Lifting
Capacity
D. Post-Rulemaking Concerns
E. Extending the Effective Dates for the
Employer Duty and Certification
F. Discussions With the Construction
Industry Stakeholders
G. Consulting ACCSH—Draft Proposal for
Crane Operator Requirements
H. National Consensus Standards
I. The Need for a Rule
J. Significant Risk
III. Summary and Explanation of the
Proposed Amendments to Subpart CC
IV. Agency Determinations
A. Legal Authority

E:\FR\FM\21MYP2.SGM

21MYP2

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2

B. Preliminary Economic Analysis and
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Federalism
E. State-Plan States
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
G. Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13771: Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs

I. Executive Summary
OSHA proposes to amend 29 CFR
1926 subpart CC to revise sections that
address crane operator training,
certification/licensing,1 and
competency. The purposes of these
amendments are to: Require
comprehensive training of operators;
remove certification by capacity from
certification requirements; clarify and
permanently extend the employer duty
to evaluate potential operators for their
ability to safely operate equipment
covered by subpart CC; and require
documentation of that evaluation.
This proposed rule is based on
extensive feedback received from the
construction industry, which can be
found in the docket, who informed
OSHA that merely ensuring crane
operators are certified does not verify
that certified operators have sufficient
crane knowledge and operating skills to
safely perform crane operations at
construction sites. OSHA heard
testimony and collected other evidence
that indicates an employer’s evaluation
of a crane operator’s experience and
competency is essential to ensuring the
safe operation of cranes on construction
sites. Similarly, this evidence confirmed
that employers must continue to
provide operators with comprehensive
training, which supplements the kind of
training needed to obtain certification.
OSHA’s preliminary economic impact
analysis determined that the most
significant costs of the proposal are
associated with the requirements to
perform the operator competency
evaluation, document the evaluations,
and provide any additional training
needed by operators. OSHA estimates
employers impacted by this proposed
rule employ approximately 117,130
crane operators. OSHA accordingly
estimates the annual cost to the industry
would be $1,425,133 for the
performance of operator competency
evaluations, $59,479 for documenting
those evaluations, and $90,649 for any
additional training needed for operators.
OSHA’s preliminary estimate of the
1 The term ‘‘certification/licensing’’ covers each
of certification options in the proposed rule (thirdparty certification or an audited employer
certification program) as well as state or local
operator licensing requirements.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 May 18, 2018

Jkt 244001

total annual cost of compliance is
$1,583,169.
OSHA also expects some cost savings
from the proposed rule. In particular,
OSHA estimates a large one-time cost
savings of $25,560,840 from dropping
the requirement that crane operators be
certified by capacity because that
change would eliminate the need for a
very large number of operators to get an
additional certification. OSHA also
estimates that a small number of
ongoing annual certifications due to an
operator moving to a higher capacity
crane would also no longer be needed,
producing an additional annual cost
savings of $414,172. These various
elements lead, at a 3 percent discount
rate over 10 years, to net annual cost
savings of $1,827,513. At a discount rate
of 7 percent there are annual cost
savings of $2,468,595.
The Agency has preliminarily
concluded that, on average, the impact
of costs on employers would be low,
because most employers are currently
providing some degree of operator
training and performing operator
competency evaluations to comply with
existing 29 CFR 1926.1427(k), and were
previously doing so to comply with
§§ 1926.550, 1926.20(b)(4), and
1926.21(b)(2). Employers who currently
provide insufficient training would
incur new costs to comply. Although
OSHA anticipates that a few employers
might incur significant new costs, the
Agency has preliminarily concluded
that, for purposes of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, the proposed rule would
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities.
The Agency has preliminarily
determined that the proposal is
technologically feasible because many
employers already comply with all the
provisions of the proposed rule and the
proposed rule would not require any
new technology. In addition, since the
vast majority of employers already
invest the resources necessary to
comply with the provisions of the
proposed standard, the Agency
preliminarily concludes that the
proposed standard is economically
feasible.
II. Background
Explanation of record citations in this
document. References in parentheses in
this preamble are to exhibits or
transcripts in the docket for this
rulemaking. Documents from the
subpart CC—Cranes and Derricks in
Construction rulemaking record are
available under Docket OSHA–2007–
0066 on the Federal eRulemaking Portal
at http://www.regulations.gov or in the

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

23535

OSHA Docket Office. The term ‘‘ID’’
refers to the column labeled ‘‘ID’’ under
Docket No. OSHA–2007–0066 on http://
www.regulations.gov. This column lists
individual records in the docket. This
notice will identify each of these
records only by the last three digits of
the record, such as ‘‘ID–0032’’ for
OSHA–2007–0066–0032. Identification
of records from dockets other than
records in OSHA–2007–0066 will be by
their full ID number. In addition, the
transcript for the public hearing OSHA
held on May 19, 2014, for the
rulemaking that extended the
certification deadline by three years, are
identified by the docket under Docket
No. OSHA–2007–0066–0521. To aid
readers in locating citations to the
transcripts, this notice refers to these
citations using the abbreviation ‘‘Tr.’’
and the corresponding page numbers
(e.g., ID–0521, Tr. pp. 10–15).
A. Operator Competency Requirements
OSHA promulgated a new standard
for cranes and derricks in construction,
referred to in the Background section as
the ‘‘new cranes standard,’’ on
November 10, 2010 (75 FR 47905). It
was based on a proposal drafted as the
result of negotiated rulemaking and
issued on October 9, 2008 (73 FR
59714). Under the new cranes standard,
except for employees of the U.S.
military and the operation of some
specified equipment, employers were
required to allow only certified
operators to operate equipment after
November 10, 2014.2 In lieu of
certification, the rule also allowed
operators to operate cranes if licensed
by state or local governments whose
programs met certain minimum
requirements.
The new cranes standard included a
four-year, phased-in effective date for
the certification requirements. That
phase-in period was intended to provide
time for existing accredited testing
organizations to develop programs that
complied with the requirements; for
operators and employers to prepare for
certification testing; and for more testing
organizations to become accredited to
make certifications available for the
operation of the wide variety of cranes
used in construction. During the phasein period, employers were required to
continue complying with two broad
provisions: To ensure that crane
operators were competent to operate the
equipment safely and, if necessary, to
train and evaluate employees who did
2 The term ‘‘equipment’’ was used in the cranes
standard’s regulatory text because the rule covers
cranes, derricks and other types of equipment.
When OSHA uses ‘‘cranes’’ in this preamble, it is
meant to apply to all covered equipment.

E:\FR\FM\21MYP2.SGM

21MYP2

23536

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2

not have the required knowledge or
ability to operate the equipment safely
(§ 1926.1427(k)(2)(i) and (ii)) (‘‘employer
duties’’). These employer duties are
essentially the same as those required
by § 1926.20(b)(4) and § 1926.21(b)(2),
which are discussed in more detail in
the ‘‘Operator Certification
Requirement’’ section that follows.
B. Operator Certification Requirement
In 1979, OSHA published 29 CFR
1926.550, which specified requirements
for crane and derrick operation that
were adopted from existing consensus
standards. Among these requirements
was an employer’s duty to comply with
manufacturer specifications and
limitations (§ 1926.550(a)(1)). In
addition, employers were subject to
general requirements elsewhere in the
OSHA construction safety standards
that required employers to permit only
those employees ‘‘qualified by training
or experience’’ to operate equipment
(§ 1926.20(b)(4)) and to ‘‘instruct each
employee in the recognition and
avoidance of unsafe conditions’’
(§ 1926.21(b)(2)). However, crane
incidents continued to be a significant
cause of injuries and fatalities in the
construction industry over the next few
decades. In response, industry
stakeholders called on OSHA to update
its existing construction crane standard,
including addressing advances in
equipment technology and industryrecognized work practices.
Between 1998 and 2003, OSHA’s
Advisory Committee for Construction
Safety and Health (ACCSH) tasked a
workgroup with studying crane issues
and ultimately recommended that
OSHA revise the construction crane
standard through negotiated
rulemaking. The ACCSH workgroup
reviewed the requirements of the most
recent American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME)/American National
Standard Institute (ANSI) B30 series
standards applicable to various types of
cranes and recommended that OSHA
include work practices and protections
from the ASME/ANSI B30 series
standards in the new crane standard to
the extent possible. The workgroup’s
recommendations included a request
that OSHA require training and
qualification provisions specific to
crane operators, such as those of the
ANSI B30 series, to supplant and
augment the general provisions under
§§ 1926.21(b)(2) and 1926.20(b)(4) (see
ACCSH transcript Docket ID OSHA–
ACCSH2002–2–2006–0194; pp. 129–
135).
In 2003, OSHA commenced
rulemaking by establishing a federal
advisory committee, the Cranes and

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 May 18, 2018

Jkt 244001

Derricks Negotiated Rulemaking
Advisory Committee (C–DAC), to
develop a proposal through consensus
(see OSHA–S030–2006–0663–0639).
C–DAC met eleven times between July
30, 2003, and July 9, 2004, and
produced a consensus document that
OSHA proposed for comment. Like the
ACCSH workgroup, C–DAC
acknowledged that the qualification and
training requirements of
§§ 1926.20(b)(4) and1926.21(b)(2) were
ineffective and it proposed that OSHA
require written and practical testing of
crane operators (73 FR 59810). C–DAC
also concluded that significant advances
in crane/derrick safety would not be
achieved without operator testing
verified by accredited, third-party
testing. Therefore, per C–DAC’s
recommendation, OSHA’s proposal
included a requirement for operator
certification by ‘‘type and capacity’’ of
the equipment in lieu of the previous
general requirement that employers
ensure their operators were competent
to operate the machinery. However,
OSHA proposed to retain the general
employer duty during a four-year phasein period for the operator certification
(see 2008 proposal at § 1926.1427(k)).
On October 12, 2006, ACCSH
supported the C–DAC consensus
document and recommended that
OSHA use it as the basis of a proposed
rule (see Docket ID OSHA–
ACCSH2006–1–2006–0198–003).
On October 17, 2006, the Small
Business Advocacy Review Panel
(SBAR) submitted its final report on
OSHA’s draft proposal (OSHA–S030A–
2006–0664–0019). The SBAR
recommendations included a suggestion
that OSHA solicit comment on whether
‘‘equipment capacity and type’’ needed
clarification, which OSHA did (see 73
FR 59725). Regarding operator training,
many Small Entity Representatives
(SERs) thought the C–DAC’s training
requirements were too broad and should
be focused on the equipment the
operator will use and the operations to
be performed. Two SERs recommended
OSHA’s powered industrial truck
standard as a model for crane operator
training requirements.
OSHA published its proposal on
October 9, 2008 (73 FR 59714) and
received over 350 public comments. The
comments discussed a wide range of
topics addressed by the crane standard.
In response to requests from several
public commenters, OSHA conducted a
public hearing in March 2009. None of
the commenters or hearing participants
asked OSHA to remove the requirement
that operators be certified by equipment
capacity in addition to type. There were
a few stakeholders who expressed some

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

concern about the proposal to phase-out
the employer duty and replace it with
the requirement for employers to ensure
operator competence through thirdparty testing (see Docket IDs OSHA–
2007–0066–0341—March 19, 2009, page
41 and OSHA–2007–0066–0445).
However, most stakeholders
overwhelmingly supported the
certification requirements in the rule as
proposed.
On November 8, 2010, the final rule
for cranes and derricks in construction
became effective, and it includes four
‘‘options’’ for crane operator
certification. Unless excluded from the
requirements of 29 CFR 1926.1427, all
operators must obtain at least one of the
following: A state or local license to
operate cranes within a state or local
jurisdiction with acceptable
requirements; a certification issued by
an accredited, third-party testing
organization that meets OSHA
certification requirements; a
qualification issued under an audited
employer program that meets OSHA’s
certification requirements; or a
qualification issued by the U.S. Military
(see 29 CFR 1926.1427(b) through (e)).
C. Certification by Crane Rated Lifting
Capacity
The final rule for cranes and derricks
in construction required operators to
become certified and permitted four
options for doing so, one of which was
certification by a third-party
organization. A third-party certification
could be portable (a new employer
could rely on it), but in relying upon a
third-party certification alone as
confirmation of an operator’s knowledge
and operating skills, all employers must
know to what kind of equipment the
certification applies when making
determinations about which equipment
an operator can operate at the worksite.
Therefore, C–DAC proposed the
requirement, which was included in the
final rule, that third-party certification
must indicate the equipment types and
the rated capacities that an individual is
certified to operate. The other
certification options, which are not
portable, do not require certification by
capacity.
To address the concerns of testing
organizations that were not specifying
the rated lifting capacities on
certifications they issued, OSHA added
subparagraph § 1926.1427(b)(2) to
clarify that an employer could comply
with the capacity requirement if the
certification stated the type and rated
lifting capacity of the crane in which the
operator was tested. For purposes of
complying with the new crane standard,
the operator would be ‘‘deemed

E:\FR\FM\21MYP2.SGM

21MYP2

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules
qualified’’ to operate cranes of the same
type, that have equal or lower rated
lifting capacity of the crane in which
they were tested.

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2

D. Post-Rulemaking Concerns
In OSHA outreach sessions following
the publication of the final rule, two
accredited testing organizations that did
not offer certifications by capacity
questioned the need for specifying rated
lifting capacities of equipment on their
certifications to comply with the new
crane standard. They expressed that
meeting the capacity requirement would
require significant changes from their
existing certification practices without
resulting in any real safety benefit. They
asserted that employers will still take
steps to ensure that certified operators
are capable of safely operating the
cranes at their worksites, regardless of
the rated lifting capacities of those
cranes. Thus, these testing organizations
expressed the view that the certification
by capacity requirement is unnecessary.
Those two testing organizations and
many other stakeholders also expressed
surprise and concern that on November
10, 2014, when OSHA’s operator
certification requirements were to take
effect, the temporary requirements of
§ 1926.1427(k)(2)—the employer duty to
ensure that operators are competent—
would no longer be in effect.
U.S. Small Business Administration
(SBA) Roundtable
SBA’s Office of Advocacy held a
Small Business Labor Safety (OSHA/
MSHA) Roundtable discussion about
the type and capacity issues of OSHA’s
crane standard on November 16, 2012.
At this meeting, major stakeholders,
including a labor union, construction
trade associations, crane manufacturers,
and safety professionals, warned of the
negative impact on the regulated
community that would occur if OSHA
did not continue to require employers to
ensure the competency of crane
operators, as well as recognize
certifications acquired by operators from
testing organizations that do not issue
certifications by rated lifting capacity.
Though they had not made such
comments in the rulemaking, industry
representatives, who were still in
support of requiring operator
certification, likened operator
certification to a learner’s permit to
drive a car, suggesting that passage of
the certification test meant an
individual could operate a crane, but
was not necessarily competent to
perform the specific tasks required by
an employer. They cautioned that an
employer should weigh factors in
addition to whether an employee has an

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 May 18, 2018

Jkt 244001

operator certification before allowing an
employee to operate a crane.
November 29, 2012, ACCSH Meeting
and Subsequent Actions
At a November 29, 2012, ACCSH
meeting, a representative from one of
the organizations not providing
certifications by capacity said that his
organization had issued most of the
operator certifications acquired by
operators in construction (hundreds of
thousands) and warned OSHA of an
imminent disruption of construction
projects should OSHA consider that
organization’s certifications to be
noncompliant (OSHA–2012–0011–
0087). In addition, individual employers
wished to ensure that their operators’
certifications would be recognized as
valid by OSHA as they approached the
November 10, 2014, effective date for
certification/qualification requirements.
In response, OSHA engaged in detailed
discussions with a variety of
stakeholders about their experience
using certifications and the relevance of
equipment rated lifting capacities to
operator competency, safety, and
certification testing.
OSHA also continued to engage in
conversations with the four accredited
testing organizations and two industryrecognized accrediting agencies to assist
them in their efforts to meet the criteria
specified by the new crane standard.
OSHA clarified that these organizations
need only specify the rated lifting
capacity of the crane in which an
operator was tested to meet OSHA
certification requirements. The rated
lifting capacity on the certification
would specify the maximum rated
capacity for which the operator was
certified and, in combination with the
rule, allow operators certified at one
capacity to also operate cranes with
lower capacities. Nevertheless,
construction employers contacted
OSHA to express frustration about
receiving conflicting information from
various outside groups about whether
existing certifications would meet the
new crane standard’s requirements.
Stakeholder Meetings (April 2013)
In response to mounting frustrations
of many in the construction industry,
OSHA conducted three stakeholder
meetings on April 2–3, 2013, to gather
additional information about the issues
of operator qualification and the ‘‘type
and capacity’’ requirement for
certification, in particular. Participants
included representatives of construction
contractors, labor unions, crane
manufacturers, crane rental companies,
accredited testing organizations, one of
the accrediting bodies, insurance

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

23537

companies, crane operator trainers, and
military employers. Detailed notes are
available in the docket for this
rulemaking (see ID–0539). The two
testing organizations that did not certify
by capacity and some stakeholders in
the crane industry again questioned the
purpose of C–DAC’s recommendation
requiring different levels of certification
be made available by rated lifting
capacity and requested that OSHA
remove the requirement.
In addition, various parties informed
OSHA that, in their opinion, the
operator certification option would not
adequately ensure that crane operators
could safely operate their equipment to
perform work at a construction site.
They stated that, for an employer to
ensure operator competence, additional
training, experience, and evaluation
would be needed that goes well beyond
the level of training and experience
needed to obtain a certification. Most of
the meeting participants agreed that an
operator’s certification by an accredited
testing organization does not mean that
the operator is competent or has enough
experience to operate a crane to do
construction work.
OSHA heard from many stakeholders
that the employer should play a direct
role in ensuring that their operators are
competent because a standardized test
cannot replicate all of the conditions
that operators will face on the jobsite.
They indicated that the employer is
typically in a better position than a
certifying organization to ensure that an
operator has the skills, knowledge, and
judgment required for a particular
assignment on a particular crane. Again,
many stakeholders likened operator
certification to a learner’s permit to
drive a car. They cautioned that
certification should be one of several
factors to be weighed by an employer
before allowing an employee to operate
a crane. Most participants said that the
operator’s employer should always be
made responsible for ensuring that an
operator is competent to safely operate
a particular crane to do construction
work. Others indicated that employers
will confirm operator competence
regardless of OSHA requirements
because the risk is too great and other
influences like contracts and insurance
premiums drive them to do so. Overall
though, all stakeholders reiterated that
operator certification is beneficial in
establishing a minimum threshold of
operator knowledge and familiarity with
very basic crane operation.
May 24, 2013, ACCSH Meeting
ACCSH met on May 24, 2013 (OSHA–
2013–0006–0025). OSHA presented the
issues surrounding operator competency

E:\FR\FM\21MYP2.SGM

21MYP2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2

23538

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules

and certification to the committee, and
the committee heard comments from
stakeholders and the public. At this
meeting, representatives from two
accredited testing organizations
provided conflicting public comments
regarding the capacity-certification
requirement. One of the two testing
organizations that does not certify by
capacity again warned of the potential
impact on the industry should OSHA
enforce the crane certification
requirements as published in the final
rule. On the other hand, a testing
organization that offers certification by
capacity noted that certifications by
type and capacity were already available
to employers and operators, confirming
that it is feasible to meet the capacity
requirement. Other public stakeholders
expressed concerns about the potential
impact on crane safety in construction
should OSHA not enforce the crane
certification requirements when
scheduled to come into effect on
November 10, 2014, but asked that
OSHA quickly resolve the ‘‘type and
capacity’’ issue.
ACCSH considered a proposal that
OSHA suspend the certification
requirements of the crane standard
indefinitely until a new rule could be
proposed. One ACCSH member
representing a major trade association
explained that many employers were
not sure whether it was wise to invest
in the certification of their operators to
meet OSHA requirements that may
change as result of the pending
rulemaking (see OSHA–2013–0006–
0025, p. 16). A suspension of the
requirements, it was argued, would end
confusion among employers about what
certification requirements had to be met
by a new effective date. The proposal
also suggested that OSHA remove the
certification/qualification requirements
altogether. Until OSHA adopted a
revised certification requirement,
however, the proposal would require
employers to train, evaluate, and ensure
the operating competency of their
operators in accordance with the
transitional requirements in current
§ 1926.1427(k). Following the ACCSH
meeting, OSHA announced that it
would initiate a rulemaking to explore
extending the certification deadline and
the ‘‘phase-out’’ of the employer duty to
ensure operator competency and the
deadline for operator certification (see
ID–0671 or https://www.osha.gov/pls/
oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_
table=NEWS_RELEASES&p_id=24090).
E. Extending the Effective Dates for the
Employer Duty and Certification
As noted above, OSHA received
significant stakeholder feedback

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 May 18, 2018

Jkt 244001

between 2010 and 2013 indicating that
employers should not be able to rely
solely on certification as the means of
ensuring operator competency,
primarily because the certification
programs only examine a basic level of
general crane operation knowledge and
skills without assessing an operator’s
ability to operate the equipment they
will actually use or the various types of
operations that they will need to
perform on a particular jobsite. In
response, OSHA completed a follow-up
rulemaking to extend the deadline for
operator certification by three years
until November 10, 2017, and also to
extend for the same time period the
existing employer duties (see 79 FR
57785 (September 26, 2014)). OSHA
subsequently extended both the
deadline and the employer duties by a
further year to November 10, 2018 (see
82 FR 51986 (November 9, 2017)). The
main reason for these extensions was to
provide OSHA with additional time to
determine whether it would be
necessary to undergo additional
rulemaking regarding crane operator
competency requirements. This
rulemaking reflects OSHA’s decision to
do so.
F. Discussions With the Construction
Industry Stakeholders
Discussions With Companies, Unions,
and Organizations Who Train, Assess,
and/or Contract Crane Operators
In order to gather factual information,
OSHA conducted more than 40 site
visits, conference calls, and meetings
with stakeholders between June 6, 2013
to March 27, 2015, regarding their
experiences with training, evaluating,
and ensuring the competency of crane
operators. Among these stakeholders
were:
• 3 crane rental companies [1 large
(more than 100 cranes), 1 medium
(more than 20 cranes), 1 small (less
than 20 cranes)]
• 10 construction companies that own/
operate cranes [homebuilders, tank
builders, propane delivery, steel
erector]
• 3 large construction/operator training
companies
• 5 crane manufacturers
• 3 construction labor unions
• 2 safety consultants/trainers
• 4 state agencies
• British Columbia’s qualification
program
• 1 sole proprietor/owner operator
homebuilding company
• 3 crane insurers
• certification testing bodies and
accrediting entities
During discussions with stakeholders,
OSHA personnel took notes that were

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

consolidated into draft reports, which
were provided to the employer or
organization for their corrections or
comment before the reports were
finalized. Twenty-eight of the
discussions were drafted into written
reports. The other conversations were
not documented because they were
either informal or the organization’s
representatives did not want their
comments to be cited in the rulemaking
record other than being referenced
anecdotally. The twenty-eight reports,
as well as a detailed summary of the
reports, are in the docket for this
rulemaking (ID–0673). Overall, the
stakeholders described their business
models for bringing cranes to
construction sites, operator competency
programs, methods for ensuring that
cranes brought to the worksite are safely
run by competent operators, and views
on the use of operator certification in
their operator competency programs.
During conversations with
stakeholders, OSHA confirmed that
most industry representatives did not
understand that the crane standard
requires employers only to ensure that
their operators are certified and does not
require further evaluation of a certified
operator’s competency. Several industry
representatives said that regardless of
what OSHA’s crane standard requires,
construction and insurance industry
influences would prevent many
employers of crane operators from
relying solely on certification to verify
the competence of their crane operators.
Furthermore, all of the company
representatives stated that they would
not let an operator run any of their
cranes based solely on his/her
possession of an operator’s certification.
And although most general contractors
require their subcontractors to verify
that operators are certified, they
intervene when there are indications
that the actions of a crane operator
could compromise the safety of a
worksite. OSHA confirmed from these
discussions that, regardless of whether
an operator has a certification, all of the
employers contacted evaluate their
operators to ensure competency.
Most employers stated that they value
third-party certification, but do not treat
it as sufficient, by itself, to establish
competency. Many employers expect
operators to get certified early in their
competency programs as a gauge for
confirming whether an operator has the
skills and abilities to obtain and use
knowledge that is essential to safely
operate cranes. One company explained
that it uses certification as more of an
administrative tool and only sends
employees who have been trained and
demonstrate, through closely

E:\FR\FM\21MYP2.SGM

21MYP2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules
monitoring on job performance, the
knowledge and ability to operate a crane
to earn a third-party certification. Most
stakeholders viewed certification only
as a verification of an operator’s basic
operating skills and crane knowledge
such as:
• Reading load charts,
• recognizing basic crane hazards,
• inspecting the equipment,
• knowledge of applicable
regulations, and
• familiarity with basic crane
functions to control the boom and load
line.
In addition, insurers explained they
award reduced rates to employers
whose operator competency programs
include operator certifications.
In sum, many in the industry have
concluded that the degree of training
and operating experience needed to
successfully pass certification testing
may help to increase the baseline crane
safety on construction sites. They often
referenced their successes in states or
localities that require similar
certifications. But all stakeholders said
it is essential that the operator’s
employer determine whether the
operator is competent to safely operate
a crane for a particular construction
activity.
While operator competency programs
vary based on business model,
equipment used, and work performed,
there are strong similarities in the
programs identified by the stakeholders
as effective. Typical operator
competency programs for operators-intraining (employees who have not been
certified/licensed and evaluated to
operate assigned equipment) begin with
classroom training and dialogue to
gauge what additional training and
experience is needed. At some point,
the operator-in-training demonstrates
that he or she is ready to begin trainingrelated operation of the equipment,
which may eventually include, for
example, practice in the cab at storage
yards or in open areas at job sites where
equipment is already set up. For more
experienced operators-in-training, the
types of knowledge and operations for
which they are asked to demonstrate
proficiency typically include doing
crane-related inspections, reading load
charts, calculating loads, and smoothly
operating the crane to handle loads.
Typically, novice operators-in-training
start out on smaller cranes/shorter boom
lengths and their assigned practice/work
eventually includes the performance of
simple, low-priority jobs and lifts where
they have plenty of time to practice and
ask questions of the trainer or more
experienced operators as needed.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 May 18, 2018

Jkt 244001

Most stakeholders explained that their
evaluation of each operator is ongoing
from the time they begin checking the
operator-in-training’s credentials and
references until they confirm the
operator’s experience by observing them
operate construction cranes. The
evaluation is also based on the often
daily informal evaluations of an
operator’s performance by the employer
and other people that work around a
crane operated by the operator-intraining. Several stakeholders explained
that operator competency programs are
often supplemented by the operator’s
completion of union apprenticeships
(about one-half of the employers who
operated cranes described that they
employ union operators).
A few employers explained how they
verified operator competency based on
their prior experiences with the operator
or references from organizations for
which the operator has previously
completed crane work. Every employer
with whom OSHA spoke stated that the
employer’s role in ensuring the
competency of crane operators should
be allowed to continue.
Through these conversations, OSHA
also gained a better understanding of the
many ways in which cranes and
operators are brought to construction
work sites. Cranes may be owned or
leased; operators may be long-term
employees, hired from a crane rental
company, or hired out of a labor
organization’s hiring hall for a few days.
To minimize the cost of crane use,
construction employers may rent a
crane with an operator provided by the
rental company, rent only the
equipment because the employer
already has an operator on staff, or hire
a short-term employee or a contractor
separately to operate the crane.
G. Consulting ACCSH—Draft Proposal
for Crane Operator Requirements
OSHA presented draft revisions to the
Cranes and Derricks in Construction
standard to the Advisory Committee for
Construction Safety and Health
(ACCSH) at a special meeting conducted
March 31 and April 1, 2015, in
Washington, DC. The draft revisions
included proposals to remove the
capacity requirements for operator
certification and to retain permanently
an employer duty to ensure operator
competency. ACCSH heard public
comment on the draft proposed rule at
the meeting before it considered any
recommendations (OSHA–2015–0002–
0036).
OSHA’s draft included substantive
requirements that employers would be
required to follow to ensure operator
competency. Operators would not have

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

23539

been permitted to operate a crane
independently until the employer
qualified them as competent. It also reorganized the provisions of § 1926.1427
to clarify its requirements by re-ordering
and re-grouping a number of the
certification/licensing requirements.
The draft also included new provisions
designed to eliminate employee
exposures to the hazards presented by
cranes operated by unqualified crane
operators on multi-employer worksites.
Several ACCSH members and some
public commenters expressed strong
concerns about OSHA making any
changes to the crane standard beyond
those necessary to extend permanently
the employer duty to determine operator
competency and to eliminate the
requirement that certifications be by
capacity. Many of these ACCSH
members and public commenters were
concerned that additional provisions
would slow down the process, and that
the draft documentation provisions for
employer evaluations of operators were
too extensive and restrictive. After
considering the public comments,
ACCSH expressed confidence that
OSHA would address those concerns
before proposing a rule. In addition,
ACCSH made the following
recommendations that OSHA:
• Move forward with certification by
the means in the existing standard and
pursue employer qualification of crane
operators.
• Clarify the requirement for
certification so that certification can be
by type, or by type and capacity.
• Reconsider the language in the
proposed text that appeared to require
the employer to observe the operator
operate the crane in each and every
configuration to determine whether the
operator was competent.
• Use the text submitted by William
Smith (Exhibit 12) as a substitute for the
draft language on evaluation in the
proposed text.3
• Delete the annual re-evaluation
provision in the proposed rule, and
instead consider employer reevaluations that coincide with the recertification period.
• Consider adding a provision that if
the operator operates the equipment in
3 William Smith, commenting as a private citizen,
presented revisions to 29 CFR 1926.1427(a) by the
Coalition for Crane Operator Safety (OSHA–2015–
0002–0051). The document recommended revising
§ 1926.1427(a) by adding provisions that an
operator must meet OSHA’s qualified person
standard and mandating training if an operator
cannot safely operate the equipment. In 1427(b), he
recommended removing the language that an
operator will be deemed qualified if he or she is
certified. Throughout § 1926.1427, he
recommended removing references to capacity.

E:\FR\FM\21MYP2.SGM

21MYP2

23540

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2

an unsafe manner, the operator must be
re-evaluated by the employer.
H. National Consensus Standards
In adopting a standard, the
Occupational Safety and Health (OSH)
Act requires OSHA to consider national
consensus standards, and where the
agency decides to depart from the
requirements of a national consensus
standard, it must explain why the
departure better effectuates the purposes
of the Act. OSH Act 6(b)(8). As OSHA
explained when adopting the updated
crane rule in 2010, the ASME B30
Standard is a series of voluntary
consensus standards that apply to most
of the types of equipment, including
cranes and derricks, covered by subpart
CC as a whole (75 FR 48129–48130).
The B30 standards each have chapters
that address the operation of the
equipment, which typically include a
section on crane operator qualification
and crane operator responsibilities.
OSHA considered these provisions in
drafting this proposed rule. Similarly,
OSHA considered the general
requirements of ANSI/American Society
of Safety Engineers (ASSE) Z490.1,
which generally addresses the
requirements of occupational safety and
health training.
This proposal takes many of the
underlying concepts regarding operator
qualification that are consistent across
the B30 standards and ANSI/ASSE
Z490.1, and it places them in one
standard. This move will allow
employers and crane operators to look
to one place for OSHA requirements for
operator competence and safety, rather
than throughout fourteen relevant B30
standards. The proposal rewrites the
standards as enforceable employer
duties, as the OSH Act requires, rather
than as employee responsibilities or
non-mandatory suggestions. The
proposal also expands on operator
training requirements, which are not
discussed at length in the B30 standards
and ANSI/ASSE Z490, and third-party
certification/license requirements,
which are not required by the B30
standards or ANSI/ASSE Z490.
OSHA believes this proposal will
better effectuate the purposes of the
OSH Act than any applicable national
consensus standard because it will
retain certification, training, and
operator qualification requirements in a
manner that OSHA can enforce under
the Act and consolidate all crane
operator qualification requirements for
ease of reference. OSHA requests
comment on whether this proposal will
better effectuate the purposes of the
OSH Act than any applicable national
consensus standard.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 May 18, 2018

Jkt 244001

I. The Need for a Rule
Based on the information collected
from stakeholders and the
recommendations of ACCSH, OSHA
proposes to amend 29 CFR 1926 subpart
CC by revising sections that address
crane operator training, certification/
licensing, and competency. The
purposes of the amendments are to
clarify training requirements for
operators; to remove certification-bycapacity from certification
requirements; to clarify and
permanently extend an employer’s duty
to evaluate potential operators for their
ability to safely operate assigned
equipment covered by subpart CC; and
to require that employers document the
evaluation. Because these revisions
required some re-working of the crane
standard, OSHA also took the
opportunity to reorganize and clarify the
operator certification requirements in
§ 1926.1427.
Employer’s Duty To Evaluate Its
Operators
OSHA is proposing to revise the crane
rule to add a permanent employer
evaluation duty based primarily on the
extensive feedback received from the
construction industry, which warned
that certification does not establish that
operators have sufficient crane
knowledge and operating skills to safely
perform crane operations at
construction sites in all circumstances
going forward. As previously explained
in more detail in the background
section, industry representatives stated
that to ensure crane safety on
construction sites, it is necessary for
employers to continue to evaluate the
operating competency of potential
operators and provide training beyond
that which is merely sufficient for those
individuals to obtain certifications.
The key difference between this
proposal and the existing standard is
that the proposal would permanently
maintain the employer’s duty to
evaluate its operators, and provide
greater specificity as to what that duty
entails in order to provide a clear and
enforceable standard. Under the existing
standard, operator certification becomes
de facto qualification once the employer
duty to ensure operator competence
(§ 1926.1427(k)(2)(i)) ends in November
2018. There are no other requirements
for operator safety qualifications beyond
certification after that date. Under the
proposed rule, the employer’s
evaluation is established as a critical
step to ensure safe equipment
operations on construction work sites.
While certification (or licensing in states
or localities with acceptable licensing

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

schemes) and training may occur under
different, prior employers, the proposal
would require that every employer
evaluate an employee first as an
operator-in-training before permitting
him or her to operate equipment
without oversight. The process of the
evaluation is performance-oriented and
discussed in more detail in the
explanation for proposed paragraph
1427(f).
An employer’s evaluation would
assess different operator skills than the
existing certification tests. IUOE has
pointed to a number of activities that
require specific skills that are not
evaluated during the certification
practical exam: Inspecting the
equipment; assessing unstable loads;
hoisting loads of irregular size;
operation from a barge; personnel
hoisting; rigging the load; leveling the
crane; hoisting in tight spaces where
there is greater opportunity for
damaging parts of the crane other than
the load line; making judgments about
wind speed and other environmental
factors that can impact the performance
of the equipment; performing multiple
crane lifts; traveling with or without a
load; operating near power lines;
hoisting light loads; and hoisting blind
picks where the operator cannot see the
load (Docket ID 0527, p. 3). IUOE has
also noted that different skills are
required to operate equipment with
different attachments and identified in
particular the unique skills required to
operate with clam bucket or drag line
attachments (Id.). By way of contrast,
the IUOE stated, the operator
certification practical test covers only
basic operation functions (hoisting and
lowering a load and guiding it through
a course), and ‘‘does not test on the
breadth of activities that are involved in
the operation of cranes’’ (Id.). Without
the proposed employer duty to evaluate
operators, an employer could permit a
certified operator to operate tower
cranes and other large equipment in any
configuration with any number of
attachments without determining if the
operator possesses the requisite
knowledge and skills necessary to
address the issues identified by IUOE
and others.
Some employers describe certification
as a ‘‘learner’s permit’’ (Stakeholder
Notes, Reports #15, 26 of ID–0673), and
a number of employers with whom
OSHA spoke stated that they would not
allow a certified operator to use their
equipment without first also evaluating
the operator to verify competence
(Reports #1, 6, 18, 20, 22 of ID–0673).
A training company for crane operators
stated that ‘‘only a fool’’ would rely on
certification alone as an assessment of

E:\FR\FM\21MYP2.SGM

21MYP2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules
an operator’s ability to safely operate a
crane at the worksite (Report 20 of ID–
0673). Boh Bros. Construction Co.,
commented during the 2014 rulemaking
that ‘‘a certification is only an
indication of basic skills. . . .
Certification is good, but does not equal
qualification.’’ [ID–0464]. Another
training company representative stated
that operators with very little
experience can acquire a sufficient basis
of knowledge of the crane to pass a
certification exam without being truly
qualified to operate independently and
safely on a construction work site
(Report #21 of ID–0673). Two
stakeholders expressed concern that
relying solely on certification could be
dangerous because it would create a
false sense of qualification, leading
some contractors to be less vigilant in
evaluating the competence of operators
to safely operate equipment for all of
their tasks (Reports #9, 11 of ID–0673).
OSHA heard from many stakeholders
that the employer should play a direct
role in ensuring that their operators are
competent (Stakeholder Notes, Reports
#1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16,
18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26 of ID–0673).
Because a standardized test cannot
replicate all of the conditions that
operators will face on the jobsite, the
employer is typically in a better position
than a certifying organization to fully
evaluate an operator to ensure that he or
she has the skills, knowledge, and
judgment required for a particular
assignment on a particular crane.
Many stakeholders indicated that in
their experience operator competency
needed to be crane-specific (Reports #1,
2, 3, 4, 6, 16, 19, 21 of ID–0673). Some
of the stakeholders raised concerns
about the importance of these different
crane characteristics in discussing
whether OSHA should require
certification to be by type and capacity
or just by type. For example, one
employer told OSHA that certification
could be by type alone, provided the
employer was responsible for evaluating
operator competency on assigned
equipment (Report #1 of ID–0673). A
crane operator training company that
OSHA interviewed noted that no one
certification test could ever capture all
of the types, configurations, and
capacities of cranes and the activities
they may be used to perform at the
jobsite. Therefore, it is important that
the employer typically verify the
operator’s skill level through an
experienced assessor (Report #20 of ID–
0673).
An extensive analysis of crane
accidents published by HAAG
Engineering in 2014 concluded that
crane incidents are more likely to be

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 May 18, 2018

Jkt 244001

reduced if a company ensures that an
operator possess equipment-specific
skills and knowledge in addition to
certification:
The certification process ensures that an
operator has demonstrated a core knowledge
set of the principles of cranes and crane
operations, OSHA regulations, and ASME
standards requirements . . . has successfully
demonstrated both knowledge and the
physical skill set to operate a type of
crane. . . .
Comparing responsibility failure trends
between crane types gives strong evidence
that crane model-specific training is an
overwhelmingly good idea. . . . In order for
the industry to theoretically provide a quality
certification for each model crane, the
process would take decades just to develop
certifications for existing model cranes, and
with new models coming out every year, that
development process would also be neverending. Each time a new model crane was
released, its use would be prohibited until a
qualified certification process was developed
if model-specific certification was required.
Model specific qualification is an issue that
cannot and should not be done by the
certification process, but should be done
through training and examination by the
individual company and corresponding
operator in addition to earning type-specific
certifications which ensure the knowledge
and skill sets discussed above.
Understanding of crane principles, general
crane characteristics, individual
responsibilities, and national standard
guidelines is the basis for certification;
however, an operator’s familiarity with the
particular unit is invaluable in the goal to
reduce operator associated incidents.4

The proposed evaluation requirement
is a mechanism to help ensure that
operators possess the skill to account for
the variations within even a single type
of crane; without the evaluation
requirement there would be no
distinction between the competency
required to operate the smallest,
simplest mobile crane and the largest,
most complex mobile crane. It is our
intent with this proposal to avoid a
repeat of a tragedy like the Deep South
collapse, in which an operator was
assigned to a crane of a type for which
he was certified, but the controls and
operations were substantially different
from those with which he was familiar
(see Deep S. Crane & Rigging Co., 23
BNA OSHC 2099 (No. 09–0240, 2012),
aff’d Deep S. Crane & Rigging Co. v.
Harris, 535 F. App’x 386, 390 (5th Cir.
2013)).
Most concerns expressed about the
evaluation requirement focused on the
specifics of the requirement, not the
proposition that an employer should
4 Wiethron, Jim D., Crane Accidents: A Study of
Causes & Trends to Create a Safer Work
Environment, 1983–2013, pp. 105–106 (HAAG
Engineering, 2014).

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

23541

have a duty to ensure operator
competency. Indeed, only one employer
stated that it does not believe a formal
evaluation requirement should be part
of the rule, expressing concern that it
might be something compliance officers
cite when there are not obvious
violations, and even that employer
acknowledged that the employer’s role
in ensuring operator competency is
important. (Interview #15). But unless
OSHA includes the evaluation duty in
the regulatory text, employers would
have no enforceable duty to conduct any
assessment of their operators. Other
employers questioned the practicality of
a formal evaluation requirement, but
OSHA believes that requirement to be
necessary for effective enforcement of
an employer’s duty to conduct any
assessment of their operators. Finally,
one employer told OSHA that a formal
rating system or checklist for evaluating
a new operator’s competency would be
impractical (Report #1 of ID–0673),
while another employer told OSHA that
one cannot write a procedure to qualify
someone because it is all knowledge and
experience (Report #6 of ID–0673).
OSHA appreciates the concerns that
inflexible procedural requirements
would cause unnecessary interference
with existing work practices. For this
reason, as discussed more fully in the
preamble for paragraph 1427(f) of the
proposed rule, OSHA has addressed
these concerns by carefully tailoring its
proposed evaluation requirements to
provide significant flexibility for the
employers. But it is also important to
note that OSHA is not proposing to
create a totally new duty. All employers
were required to assess their operators
prior to the 2010 rulemaking, continue
to have such a duty under existing
§ 1926.1427(k), and OSHA is not aware
of any significant difficulties complying
with those requirements. This
rulemaking would simply clarify what
that evaluation involves, and would
make the duty permanent.
Generally, stakeholders supported
making permanent an employer’s duty
to verify operator competency. During
its testimony in support of retaining an
employer duty to assess operators, the
IUOE stated that removal of that duty
would endanger operators and workers
in the vicinity of cranes, ‘‘[c]rane
operators would be in a far worse
position than they were before issuance
of the final rule in August 2010.’’ (ID–
0486). William Smith of Nations
Builders Insurance Services (NCCCO
board member and C–DAC member)
agreed, commenting that ‘‘[l]eaving the
rule as written [with certification but
without a continued employer duty after
November, 2014] would take us back in

E:\FR\FM\21MYP2.SGM

21MYP2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2

23542

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules

time not forward in protecting lives’’
[ID–0474]. A U.S. crane manufacturer
stated that the lack of employer
evaluation of an operator would be a
problem, and certification is a
foundation, but should not be a
substitute for an employer competency
evaluation. (Report #4 of ID–0673).
Similarly, a training company
representative stated that certification
plays a vital role in the operator
competency process, but sufficient
training and months to years of actual
operating experience are needed to
ensure the operator’s competency
(Report #20 of ID–0673).
Other employers agreed that,
depending on a number of factors,
determining the competency of a new,
inexperienced operator to become an
independent, safe, and efficient operator
is a process that can vary in time
depending in part on the employer
needing a new operator, having a crane
available, and demand for the crane
services (e.g., Reports #2, 11 of ID–
0673). This competency process is often
informal and integrated in day-to-day
work, with operators-in-training
working closely with experienced
operators in on-the-job training who
mentor them and show them how to use
equipment (Reports #1, 2, 3, 6, 11, 15,
16, 18, 19, 23 of ID–0673). Operators
receive experience not only in the cab,
but also in many tasks or operations
related to hoisting, such as rigging,
assembly/disassembly or set-up, or
inspections.
A crane insurance representative
suggested that the industry is moving
away from assigning two employees to
work on a crane, where the less
experienced employee is mentored by
the other, and expressed concern that
this shift may impact the availability of
sufficiently qualified operators and the
safety of the industry (Report #25 of ID–
0673). If true, such a trend would
increase the importance of an employer
evaluation requirement because the
informal monitoring would be less
frequent. Requiring certification by
crane type and retaining the existing
employer duty to evaluate operators
should ensure that crane operators have
sufficient training to maintain safety,
even if the industry is moving away
from assigning two employees to work
on a crane. The existing certification
requirement ensures baseline
knowledge and skills to operate a crane,
while retaining the employer duty to
evaluate operators provides some
assurance that the operator can handle
the specifics of operating particular
equipment and performing more
challenging tasks. Many industry
stakeholders told the agency that this

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 May 18, 2018

Jkt 244001

combination is necessary to fully ensure
that operators are truly qualified to
operate the equipment for their assigned
tasks.
Based on all of the reasons in the
foregoing discussion, OSHA is
proposing to clarify and make
permanent the requirement for
employers to evaluate their operators
and operators-in-training in addition to
ensuring that they are certified in
accordance with the existing standard.
The specific evaluation requirements
are set out in proposed paragraph
§ 1926.1427(f) and are explained later in
this document in the preamble
discussion of that paragraph. OSHA
requests comment on this proposal to
retain the evaluation requirement in
addition to certification. Are there more
effective ways of ensuring that operators
are fully qualified to use cranes for the
specific activities that the operator will
be required to complete, such as
independent third-party evaluations?
Elimination of the Requirement To
Certify Based on Capacity of Crane
As discussed above, OSHA’s research
suggests that while certification by type
of crane establishes that an operator has
a basic level of skill and knowledge
about the operation of that type of crane,
it is the employer’s evaluation that best
ensures the operator has the skill and
knowledge necessary to operate a crane
in a particular configuration. While
testing organizations differed over
whether a certification by capacity
provided any useful information to an
employer, most agreed that capacity is
just one factor to be considered in the
employer’s overall evaluation of the
operator’s ability. OSHA is unaware of
any direct evidence establishing a safety
benefit for requiring certification by
capacity. For these reasons, OSHA has
preliminarily determined that, if the
employer duty becomes a permanent
requirement, employee certification by
capacity of crane should no longer be
required; rather, it should merely be an
option for those employers who wish to
use it.
OSHA requests comment on its
proposal to eliminate the requirement
that crane operators be certified by
capacity in addition to type of crane. Do
you or your employer currently require
certification by both type and capacity?
If so, how do you use the certification
on capacity in determining whether an
employee may operate a particular crane
or conduct a particular lift? Please
provide any other information of which
you are aware showing safety benefits
from certification by capacity.

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

J. Significant Risk
Section 3(8) of the OSH Act requires
that OSHA standards be ‘‘reasonably
necessary or appropriate to provide safe
or healthful employment’’ (29 U.S.C.
652(8)), which the Supreme Court has
interpreted as requiring OSHA to show
that ‘‘significant risks are present and
can be eliminated or lessened by a
change in practices’’ (Indus. Union
Dep’t, AFL–CIO v. Am. Petroleum Inst.,
448 U.S. 607, 642 (1980) (plurality
opinion) (‘‘Benzene’’)). The Court
clarified that OSHA has considerable
latitude in defining significant risk and
in determining the significance of any
particular risk, noting that ‘‘[i]t is the
Agency’s responsibility to determine, in
the first instance, what it considers to be
a ‘significant’ risk’’ (Benzene, 448 U.S.
at 655).
Although OSHA makes significant
risk findings for both health and safety
standards, the methodology used to
evaluate risk in safety rulemakings is
more straightforward. Unlike the risks
related to health hazards, which ‘‘may
not be evident until a worker has been
exposed for long periods of time to
particular substances,’’ the risks
associated with safety hazards such as
crane tipovers, electrocution, and
striking or crushing workers with a
hoisted load, ‘‘are generally immediate
and obvious.’’ Benzene, 448 U.S. at 649,
n.54. OSHA’s 2010 Cranes and Derricks
in Construction standard was
accompanied by an extensive analysis
in which the Agency examined fatality
and injury data available in 2008 and
concluded that employees working in or
around cranes and derricks face a
significant risk of death or serious injury
(see 75 FR 48093).
When, as here, OSHA has previously
determined that its standard
substantially reduces a significant risk,
it is unnecessary for the Agency to make
additional findings on risk for every
provision of that standard (see, e.g.,
Public Citizen Health Research Group v.
Tyson, 796 F.2d 1479, 1502 n. 16 (D.C.
Cir. 1986) (rejecting the argument that
OSHA must ‘‘find that each and every
aspect of its standard eliminates a
significant risk’’). Rather, once OSHA
makes a general significant risk finding
in support of a standard, the next
question is whether a particular
requirement is reasonably related to the
purpose of the standard as a whole.
(Asbestos Information Ass’n/N. Am. v.
Reich, 117 F.3d 891, 894 (5th Cir. 1997);
Forging Indus. Ass’n v. Secretary of
Labor, 773 F.2d 1436, 1447 (4th Cir.
1985); United Steelworkers of Am.,
AFL–CIO–CLC v. Marshall, 647 F.2d
1189, 1237–38 (D.C. Cir. 1980)).

E:\FR\FM\21MYP2.SGM

21MYP2

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2

As explained elsewhere in this
preamble, the proposal meets this test.
OSHA previously concluded that the
standard would substantially reduce
risk through a combination of
mandatory operator certification and
other requirements, but OSHA did not
claim that the standard would eliminate
the significant risk entirely. The
employer evaluation is reasonably
related to the reduction of significant
risk because it reduces employee
exposure to the previously identified
hazards. It reflects current industry best
practices and helps to ensure the
employee has the skills and knowledge
to operate the crane safely during the
lifts to which he or she is assigned.5
The Agency notes that there is ample
evidence in the record that workers
could continue to be exposed to the
hazards that OSHA sought to reduce
through the cranes standard. OSHA
relied on fatality data available in 2008
when it promulgated the crane standard,
but unfortunately crane-related fatalities
have continued to occur. According to
the Census of Fatal Occupational
Injuries, 47 crane operators were killed
between 2011 and 2014 (this does not
include accidents with non-fatal injuries
or crane incidents causing fatalities or
injuries to workers other than the crane
operator).6
Another useful data source is a report
by an engineering forensics firm, HAAG
Engineering, of a large dataset of crane
accidents that it has investigated over a
period of 30 years (Wiethorn, 2014, the
‘‘HAAG Report’’) (ID–0674). The final
dataset has 507 incidents, covering all
types of cranes and accidents. This
dataset is likely biased towards larger
accidents since these are more likely to
warrant significant investigation for
insurance and litigation issues. But
while it cannot be said to be a
representative sample of all crane
accidents, it is a large sample and hence
suggestive of more general trends. The
HAAG report states that of 147 fatalities
among its reported crane incidents, 28
were operators, meaning there were over
4 times more non-operator employees
killed than operators from crane
accidents in this sample ((147¥28)/28 =
4.3).7 Similarly for injuries, out of 281
injuries, 29 were to operators, so that
there were 8.7 non-operator injuries for
5 The proposed removal of the requirement for
certification by crane lifting capacity is not
implicated in this significant risk discussion
because it removes a requirement and does not
impose any new duties.
6 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Census of Fatal
Occupational Injuries (2011 forward), Fatalities to
Crane and Tower Operators, series ID
FWU50X53702X8PN00, available at http://
www.bls.gov/iif/data.htm.
7 The HAAG report, p. 31.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 May 18, 2018

Jkt 244001

every operator injury ((281¥29)/29 =
8.7).8 Of course these two categories are
not mutually exclusive (there will often
be injuries when there is a fatality).
As noted in more detail in the
Benefits section of the Preliminary
Economic Analysis for this rule, three
recent fatalities in particular illustrate
the dangers from improper equipment
operation that OSHA posits could be
prevented by the evaluations included
in this proposed amendment to the
standard. In one instance, the crane
operator was not familiar with the
controls of the equipment. In another
incident, an operator hoisting pipes
longer than he had previously hoisted
used an improper boom angle,
indicating that he did not possess
adequate knowledge and skills to
address the additional challenges of the
task he was required to perform. In the
third incident, a fatality occurred when
an employee operated a new, unfamiliar
machine with controls in different
locations than the machines with which
the operator was accustomed. While the
employee’s use of that equipment arose
from unexpected circumstances, the
result nonetheless demonstrates the risk
inherent with operating a crane without
a method to ensure the operator knows
how to use the particular crane to which
he or she is assigned.
As explained in the Background and
Need for Rulemaking sections of the
preamble, stakeholders have raised
serious concerns that the current level
of risk will increase if OSHA does not
make permanent the employer duty to
ensure operator competency on the
actual equipment they operate. The
nearly unanimous message to OSHA is
that crane operator certification is
designed to ensure a basic level of
general operating competency, but is not
by itself sufficient to ensure that
operators have the necessarily skills and
knowledge to operate all assigned
equipment or to perform all assigned
tasks safely.
III. Summary and Explanation of the
Proposed Amendments to Subpart CC
Discussion of the Proposed Rule’s
Organization and General Terms Used
in Its Summary and Explanation
The following discussion summarizes
and explains each new or revised
provision in the proposal and the
substantive differences between the
proposal and OSHA’s current crane
operator requirements in subpart CC of
29 CFR 1926. In general, OSHA
proposes to reorganize this section of
the current rule to improve
8 Id.

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

23543

comprehension of the requirements. In
the Background section of this notice,
OSHA summarizes revisions to the
current rule that would clarify crane
operator requirements and address
concerns raised by stakeholders and
through enforcement activity. OSHA
asks for public comment on the
potential impact and necessity of those
revisions and for alternatives to these
revisions that should be considered.
OSHA applies the term
‘‘qualification’’ within the proposed
regulatory text for operators working for
the U.S. military. This has been carried
over from the existing provisions. OSHA
has retitled § 1926.1427 as ‘‘Operator
training, certification, and evaluation.’’
When OSHA uses ‘‘qualification’’ or
‘‘qualified operator’’ in this preamble, it
means an individual who is fully
trained, certified, and passed an
evaluation by the employer, or the
process of completing all three of those
steps.
Paragraph (a)—Duty To Train, Certify or
License, and Evaluate Operators
Proposed paragraph (a) sets out the
employer’s responsibility to ensure that
each operator completes three steps
before the employer permits him or her
to operate equipment covered by
subpart CC without continuous
supervision. Each operator must be
trained to do the construction activity
that will be performed, be certified/
licensed in accordance with subpart CC,
and be evaluated on his or her
competence to safely operate the
equipment that will be used. In
addition, paragraph (a) sets out
exceptions to these requirements for
certain equipment, as well as continuing
to note that qualifications issued by the
U.S. Military to its non-uniformed
employees satisfy OSHA’s crane
standard. The proposed new approach
provides a clearer structure than the
existing standard, which was not
designed to accommodate both
certification and evaluation.
In addition, the proposal makes clear
that post-certification training is
required.
OSHA acknowledges that the existing
standard could be clearer regarding
ongoing training requirements for
certified operators. OSHA anticipated,
and the existing rule reflects the notion,
that certification would supplant the
employer’s evaluation, and that
employers would train their operators
on the equipment for which they were
certified, so therefore the employer
would have met the training
requirements specified under
§§ 1926.1427(f) and 1926.1430(c)(2) at
or around the time the operator was

E:\FR\FM\21MYP2.SGM

21MYP2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2

23544

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules

certified. Therefore, OSHA did not spell
out the ongoing training necessary for
certified operators to learn to operate
new equipment or perform new tasks.
The proposed rule contemplates
operators still needing additional
training after they are certified, such as
training to operate a new type of crane,
perform new tasks, or handle new
controls in a new model of crane.
The training components in the
proposed and existing standards are
similar. The proposed standard differs
from the existing standard in that it
clarifies that the employer would be
obligated to train employees, as
necessary, even after they are certified,
until the employer has evaluated them
in accordance with proposed paragraph
(f). As under the existing standard, (see
current § 1926.1430(g)(2)), refresher
training would also be required when
indicated by deficiencies in the
employee’s demonstrations of crane
knowledge and equipment operation.
The current certification/licensing
requirement, which is the centerpiece of
the existing operator requirements,
would remain largely unchanged under
this proposal, with the exception that
different certifications for different
capacities of cranes would no longer be
required. The reference to ‘‘certified/
licensed’’ is intended to encompass
each of the certification options in the
standard (third-party certification or an
audited employer certification program)
as well as state or local operator
licensing requirements.
The third element in the introductory
text of proposed paragraph (a) refers to
the employer’s duty to assess the
operator to ensure that an operator has
the skills, knowledge, and judgment to
safely operate equipment. The proposed
duty to evaluate operators is similar to
the duty in the existing standard at
§ 1926.1427(k)(2)(i), which specifies
interim duties that are required until
they are scheduled to be phased out
once operator certification requirements
become effective on November 10, 2018.
OSHA is proposing to maintain this
employer duty permanently but relocate it to paragraph (a) to clarify the
standard’s requirements. In addition to
the existing requirements in
§ 1926.1427(k)(2)(i), the proposal has
requirements for the individual who
performs the evaluation and
requirements for documenting the
evaluation. The proposal retains the
existing standard’s duty for employers
to re-evaluate operators when necessary
(see current § 1926.1430(g)(2)), but
moves it to the evaluation section to
clarify the requirements (see full
discussion of proposed paragraph
(f)—Evaluation below.)

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 May 18, 2018

Jkt 244001

Proposed paragraphs (a)(1)–(3)
provide limited exceptions to the
general requirement in paragraph (a)
that operators must be trained, certified,
and evaluated before operating
equipment.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1) would
permit an employee to operate
equipment as an ‘‘operator-in-training’’
prior to being certified and evaluated,
provided that he or she is supervised
and operates the equipment in
accordance with the training
requirements in paragraph (b). This is
the only means by which an individual
may operate equipment prior to being
trained, certified, and evaluated as
competent to do so. This exception is
substantively similar to the requirement
in the existing crane standard at
§ 1926.1427(a), which permits
uncertified operators to operate
equipment only when the employer
complies with the requirements
specified under existing
§ 1926.1427(f)—Pre-qualification/
certification training period. But it
would also permit certified/licensed
operators to operate equipment as
operators-in-training before successfully
completing an evaluation. For example,
this provision would allow experienced
and certified operators to become
accustomed to performing new crane
operations or operating somewhat
different equipment while being
evaluated by the employer for that
purpose, or to allow a newly hired
operator to run the equipment while a
new employer gauges the operator’s
crane knowledge, operating skills, and
training needs. In addition, experienced
operators who are not certified could
operate the equipment when all
operator-in-training requirements are
met.
The proposal recognizes that on-thejob training is an important component
of gaining the practical operating
experience necessary to safely operate a
crane and to pass a competency
evaluation. Moreover, based on the
stakeholder discussions noted above,
many employers who train new
operators require them to complete
operator certification at the beginning or
in the middle of their training program,
while employer evaluation of
competency is generally a later step in
the process and may occur many times
over an operator’s career. Therefore,
OSHA believes that permitting an
operator-in-training to operate
equipment under the conditions
specified in paragraph (b) is appropriate
and necessary to ensure the safety of
operators-in-training while they train for
competency evaluations by employers.

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

In addition, proposed paragraph (a)(1)
expressly states that an operator-intraining may only operate equipment
under supervision to ensure that
employers understand that supervision
is a mandatory component of operating
in accordance with proposed paragraph
(b), and therefore under this exception.
Because the existing crane standard also
requires operators-in-training to be
supervised, including the supervision
requirement in proposed paragraph (a)
as well as proposed paragraph (b) is a
non-substantive, clarifying amendment
(see paragraph (b) for a more thorough
discussion of on-the-job and general
training requirements).
Proposed paragraph (a)(2) retains the
exemptions for derricks, sideboom
cranes, and equipment with a maximum
manufacturer-rated hoisting/lifting
capacity of 2,000 pounds or less from
the training and supervision
requirements in proposed paragraph (b)
and the certification/licensing
requirements in proposed paragraphs
(c)–(d). OSHA considered, but has
declined to include in this proposal,
other requests for certification
exemptions for operators of other types
of equipment, including cranes with a
rated maximum lifting capacity in the
5,000–35,000 pound range and cranes
that are typically used for repetitive
lifts, or are only used intermittently. In
adopting the existing rule, OSHA
considered exempting such equipment
and concluded that ‘‘many of the same
hazards presented by larger cranes are
present for cranes in [the 5,000–35,000
lb.] capacity range’’ (75 FR 48016).
Similarly, OSHA concluded that the
underlying causes of crane fatalities and
injuries did not necessarily decrease for
cranes used for duty cycle work (Id.).
Proposed paragraph (a)(3) would
preserve an existing provision that
states that non-uniformed personnel
employed and qualified as operators by
the U.S. military meet the licensing/
certification requirements of
§ 1926.1427. OSHA moved this
provision from the other certification/
qualifications options because it
operates as an exception: It specifies
that no certification/licensing or
training obligation for construction
employers is needed beyond verifying
that the employee is employed by, and
qualified by, the military. For the
purpose of confirming that a military
operator has the basic crane knowledge
and operating skills required through
licensing and certification, OSHA defers
to the operator qualification process of
the U.S. military as the employer.
However, the military qualification is
not portable: An operator must comply
with all of the provisions of the crane

E:\FR\FM\21MYP2.SGM

21MYP2

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2

standard whenever he or she operates
equipment for an employer other than
the U.S. military. OSHA requests
comment on this proposed paragraph
regarding whether the relocation of this
provision is appropriate and if it is clear
that this is an exclusion from all
qualification and training requirements
of this standard, not just certification.
Paragraph (b) Operator Training
The requirement for employers to
train and evaluate operators before
permitting them to operate equipment is
contained in paragraph (a) of the
proposal. Proposed paragraph (b) would
set forth minimum requirements for
training, specify requirements for
trainers, and establish limitations on the
scope of activities for operators-intraining. This proposed paragraph
would specify the conditions under
which an individual may operate a
crane prior to acquiring certification or
successfully completing an employer
evaluation. These training provisions
are intended to provide a safe avenue
for employees to gain experience
operating cranes.
The proposed training requirements
of paragraph (b) would clarify that
employers must continue to address
operator training needs after the
operator has been certified and
demonstrated competency through
employer evaluation on specific
equipment. Proposed paragraph (b)
differs from the training requirements in
the existing standard because the
proposal would clarify that the
employer’s training duty is both
equipment-specific and task-specific,
and extends until the employer has
satisfactorily evaluated the operator-intraining in accordance with proposed
paragraph (f)—Evaluation, or if any
retraining or subsequent training is
required to perform the assigned tasks.
The proposal recognizes that even a
certified and evaluated operator may
need additional training to safely
operate new equipment or perform
significantly different types of lifts.
Therefore, the employer’s duty to train
remains an ongoing responsibility that
must be met as the operator’s operating
experiences expand. In contrast, the
existing standard is not as clear (except
when an individual’s deficient
operating performance or crane
knowledge triggers re-training) that the
employer’s duty to train extends beyond
when the individual is certified and
evaluated. This proposal clarifies that
the employer’s duty to train is aimed at
ensuring that the employee can safely
use the equipment that will be operated.
Existing training requirements are
distributed between two sections. First,

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 May 18, 2018

Jkt 244001

§ 1926.1427(f)—Pre-qualification/
certification training period, sets forth
the limited conditions under which an
operator-in-training can safely operate
equipment before being certified.
Secondly, § 1926.1430—Training
Requirements, centralizes the triggers
for operator training requirements,
including those for re-training. As
discussed in the explanation for this
section, OSHA is proposing to remove
the substantive operator training
requirements from § 1926.1430 and
replace them with a cross-reference to
proposed § 1926.1427(b) so that the
substance of the training requirements
for operators, as well as all operator-intraining requirements, would be under
one section. Relocating the requirements
of § 1926.1427(f) would also ensure that
the organization of the crane operator
requirements corresponds with the
order of a typical operator competency
program—i.e. initial training generally
precedes certification and an operator
being determined competent by
employer evaluation.
The introductory text in proposed
paragraph (b) would require the
employer to provide operators-intraining with sufficient training to
ensure that they develop the skills,
knowledge, and judgment necessary to
safely operate equipment to perform
work. In addition, this proposed
requirement would specify that training
must include a combination of formal
and practical instruction.
OSHA notes that this paragraph (b)
does not mean that employers must
provide novice-level or redundant
training when they hire an experienced
operator as a new employee. Employers
must determine what level of practical
and formal training an operator-intraining would need under proposed
paragraph (b). Ultimately, the methods
chosen must be effective and responsive
to each operator’s training needs.
OSHA is proposing to remove the
introductory text in existing paragraph
(f). The existing introductory paragraph
contains the requirement that a noncertified employee may only operate as
an operator-in-training within the
limitations of paragraph (f), which
would be supplanted by the language in
proposed paragraphs § 1926.1427(a)(1)
and (b).
Most of the specific training
requirements in proposed paragraph (b)
would be identical or similar to the
existing training requirements. Proposed
paragraph (b)(1) requires the employer
to provide the operator-in-training with
instruction on the subjects in paragraph
(j). This requirement is identical to the
requirement in existing
§ 1926.1430(c)(1)—Operators-in-

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

23545

Training for equipment where
certification or qualification is required
by this subpart, although under the
proposed standard this duty continues
after the operator-in-training is
determined competent by employer
evaluation when the operator operates
new equipment or performs tasks that
require new skills or knowledge. An
individual may be a fully certified and
evaluated operator with respect to one
piece of equipment such that he or she
is allowed to operate that equipment
independently, but simultaneously be
an operator-in-training (and thus subject
to the operating restrictions in the
standard) with respect to different
equipment or tasks that require
significantly different skills or
knowledge.
Current section 1926.1427(j)—
Certification criteria specifies the
mandatory subject matter for third-party
licensing and certification, as
recommended by C–DAC. It requires a
written and a practical test.
Subparagraph (j)(1)(i) specifies areas of
information that must be covered by the
written certification test for the type of
crane that an individual will operate,
such as controls, operational/
performance characteristics, load
calculations, and ground conditions.
This subparagraph also references a
more comprehensive list of areas of
technical knowledge in Appendix C—
Operator Certification: Written
Examination: Technical Knowledge
Criteria. Subparagraph (j)(2) identifies
the operating skill areas that must be
covered by the practical certification
test.
OSHA preliminarily concludes that
operators-in-training should continue to
receive training in the subject matter
identified in this section as
recommended by C–DAC. However,
OSHA is proposing to relocate the
requirement in § 1926.1430(c)(1) to
proposed § 1926.1427(f) so that the
requirements for operators-in-training
may all be found in one place. New
language in proposed § 1926.1430—
Training, discussed separately below in
this preamble, would reference
proposed paragraph § 1926.1427(a) and
(b) rather than repeat the same
requirement.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2) requires the
employer to ensure that a trainer
continuously monitors operators-intraining during all crane operation. This
requirement is identical to the existing
requirement for continuous monitoring
under existing paragraph (f)(3).
Proposed paragraph (b)(3) requires the
employer to assign the operator-intraining only tasks that are within his or
her ability. This requirement is

E:\FR\FM\21MYP2.SGM

21MYP2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2

23546

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules

substantively identical to the
requirement under current paragraph
(f)(2). OSHA is proposing minor changes
to the language of this requirement to
clarify that it is the employer’s duty to
assign tasks to the operator-in-training.
OSHA is also proposing to relocate the
requirements of existing paragraph
(f)(1). The existing paragraph requires
the employer to provide each operatorin-training with training sufficient to
operate safely under the limitations of
existing paragraph (f). Its requirements
are retained in proposed paragraphs
(b)(1) and (b)(3), which state that the
operator-in-training must be trained on
the subject matter specified in
paragraph (j) of this section and may
only perform tasks that are within his or
her abilities.
Proposed paragraph (b)(3) retains the
limitations specified in existing
paragraph (f)(5), which preclude
operators-in-training from operating
equipment next to energized power
lines; from hoisting personnel; or from
performing multiple-equipment lifts,
multi-lift rigging operations, or lifts over
shafts, cofferdams or in a tank farm.
OSHA previously determined in the
2010 final rule that these equipment
operations and worksite conditions are
too complex, or present such heightened
risks, that it would be unreasonably
dangerous if an operator-in-training
were to operate the equipment in these
circumstances (75 FR 48024). However,
OSHA is considering revising these
limitations because they may have the
effect of preventing operators from
gaining the experience necessary to
conduct these lifts. It appears that even
certified operators may lack the
experience to perform crane operations
listed in § 1926.1427(b)(3), particularly
if the operator is subject to the operatorin-training prohibitions until he or she
is evaluated for competence at that skill.
OSHA requests public comment on
whether such restrictions are still
appropriate or whether they unduly
restrict the employer’s discretion to
allow experienced but uncertified, or
certified but unevaluated operators, the
opportunity to participate in even
monitored, on-the-job training for those
activities. The agency is particularly
interested in comments addressing how
employers have identified and
evaluated operators for these tasks, both
before and after the 2010 rule took
effect.
Proposed paragraph (b)(4) prescribes
minimum requirements for monitored
training of operators-in-training and
trainers who monitor operators-intraining. Proposed (b)(4)(i) specifies
requirements for the required trainer
which are similar to requirements in

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 May 18, 2018

Jkt 244001

paragraph (f)(3) of the existing standard.
Proposed paragraph (b)(4)(i)(A), which
requires the trainer to be the employee
or agent of the operator-in-training’s
employer, is identical to existing
subparagraph (f)(3)(i).
Proposed paragraph (b)(4)(i)(B)
requires that the trainer must ‘‘have the
knowledge, training, and experience
necessary to direct the operator-intraining on the equipment in use.’’ This
requirement is different from the
requirements of existing paragraph
§ 1926.1427(f)(3), which requires a
trainer to either be a certified operator
or to have passed the written part of a
certification test and have familiarity
with the equipment’s controls. This
proposal recognizes that some trainers
without certification may be competent
to teach or monitor the equipment
operations of an operator-in-training.
OSHA is proposing this change for
three reasons. First, OSHA has
preliminarily concluded that merely
requiring the trainer to have passed the
written part of a certification test is
insufficient to confirm a trainer’s ability
to train other operators. Existing
paragraph (f)(3) presumes that all
certified operators or individuals who
passed only written certification tests
have the skills to monitor an operatorin-training, but as explained above,
OSHA now believes that certification
alone is insufficient to ensure that
operators are competent to safely
operate a crane. Under this proposed
rule, even after the basic crane
knowledge and operating skills of
operators have been confirmed through
certification testing, employers must
still determine through evaluation if
operator training already provided is
sufficient or if more is necessary, based
on the complexity of equipment that
will be used and activity that will be
performed. Thus, requiring an
individual to pass a written certification
exam appears to be likewise insufficient
as the sole criterion for confirming a
trainer’s ability to monitor and train an
operator-in-training.
Second, OSHA has preliminarily
concluded that, using certification as
the sole criterion could actually impose
barriers to proper training to the extent
it excludes individuals who have
extensive operating experience and
familiarity with the controls of
particular equipment operated but may
not possess a certification for it. The
careers of experienced operators may
naturally progress to training other
operators as their physical abilities
begin to diminish. Under the existing
trainer requirements, an experienced
but uncertified operator may have to be
monitored by less experienced but

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

certified individual or one that has
merely passed the written certification
exam. For these reasons, allowing only
certified operators in these training
roles, on its face, appears to be
inconsistent with an industry practice of
pairing inexperienced operators with
experienced trainers who monitor the
safety and professional development of
the inexperienced operator.
Third, OSHA concluded that passing
a written certification test is not a
definitive indicator of safe training
practices in the industry and requiring
certification of all trainers could
significantly alter many existing work
practices in the industry. Stakeholder
feedback suggests that many different
employees or agents of an employer fill
the role of a trainer under certain
circumstances. Some formal training
might be administered by someone with
extensive knowledge of a particular
make and model of crane. For example,
some crane manufacturers offer
technical training to their customers
regarding the operation, maintenance,
and troubleshooting of cranes they sell
(see Reports #4, 5, 13 of ID–0673). Onthe-job training, by contrast, is often
administered by a seasoned crane
operator with years of experience (see
Reports #1, 2, 19, 23, 28 of ID–0673) or
in some cases by a retired operator (see
Report #26 of ID–0673). In addition, an
employer might employ an experienced
safety manager, foreman, or site
manager to monitor some work
activities, or an experienced small
business owner might fill the role of
trainer in some cases (see Reports #1, 2,
15, 26 of ID–0673). And OSHA spoke
with three companies that offer other
employers private training from
experienced operators who are also
qualified instructors (see Reports #20,
21, 22 of ID–0673). In sum, stakeholders
reported that some individuals who
have the necessary knowledge, training,
and experience to direct the operator-intraining do not possess a certification
and possibly could not pass formal
testing for a variety of reasons.
Thus, although some public
commenters at the March 31–April 1,
2015 ACCSH meeting supported
requiring trainers to possess a
certification, OSHA proposes to adopt
language similar to the requirement in
ASME B30.5 (2014) at 5–3.1.2(e) that
training be performed by a ‘‘designated
person who, by experience and training,
fulfills the requirements of a qualified
person.’’ Under the proposed language,
employers would have some flexibility
in determining the level of knowledge
and experience that the trainer must
possess based on the skill level of the
operator-in-training and the nature of

E:\FR\FM\21MYP2.SGM

21MYP2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules
the activity performed. OSHA expects
that in many cases, the trainer will
possess a certification. However, the
proposal leaves open the possibility that
the trainer’s experience with the task
and equipment used could be sufficient
for experienced personnel to provide
training even absent a certification. For
example, an uncertified person who has
significant experience operating the
particular equipment used during the
training may have more insight into the
function of its controls and the nuances
of its operation than someone who is
certified for that type of equipment but
has never operated that particular
equipment. OSHA concludes that this
performance-based language, which is
similar to the qualified person
definition that is familiar to the
construction industry, could give
employers the flexibility to select and
assign trainers who are appropriate to
the skills and needs of their operatorsin-training, while ensuring that these
trainers possess an ability to train
operators-in-training that goes beyond
mere certification.
OSHA requests comment on this
proposed revision of existing trainer
requirements. Should OSHA retain the
requirement that trainers possess a
certification or at least pass the written
certification exam while adding a new
additional requirement that the trainer
possess the knowledge, training, and
experience to direct the operator-intraining? Should trainers also be
evaluated under proposed paragraph (f)?
Should certification alone be considered
sufficient evidence that an individual
has the knowledge, experience, and
training to be a trainer? Why or why
not? If certification is not sufficient,
please provide specific
recommendations for additional
qualifications. For example, if the
assertion is that a trainer should have
previous experience operating
equipment, it would be helpful to
specify what kind of experience and
how much: Should a specific number of
seat hours be required? Should
experience with the same type of
equipment be sufficient, or should the
trainer have previously operated that
particular equipment (and if so, for how
long)?
Proposed paragraph (b)(4)(ii) prohibits
the trainer from performing any task
that detracts from his or her ability to
monitor the operator-in-training. It is
identical to existing paragraph (f)(3)(iii).
Proposed paragraph (b)(4)(iii) requires
the operator’s trainer and the operatorin-training to be in each other’s direct
line of sight, and that they communicate
verbally or with hand signals. This
requirement is substantively the same as

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 May 18, 2018

Jkt 244001

existing paragraph (f)(3)(iv), with minor
simplifying language changes. The
proposal relocates this provision to an
independent subparagraph to clarify
that the employer has the ultimate
responsibility for ensuring compliance
with this requirement. This proposed
paragraph also provides an exception
for tower cranes; the trainer and
operator-in-training must be in direct
communication with each other, but are
not required to maintain a direct line of
sight because the height of the
operator’s station may make it
infeasible. (See also, the discussion of
existing paragraph (f)(3)(iv) in the
preamble to the final cranes standard at
75 FR 48024). This exclusion is also
substantively the same as existing
paragraph (f)(3)(iv), with minor
simplifying language changes.
Proposed paragraph (b)(4)(iv) requires
that an operator-in-training be
monitored while operating the
equipment at all times except for short
breaks and retains the conditions
specified under existing paragraph (f)(4)
for that monitoring. Proposed paragraph
(b)(4)(iv)(A) requires that a break can
last no longer than 15 minutes and can
occur no more than once per hour.
Proposed paragraph (b)(4)(iv)(B)
requires the employer to ensure that the
trainer and operator-in-training
communicate about the tasks, if any,
that can and cannot be performed in the
trainer’s absence while on break.
Proposed paragraph (b)(4)(iv)(C) limits
tasks performed during the trainer’s
break to only those that are within the
abilities of the operator-in-training.
Proposed paragraph (b)(5) requires the
employer to provide retraining when,
based on the performance of the
operator or an assessment of the
operator’s knowledge, there is an
indication that retraining is necessary.
This language is identical to the
requirement in existing
§ 1926.1430(g)(2) but would be included
in proposed paragraph (b) to consolidate
all substantive training requirements to
the extent practical for operators
covered under § 1926.1427. Because the
requirements of § 1926.1430(g) apply
more broadly to all employees covered
by this standard, however, OSHA is not
proposing to delete that requirement
from § 1926.1430(g). Thus, identical
language will appear in two different
paragraphs of the proposed standard.
This retraining requirement is
consistent with the retraining described
as already implemented by employers
who spoke with OSHA during
interviews and site visits (see Reports
#1, 2, 3, 15, 18, 19, 22, 26 of ID–0673).
Note that the need for retraining under
proposed paragraph (b)(5) would also

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

23547

trigger the requirement for reevaluation
under proposed paragraph (f)(5) (see
also preamble discussion below of
paragraph (f)—Evaluation).
Paragraph (c) Operator Certification and
Licensing
At the ACCSH meeting on March 31–
April 1, 2015, ACCSH members
unanimously recommended that OSHA
move forward with a rulemaking that
retained certification while permanently
extending the employer’s duty to ensure
the competency of operators. Proposed
paragraph (c) retains the certification
and licensing structure of the existing
standard with only a few minor
modifications intended to improve
comprehension of certification/licensing
requirements.
First, OSHA proposes to move the
military qualification provisions of
existing § 1926.1427(e)(4) to the
proposed exception in paragraph (a), as
noted earlier.
Second, OSHA proposes to remove
the somewhat misleading reference to
an ‘‘option’’ with respect to mandatory
compliance with existing state and local
licensing requirements. When a state or
local government issues operator
licenses for equipment covered under
subpart CC, and that government
licensing program meets the
requirements specified in the standard,
then employers must ensure that
equipment operators are properly
licensed when working in the state or
local jurisdiction, even if the operator is
also certified by a nationally accredited
certification organization.
The content of proposed paragraph
(c)(1) is virtually identical to provisions
in existing § 1926.1427(e)(2), with one
exception: Proposed (c)(1)(v). For a
more detailed explanation for the other
provisions in this paragraph, see the
preamble to the final subpart CC rule for
§ 1926.1427(e)(2) at 75 FR 48021–23
(August 9, 2010).
Proposed § 1926.1427(c)(1)(v) states
that licensing must specify the ‘‘type, or
type and capacity’’ of equipment for
which the certification is applicable.
OSHA is proposing this specification
that state and local licenses specify the
type of crane in order to clarify the
obligation under the existing standard
and facilitate enforcement. In existing
§ 1926.1427(e)(2)(i), OSHA requires a
licensing program to include at
minimum, an assessment of the
knowledge and skills listed in paragraph
(j). Paragraph (j)(1)(i) requires an
individual to know the information
necessary for safe operation of the
specific type of equipment the
individual will operate. If the license
does not identify a specific type of

E:\FR\FM\21MYP2.SGM

21MYP2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2

23548

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules

equipment, it is more difficult to
determine whether the operator
possesses the knowledge required under
(j)(1). OSHA solicits comments on
whether compliance with this
requirement would necessitate a
significant change to any state or local
licensing program.
The ‘‘type, or type and capacity’’
language was requested by Crane
Institute Certification and recommended
by ACCSH. The language was proposed
to make clear that while all certifying
bodies must certify by type of crane in
order for their certifications to meet
OSHA’s requirements, they may also
choose to specify different levels of
crane capacity for their certifications.
Although OSHA is proposing this
language as requested, it invites
comment on whether the language ‘‘or
type and capacity’’ should be removed
in the final rule. OSHA would recognize
a certification that lists the type of crane
on which an operator has been certified,
whether or not it also lists a capacity, as
a compliant certification (assuming that
the certification also meets the
requirement of this standard). For
example, if a crane operator certification
showed that an operator was certified to
operate a tower crane, the certification
would be valid because it lists the type
of crane on which the operator was
certified. Whether the capacity of the
crane was also listed would not affect
whether OSHA would consider the
certification compliant. OSHA invites
comment in particular on whether
including ‘‘capacity’’ in this provision
could confuse the industry as to
whether capacity is required for a state
or local license to be valid under
§ 1926.1427, particularly in light of the
fact that one purpose of this proposal is
to remove the capacity requirement
from certification (see the Need for a
Rule section above).
In the existing standard, OSHA frames
the state/local licensing process through
a structure parallel to the model in
which third-party certification
organizations are accredited by a
nationally recognized accrediting body.
In the proposed rule, OSHA’s approach
would be simpler: Proposed paragraph
(c)(1) would directly require states or
localities to meet certain criteria in
order for their operator licenses to be
enforceable by OSHA. If these minimum
‘‘federal floor’’ criteria are not met, then
OSHA would deem those licenses
insufficient and would not require
employers to comply with those
licenses.
The remainder of the requirements of
proposed paragraph (c)(1) are
substantively the same as those in
§§ 1926.1427(a)(1), (a)(2), and (e) of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 May 18, 2018

Jkt 244001

existing rule, except that OSHA
combined the requirements of those
three paragraphs into one paragraph and
clarified some of the language to
facilitate better comprehension of state
or local government entity
requirements.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2) specifies
the certification requirements for two
remaining situations: The construction
occurs in a state or local jurisdiction
that does not require licensing of
equipment operators, or the
construction occurs in a state or local
jurisdiction where the licensing
program does not meet the ‘‘federal
floor’’ of requirements established in
this standard. In each of those
situations, the operator would have to
be certified in accordance with
proposed paragraph (d) (third-party
certification) or (e) (audited employer
program) of this section. Proposed
paragraph (c)(2) is identical to existing
§ 1926.1427(a)(2), except that it
references only the paragraphs
containing criteria for certification by an
accredited testing organization and an
audited employer program—and not the
option for qualification by the U.S.
military which would be addressed as a
scope exclusion in proposed paragraph
(a)(3). Proposed paragraphs (d) and (e),
discussed later, correspond to existing
paragraphs § 1926.1427(b) and (c),
respectively.
Proposed Paragraph (c)(3)—Employer
Payment for Certification and Licensing
Proposed paragraph (c)(3) would
require employers to provide the
required certification or licensing at no
cost to employees. This proposed
requirement is almost identical to that
of § 1926.1427(a)(4) of the existing rule,
except that it has been revised to clarify
that it applies to all operators certified
or licensed after the effective date of the
new standard, not just those operators
who were ‘‘employed by the employer
on November 8, 2010,’’ as existing
§ 1926.1427(a)(4) states.9 This proposed
requirement would then be in line with,
and be enforced similarly to, other
OSHA provisions that require
employers to provide personal
protective equipment, medical
examinations, or other functions at no
9 Existing § 1926.1427(a)(4) requires employers to
provide ‘‘the qualification or certification’’ at no
cost to the employees. Because existing
§ 1926.1427(a)(1) mandates that employers ensure
that all operators are ‘‘qualified or certified to
operate the equipment in accordance with the
following,’’ the required state or local licensing
must constitute a form of qualification or
certification. Thus, employers are currently
required to pay for state or local licensing of their
operators when those licenses are required by
OSHA.

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

cost to the employees. The requirement
would also be consistent with the way
in which OSHA assessed costs in the
2010 economic analysis. In the final
economic analysis of subpart CC, OSHA
modeled all of the costs for compliance
with the existing certification
requirements as if all employers always
paid for the certifications they provide
for operators. Note, however, that this
provision would not mandate an
employer to maintain its employment of
an employee/operator who cannot pass
certification testing or who is not a good
operator candidate. Furthermore, an
employee who does not possess a
certification may still be allowed by the
employer to operate a crane indefinitely,
but only as an operator-in-training and
through the employer’s compliance with
all requirements of proposed paragraph
(b) of this section.
Proposed Paragraph (c)(4)—Single
Entity Permitted To Provide Training
and Testing
Proposed paragraph (c)(4) would
retain, without change, the content of
existing § 1926.1427(g), which states
that a testing entity is permitted to
provide training as well as testing
services as long as the criteria of the
applicable accrediting agency (in the
option selected) for an organization
providing both services are met.
Paragraph (d) Certification by an
Accredited Crane Operator Testing
Organization
As noted above, proposed paragraph
(c)(2) provides two options for
certification: Compliance with proposed
paragraph (d) (third-party certification)
or proposed paragraph (e) (audited
employer program). Compliance with
the requirements of proposed paragraph
(d) is the option that OSHA expects the
vast majority of employers to use.
Proposed paragraph (d) retains, with
some non-substantive language
clarification and two exceptions
discussed below, the requirements of
existing paragraph § 1926.1427(b).
First, the most significant change is
that the proposal replaces the references
to certification by ‘‘type and capacity’’
that appear in existing sub-paragraph
(b)(1)(ii)(B) and (b)(2) with ‘‘type, or
type and capacity’’ as recommended by
ACCSH (see OSHA–2015–0002–0037
pg. 71). The need for this change is
explained in the ‘‘Need for a Rule’’
section of this preamble. This proposed
revision will remove the requirement to
obtain a certification for a designated
crane capacity, but also clarify in
regulatory text that OSHA considers
testing organizations whose programs
provide certifications that specify ‘‘type

E:\FR\FM\21MYP2.SGM

21MYP2

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules
and capacity’’ equally acceptable. One
testing organization expressed concerns
that the clarification is needed to
prevent confusion about this particular
certification requirement. OSHA’s
concerns about adding this language are
noted above in the preamble discussion
for paragraph (c)(1), and the Agency
seeks comment on whether to include
the language ‘‘type, or type and
capacity’’ in this standard.
Second, the proposal does not include
the reference in existing § 1427(b)(2) to
an employee being ‘‘deemed qualified’’
to operate equipment under certain
conditions if no accredited testing
organization offers certification
examinations for a specific type of
equipment. Instead, the proposal states
that the operator would be ‘‘deemed
certified.’’ The latter proposed change
would help to avoid the misconception
that an operator could be considered
competent to safely operate equipment
without also being evaluated and
determined competent by the operator’s
employer.10 All other provisions in
proposed paragraph (d) are unchanged
from existing paragraph (b), and
discussion and justification of these
provisions can be found in the preamble
to the final cranes standard (75 FR
48017). OSHA solicits comment on the
proposed changes encompassed in
proposed paragraph § 1926.1427(d).
OSHA is considering deleting the
requirement for operator recertification
every five years and solicits public
comments about whether this
requirement is necessary, or
alternatively, whether compliance with
proposed §§ 1926.1427(b)(5)—
Retraining, and 1926.1427(f)(5)—Reevaluation, would be sufficient to
ensure operators continue to operate
cranes safely after being certified,
trained, and evaluated. During its many
conversations with stakeholders about
crane operator mentoring and periodic
assessment, OSHA heard that frequent
monitoring, employer feedback, and
assessment of an operator’s proficiency
on the job are industry-recognized work
practices (see site visit discussion in
Background section). Similarly, most
employers who spoke with OSHA

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2

10 OSHA

had included the ‘‘deemed qualified’’
language simply as a means of clarifying that an
operator would be considered qualified to operate
a crane of the same capacity or less than the one
on which the operator was tested. The use of
‘‘qualified’’ instead of ‘‘certified’’ at that time was
mean to reflect the varying paths to compliance
with the standard: Certification through a third
party or employer-audited program, or other
qualification through a state or licensing program or
meeting the requirements specified by the U.S.
military. In this proposed rule, OSHA has
simplified the language of the standard to refer to
certification, so ‘‘deemed certified’’ now conveys
the same meaning.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 May 18, 2018

Jkt 244001

explained that their operator
competency programs provide their
operators with updates regarding any
new information about equipment and
changes to federal, state, and local
government regulations as well as any
changes in company policies. None of
these employers expressed concerns
about operators losing their basic
knowledge and operating skills after
periods of inactivity.
Paragraph (e) Audited Employer
Program
The substantive content of proposed
paragraph (e) is the same as existing
§ 1926.1427(c). It sets out the parameters
for a nonportable certification program
administered by the employer and
audited by a third party. The proposed
changes to the regulatory text for the
audited employer program are to
remove the word ‘‘qualification’’ and to
replace three cross references with
updated references to their new
locations in the proposed rule.
OSHA’s proposal to remove the
reference to ‘‘qualification’’ from the
heading of the paragraph changes the
product of the employer program from
a ‘‘qualification’’ of the operator to a
‘‘certification’’ of the operator. OSHA is
removing the reference to
‘‘qualification’’ because of the
misconception by some that it signaled
full competency, rather than its
intended meaning as an equivalent to
certification. The employer audited
program would continue to be an
alternative to certification by an
independent third party.
Three cross references would be
changed. First, the reference in existing
§ 1926.1427(c)(1)(i) to ‘‘paragraph (b)’’
will be revised to ‘‘paragraph (d)’’ in the
proposed rule. Second, the reference in
existing § 1926.1427(c)(1)(ii)(A) to
‘‘paragraph (b)’’ will be revised to
‘‘paragraph (d).’’ Finally, the reference
in existing § 1926.1427(c)(4) to
‘‘paragraphs (c)(1) and (2)’’ will be
revised to ‘‘paragraphs (e)(1) and (2).’’
OSHA solicits comment on the
proposed variations from the existing
§ 1926.1427(c).
Paragraph (f) Evaluation
Proposed paragraph (f) sets out
specific requirements that employers
must follow to conduct an operator
evaluation, including evaluation
criteria, minimum qualifications for the
person conducting the evaluation,
documentation, and re-evaluation
requirements.
The rationale for proposing the
evaluation requirement is explained
earlier in the ‘‘Need for a Rule’’ section
of this preamble; the discussion here

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

23549

focuses on OSHA’s rationale for when
and how the evaluations would be
conducted. OSHA’s goal in proposed
paragraph (f) is to give employers
flexibility to conduct evaluations in the
course of normal business, but at the
same time to provide enough specificity
to ensure that an evaluation satisfies the
minimum criteria necessary to ensure
safe operators. OSHA requests comment
on the proposed process for crane
operator evaluation, and, as explained
in more detail below, any of the specific
requirements of this proposed
paragraph.
Proposed paragraph (f)(1) requires
employers to evaluate their operators
and specifies the two goals of the
evaluation: Ensure that the operator has
(i) the necessary skills, knowledge, and
judgment to safely operate the actual
equipment that will be used, and (2) the
ability to safely perform the assigned
work. These performance-based
evaluations are intended to be more
directly focused on the operator’s actual
work than the general knowledge and
skills tested during the certification
process.
In developing the performance-based
evaluation criteria, OSHA considered
the training requirements in the
powered industrial truck operator
training standard at subpart O—Motor
Vehicles, etc., § 1926.600, which
incorporates the requirements of
§ 1910.178(l). That standard requires the
employer to evaluate a powered
industrial truck operator’s performance
as it relates to several topics at least
once every three years. Powered
industrial trucks share many of the same
operating hazards as cranes, such as
those related to ground conditions, load
limits, and hazards in the area
surrounding the equipment. But
powered industrial trucks are generally
far less complex, smaller, and less
hazardous pieces of equipment in terms
of the extent to which they expose other
employees to their risks.
OSHA considered, but has
preliminarily decided against specifying
particular operator skills that the
employer must evaluate because those
skills could vary significantly based on
the complexity of the equipment and
work to be performed. Almost all
employers OSHA spoke to said that
when they observe operators handling
loads at construction work sites they
can tell whether the operators appear
competent. At worksites, most
employers are accustomed to assessing
operator skills because having
competent operators that can safely and
productively handle loads quickly,
smoothly, and without corrections,
eliminates injuries and reduces costs.

E:\FR\FM\21MYP2.SGM

21MYP2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2

23550

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules

Operators who move the load too
quickly or repeatedly make sharp,
corrective steps may not have full
control over the load at all times, which
can lead to worker injuries and
increased costs. But OSHA’s analysis of
the ACCSH public comments confirmed
that it would be difficult to capture in
a regulatory scheme all criteria
necessary to determine an operator’s
ability to safely operate a type of crane
for all possible conditions on a
construction site.
For these reasons, the proposed rule
retains the performance-based character
of the existing evaluation requirements
in § 1926.1427(k)(2)(i), but makes clear
that the operator must possess the
necessary skills, knowledge, and
judgment to operate ‘‘the equipment’’
safely. The skills, knowledge, and
judgment must be relevant to the actual
crane or other covered equipment to be
used. Employers must ensure that the
operator demonstrates his or her
knowledge of essential crane-related
information and applies it to operate
that crane safely. This information
consists of facts and characteristics of
equipment and operations, which can
be learned in a classroom setting, and
hands-on knowledge of equipment
operation and hoisting techniques,
learned at work sites. For example, the
operator must not only know what each
control does and where it is located, but
also how and when to use particular
controls or operational aids. Much of
the subject matter on which the
operators must be evaluated is specified
in the testing criteria listed in paragraph
(j), but it is critical to ensuring safety
that the employer evaluation is
equipment and task-specific. For
example, an experienced and certified
operator may have previously
demonstrated the ability to lift a crate of
materials onto a roof using one crane,
but if the company gets a new crane that
has different controls the employer
would need to evaluate the operator’s
knowledge and skill at using the new
controls in the new crane (note that the
employer would not need to re-evaluate
the operator’s general knowledge about
crane operations). If a less-experienced
operator has already been evaluated for
operation of a new model of crane, but
has only used that equipment to hoist
packaged materials, the employer would
likely need to evaluate the operator’s
ability to control a wrecking ball
attachment before allowing that operator
to use the wrecking ball in a demolition
project (note that the employer would
not need to re-evaluate that operator’s
knowledge of the controls or general
operation of the crane).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 May 18, 2018

Jkt 244001

Stakeholders who spoke with OSHA
said that most employers are already
able to determine the subject matter and
crane knowledge that their operators
need to safely perform hoisting
activities with their cranes. Although
operator competency evaluations
conducted by many employers may
already exceed that of certification
testing, compliance with this proposed
provision would ensure that all operator
evaluations cover subject matter that is
specific to the equipment used and the
construction activities performed.
OSHA’s proposed requirement for workspecific skills, knowledge, and
judgment should help to encourage
consistency throughout the industry in
confirming the basic knowledge and
operating skills of all operators in
construction work. As explained in the
Background section, certification tests
conducted by accredited testing
organizations are not designed to
function as the evaluations required by
this proposed section and the
certification subject matter would most
likely not cover all that is needed to
assure safe crane operations on specific
construction sites. For example, a
certification test may examine a
potential operator’s knowledge of
ground conditions suitable for a
particular type of crane, but not
examine whether an operator can
assemble the specific type of crane that
will be operated on those ground
conditions.
Proposed (f)(1)(i) also requires
employers to evaluate the operator’s
judgment. An equipment operator, as a
designated competent person, must
frequently make determinations
regarding the safety of crane operation.
The term ‘‘judgment’’ used in this
proposed provision refers to not only an
operator’s ability to apply the
knowledge and skill that he or she
possess, but also an operator’s ability to
recognize risky or unusual conditions
that call for additional action such as reevaluating a lift plan, stopping work, or
asking for the help of another competent
and/or qualified person. The term
‘‘judgment’’ connotes the ‘‘successfully
demonstrated ability’’ of a ‘‘qualified
person,’’ as defined by OSHA’s
standards in § 1926.1401, ‘‘to solve/
resolve problems relating to the subject
matter, the work, or the project’’ and the
capability of a ‘‘competent person’’ to
identify ‘‘existing and predictable
hazards.’’
OSHA solicits public comments about
the decision not to provide more
specific objective criteria for evaluation
of crane operators. If specific criteria
should be specified, what should be
required for all operators that would

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

cover the majority of crane operations
but not be duplicative of the subject
matter tested during the operator
certification process? OSHA also,
requests comments regarding whether
‘‘judgment’’ should be included as a
quality of an operator that should be
considered when employers evaluate
operator competency. Is there a better
concept or term that captures that aspect
of an operator’s ability to apply his or
her knowledge and skills to make
determinations related to the overall
safety of crane operations?
Proposed subparagraph (f)(1)(i) also
specifies that the operator’s knowledge,
skills, and judgment must be ‘‘specific
to the safety devices, operational aids,
software, and the size and configuration
of the equipment.’’ This list of
equipment characteristics, which
stakeholders identified as critical for
safe operation, is not comprehensive,
but would provide employers guidance
about some basic characteristics of
equipment that might require different
levels of knowledge and operating
skills. For example, the employer must
verify that the operator knows enough
about how the safety devices,
operational aides, and software work on
a particular crane. The operator must be
able to apply that knowledge to
recognize when the particular
characteristics of the equipment may
contribute to potentially unsafe
conditions or operations and use good
judgment to determine how to safely
proceed. Such a determination might
include using operating skills to safely
land or maintain a suspended load, or
simply refusing to hoist the load until
the safety issue is addressed.
OSHA is including equipment
software in this list because many
stakeholders noted that operators must
have the skills to use a computerized
operating system if the crane has one
(Reports #2, 4, 18, 21 of ID–0673) and
that specific operating systems (Reports
#4, 9, 13, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24 of ID–0673)
or cranes by different manufacturers
(Reports #4, 6, 13, 16, 18, 21, 24 of ID–
0673) can require different skills or
knowledge. Indeed, newer cranes often
have integrated computer systems to
protect workers and the crane.
Operators must understand how these
systems prevent damage to the crane,
especially if the crane can be operated
with the system turned off. That is not
the only issue with newer cranes that
may require evaluation. One
construction company that also
provides crane operator training noted
that the materials used to make some
new cranes can be more ‘‘brittle,’’
meaning that they have reduced safety
factors and allow for less room for error

E:\FR\FM\21MYP2.SGM

21MYP2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules
(Report #21 of ID–0673). Exceeding
these operating tolerances can lead to
structural equipment failure such as a
crane collapse or tipover, so evaluating
operators to ensure that they understand
how to avoid exceeding specified
tolerances is critical.
OSHA is including boom length in the
list of characteristics because longer
booms may require specialized depth
perception skills or may be harder to
control (Reports #2, 3, 22 of ID–0673).
OSHA notes that at least one
certification testing organization uses
different boom lengths as a proxy for
changing the capacity of the crane
because the boom length can have a
significant impact on the performance of
the crane (see OSHA–2007–0066–0521,
p. 268–69).
The stakeholders OSHA interviewed
also identified crane configurations
(Reports #4, 6, 11, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25
of ID–0673); the use of attachments
(Reports #6, 18, 19, 20 of ID–0673); and
the use specific safety devices and
operational aids such as those listed in
§ 1926.1416 Operational aids (Report
#21 of ID–0673) as important crane
characteristics that can require unique
skills, knowledge, or judgment. An
operator’s ability to handle the
equipment’s particular size and
configuration, which include lifting
capacity, boom length, attachments, use
of a luffing jib, and counterweight set up
is essential to crane safety at worksites.
For example, one crane rental company
employer noted that sorting cranes by
capacity alone is challenging because
configurations, such as whether the
crane has a basic boom, a specialized
boom for heavy lifts, or a luffing jib,
affects the skills needed to run the crane
(Report #6 of ID–0673). For these
reasons, OSHA is including examples of
crane configurations for employers to
consider as factors for operator
competency evaluations.
Although OSHA has preliminarily
determined, for the reasons above, not
to require certification by capacity,
employers must consider crane lifting
capacity as part of its evaluation of an
operator’s knowledge, skills, and
judgment with respect to the size and
configuration of the equipment. Most of
the stakeholders who spoke with OSHA
agreed that important differences in
individual cranes go beyond the type of
crane, and that different cranes will
often require different skills or
familiarity to operate, even if they are
the same type (Reports #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23,
24, 25, 26 of ID–0673). In particular, a
number of stakeholder comments
indicated that the same type of crane
could have different safety-critical

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 May 18, 2018

Jkt 244001

characteristics that vary according to a
number of factors that can (but not
always) correspond to a different
‘‘capacity,’’ including boom length,
attachments, use of a luffing jib, and
counterweight set up, as explained
above. Equipment ‘‘capacity’’
accordingly could impact an operator’s
ability to safely control the load at a
worksite because variations in capacity
can significantly change operation of the
crane. Thus, while employers need not
have their operators certified by
capacity under the proposal, they must
account for differences in crane capacity
when evaluating their operators.
Employers must consider still other
differences with respect to operating the
equipment. An operator who previously
demonstrated competence in operating a
small crane to hoist materials to and off
of buildings being demolished does not
necessarily have the knowledge and
operating skills needed to safely swing
a wrecking ball to demolish the same
building. The physics of swinging a
wrecking ball into a building, which can
lead to equipment failure due to side
loading or shock loading the boom, are
different from smoothly controlling a
load, which does not present these
hazards. Similarly, an operator who has
operated a crane in support of pile
driving work, using pile driving
attachments, does not necessarily have
the skills necessary to smoothly control
and place steel members suspended by
multi-lift rigging or to safely control a
suspended personnel platform.
Based on the information collected to
date, it would be very difficult, if not
impossible, to specify in regulatory text
a definitive list of minimum equipment
characteristics that an operator
competency evaluation must cover to
ensure operators are competent to safely
operate equipment in all of its possible
configurations. In addition, many public
commenters at the 2015 ACCSH meeting
explained that it would be very
burdensome and costly for them to
make available and set-up equipment to
watch an employee safely operate the
equipment for all possible crane
configurations and worksite activities.
Therefore, the proposed requirement
enables employers to focus on the
equipment used and the tasks to be
performed, and allows employers some
flexibility in determining which
characteristics require separate
evaluation. For example, once an
employer has successfully evaluated an
experienced operator using a hydraulic
truck crane with a clamshell attachment
to scoop dirt, the employer could
conduct a very limited evaluation when
the operator is to perform a similar task
using a truck crane manufactured by a

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

23551

different company that has the controls
in different places but is otherwise the
same. The employer’s evaluation could
focus exclusively on the operator’s
familiarity with the controls in their
different locations.
OSHA requests public comments on
the decision to include, and the
appropriateness of listing examples of,
factors that can affect an operator’s
ability to safely operate a crane. Are
there examples of other factors, safety
devices, or configurations that should be
included in the regulatory text or noted
in the explanation of the rule? Instead
of the examples provided in proposed
§ 1926.1427(f)(1), is there a definitive
list of characteristics of equipment that
should be minimally required for
competency evaluations of all operators
that would cover the majority of crane
operations typically performed by
operators?
Several stakeholders who spoke with
OSHA recognized other skills that they
believe are important to crane operator
safety. These included mastery of set-up
or building and dismantling the
equipment (Reports #3, 4, 5, 15, 16, 17,
18 of ID–0673), rigging (Reports #2, 6,
15, 17, 18 of ID–0673), signaling
(Reports #2, 6, 15, 14, 18 of ID–0673),
inspections (Reports #5, 13, 15, 17 of
ID–0673), and lift planning (Report #18
of ID–0673). Some employers also
emphasized the importance of driving
skills for mobile cranes (Reports #2, 3,
6, 9 of ID–0673). OSHA considered
requiring the evaluation to cover these
crane-related skills, but ultimately did
not include them in the proposed
requirements for several reasons. To
some degree they are broadly applicable
knowledge requirements that are not
necessarily equipment-specific and are
therefore already appropriately
addressed as formal or classroom
learning requirements for certification
testing subject areas in paragraph (j) and
non-mandatory Appendix C. In
addition, there are requirements for
ground conditions, assembly and
disassembly, signaling, rigging,
inspections, and power line work in
other sections of subpart CC. Operators
may not be assigned to perform these
activities unless they are trained to
safely perform activities in accordance
with the applicable sections of subpart
CC. Similarly, over the road driving is
regulated by federal and state
transportation authorities. OSHA
requests comment on whether these
crane-related activities should also be
included in proposed paragraph (f)(1) as
examples of activities that might need to
be covered in the required evaluation of
crane operators? Please provide your

E:\FR\FM\21MYP2.SGM

21MYP2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2

23552

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules

rationale and any information or data
you have to support your position.
Proposed subparagraph (f)(1)(ii)
requires the employer to evaluate the
operator’s ability to perform hoisting
activities required for assigned work,
including, if applicable, special skills
needed for activities like blind lifts,
personnel hoisting, or lifts involving
more than one crane. This list of
activities is not exclusive, but rather
provides examples of lifts for which an
employer must evaluate the operator’s
ability. The words ‘‘if applicable’’ are
used to indicate that employers must
evaluate operators only for the types of
lifts they will perform and not all
possible variants of hoisting procedures.
As noted earlier, OSHA considered
the training requirements of the
powered industrial truck standard
(§ 1910.178(l)) as a model when
developing the evaluation requirements
in this proposed standard. That
standard requires that employers
evaluate an operator’s ability to perform
job-specific tasks that include
‘‘workplace-related topics,’’ and
refresher training when there are
changes in a workplace condition that
could affect safe operation of the truck
(§ 1910.178(l)). Proposed paragraph
(f)(1)(ii) similarly requires the
evaluation of an operator to cover the
workplace aspects of the operator’s job,
including the specific hoisting activities
that he or she will perform.
Stakeholders who spoke with OSHA
asserted that the performance of
different types of work sometimes
requires different skill sets. Many
employers currently evaluate their
operators based not only on their
knowledge and skills regarding specific
characteristics of the equipment, but
also on their operators’ ability to
perform specific tasks with the
equipment (Reports #1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10,
13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26 of
ID–0673). Several of those stakeholders
noted specific examples of operational
challenges that may require additional
operator skills to ensure safe operations.
One crane rental company stated that if
an operator who spends a year on a
large project with repetitive work is
then moved to a different job that
involves different lifts and set-ups every
day, that individual may not be
competent to do some of that kind of
work (Report #6 of ID–0673). A
residential construction employer stated
that residential jobs can be especially
challenging to crane operators because
lifts must be performed on previously
disturbed soil, which can cause the
cranes to lose stability and may
necessitate special preparations and
operations under some worksite

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 May 18, 2018

Jkt 244001

conditions. However, this employer also
said that residential construction crane
operators might not gain necessary
experience performing blind lifts or
lifting heavy/unstable loads that may be
typical to operating a crane on
commercial projects (Report #16 of ID–
0673). A larger construction employer
stated that it includes job-specific
components in its evaluation of
operators to ensure that operators have
the ability to work on/around
underground utilities and power lines
(Report #18 of ID–0673). Finally, a crane
operator training company noted that
operators may require significant
practice to develop the ability to control
a dragline or performing operations with
a clamshell or bucket attachment
(Report #20 of ID–0673).
OSHA requests comment on all
aspects of proposed paragraph (f)(1). Are
the components for evaluating an
operator’s ability in subparagraphs
(f)(1)(i) and (ii) sufficiently clear? Does
this requirement afford the employer
sufficient flexibility to evaluate
operators in the course of day-to-day
work? Why or why not? Please provide
any information or data you have to
support your position.
Proposed paragraph (f)(2) establishes
minimum criteria for the person who
performs the required evaluation of an
operator-in-training. The evaluation
must be conducted by an individual
who possesses the knowledge, training,
and experience necessary to assess
operators. This standard affords some
flexibility to employers. An evaluator
could be, for example, a current or
former operator who is also trained to
assess equipment operators. The key,
however, much like the criteria for the
person performing training and
evaluation of operators under the
powered industrial truck operator
training standard (§ 1910.178(1)(2)(iii)),
is that the evaluator possess the
requisite knowledge, training, and
experience for assessing an operator’s
knowledge, skill, judgment, and ability.
Such knowledge, training, and
experience is not necessarily the same
as the knowledge, training, and
experience to perform the particular
construction operations or processes
oneself.
Stakeholders spoke with OSHA at site
visits and meetings about how they
comply with the existing duty described
in § 1926.1427(k)(2)(i). Several of those
companies specifically employ
individuals to assess operators (Reports
#18, 22 of ID–0673). A large
construction company with a very
robust and formal evaluation process
has ‘‘Authorized Examiners’’ who
perform evaluations of operator

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

applicants for the company. These are
personnel with significant experience
and training, including completion of
crane operator certification and rigger
courses (Report #18 of ID–0673). In
many other cases, the evaluations are
performed by other personnel such as
experienced riggers, maintenance
personnel, signal personnel, or
tradesmen who have the necessary
experience or training to conduct this
assessment (Reports #1, 2, 3, 6, 15, 16,
20, 23 of ID–0673). Day-to-day
assessment of an operator’s performance
may be conducted by a qualified person
who is often a manager or foreman that
is at the job site. (Reports #1, 3, 6, 18
of ID–0673). A seasoned operator who
has been designated by the employer to
mentor an operator-in-training may also
make determinations about when an
operator-in-training is ready to perform
certain tasks, and may weigh in on the
evaluation or confirm that an individual
is ready to operate without monitoring
(see, e.g., Report #2 of ID–0673).
Stakeholders who spoke with OSHA
offered competing recommendations
about whether OSHA should require
evaluators to be certified as operators.
Several employers who spoke with
OSHA stated that an individual may
have the ability to evaluate an operator
without being a certified operator
(Reports #1, 6, 18, 20, 26 of ID–0673).
They indicated that evaluators may be
safety managers or other senior
employees with significant experience
working around cranes, but who might
not currently be certified (see, e.g.,
Reports #1, 6, 18, 26 of ID–0673). Others
may be specifically trained to evaluate
operators. But at the May 2015 ACCSH
meeting, several representatives from
the crane industry asserted that
evaluators should be certified (OSHA–
2015–0002–0036).
Based on information obtained from
the stakeholders, OSHA preliminarily
concludes that it is not necessary to
prohibit all non-operators or noncertified personnel from conducting
evaluations of operators. OSHA prefers
to maintain employer flexibility in
choosing who may perform the required
evaluation as long as those evaluators
have, or develop, the requisite
assessment knowledge and experience.
OSHA notes that the national consensus
standard for cranes (ASME B30.5–2014
Mobile and Locomotive Cranes, Chapter
5–3) does not require or recommend
that evaluators of operators must be
certified by third party testing entities;
a ‘‘designated’’ person who qualifies
operators must be a qualified person by
experience and training but need not be
certified (B30.5, section 5–3.1.2(e)).
Similarly, existing § 1926.1427(f)(3)(ii)

E:\FR\FM\21MYP2.SGM

21MYP2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules
requires that the trainer of an operatorin-training must have passed at least the
written part of a certification test, but
does not require the trainer to be an
operator or be certified. Additionally,
employers who spoke with OSHA and
publicly commented at the May 2015
ACCSH meeting expressed the view that
passing certification testing does not
alone verify that an operator is
competent to safely operate a crane at
the worksite (see discussion in
Background section). And passing the
written portion of a certification test
does alone not mean an individual has
the ability to effectively evaluate the
competency of an operator. But along
with other crane-related experiences,
passing the written portion of
certification testing should be weighed
as evidence that a person may have the
crane knowledge necessary to evaluate
crane operating competency.
OSHA requests public comments on
whether the proposed criteria are
appropriate and sufficiently clear for the
person who must perform the required
evaluation. For example, are there other
criteria that the evaluator should
satisfy? Should OSHA require that the
evaluator be an operator, have been an
operator, or at least pass the written
portion of certification testing? Why or
why not? OSHA is interested in public
comments on whether an individual can
effectively evaluate an operator without
having previously operated the same or
similar equipment.
The flexibility provided by the
proposal should address the concerns
that it might be difficult for very small
employers to evaluate their own
operators. (see Reports #17, 22 of ID–
0673). Proposed paragraph (f)(2) would
allow employers the flexibility to
contract with a third-party agent to
conduct evaluations if the employer
does not maintain the expertise on staff,
or to identify existing staff who may not
have operator experience but are
capable of conducting an evaluation.
OSHA wants to allow employers to
continue to use effective and safe
solutions that they have already
identified and are in use. For example,
OSHA spoke with an employer that took
steps to qualify its first operator without
having an experienced mentor-operator
on staff. This was accomplished by
enrolling the operator-in-training in
several classes, including a crane
manufacturer’s training and training
with the local union, and then arranging
for an experienced union operator to
mentor the operator-in-training. Later,
when the employer hired additional
operators-in-training, the first operator,
now experienced, was able to serve as

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 May 18, 2018

Jkt 244001

the trainer and evaluator (Report #16 of
ID–0673).
A sole proprietor OSHA spoke with
followed a similar path when he first
started operating cranes for a former
employer, seeking out mentorship of an
experienced operator before beginning
to operate independently. When the
company later hired other operators,
this individual trained new operators
and supervised them for at least a
month before evaluating them (Report
#23 of ID–0673).
OSHA requests public comments on
employers’ experiences evaluating
operators who have been trained and
made available through a third party,
such as a labor organization or
temporary staffing agency, and whether
this business practice presents any
challenges for such employers. In order
for the evaluation requirement to be
enforceable, OSHA must ensure that the
evaluation duty always remains with
the employer. OSHA therefore seeks
comment on what additional conditions
or restrictions, if any, should apply if a
temporary staffing representative or a
labor representative evaluates an
operator on behalf of the employer.
Besides the example of the temporary
staffing agencies and labor
organizations, are there other people or
entities who are not employees of the
operator’s employer who might evaluate
operators on behalf of an employer?
Proposed paragraph (f)(3) permits the
employer to allow an operator to operate
equipment other than the specific
equipment on which the operator was
evaluated, as long as the employer can
demonstrate that the new equipment
does not require substantially different
skills, knowledge, or judgment to
operate. An additional evaluation would
be required before an operator would be
allowed operate equipment that requires
substantially different skills, knowledge,
or judgment to operate.
OSHA believes this approach would
address the concerns of some
stakeholders about unnecessary
competency evaluations while ensuring
appropriate evaluations of operators.
Many stakeholders warned that
unnecessary competency evaluations
could be very time consuming and
burdensome without providing any real
benefit. Many employers who spoke
with OSHA during meetings and site
visits explained, for example, that they
assign operators to run the same crane
every day, or to operate a crane from a
specific group of the company’s cranes
that are all very similar (Reports #1, 2,
3, 6, 13, 16, 19 of ID–0673). Others said
that they permit their operators to run
similar cranes interchangeably (see
Report #15 of ID–0673). As previously

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

23553

explained, OSHA does not intend to
require the additional evaluation of
operators when it is not necessary, such
as when there are minor differences
between equipment models of the same
type that do not necessitate
substantially different skills, knowledge,
or judgment to operate the crane safely.
Therefore, OSHA proposes evaluation
requirements that would provide
employers some flexibility when
determining whether an additional
evaluation is required.
This flexibility is necessarily cabined,
however, by the employer’s duty to
ensure that its operator’s skills,
knowledge, and judgment are sufficient
for safe operation of the jobsite. Some
employers explained to OSHA that they
often need operators to operate very
different sizes and configurations of the
type of equipment (or equipment of a
different type) on which they evaluated
the operator, to perform various tasks.
(see Reports #2, 4, 6, and 22 of ID–
0673). Even an experienced operator,
when assigned to operate a different
crane, may need time operating the
equipment under supervision to become
familiar with how to safely operate it.
One owner/operator stated that when he
used different cranes in the past, even
if they were all boom trucks built by the
same manufacturer, he found significant
differences requiring a substantial
amount of time familiarizing himself
with the equipment before he had the
skills, knowledge, and judgment
necessary to safely operate that
equipment (Report #23 of ID–0673).
OSHA concludes that it is reasonable
that the employer may need to conduct
an additional evaluation of the operator
before determining that the operator is
competent to safely run a different piece
of equipment alone (Reports #3, 6, 16,
22 of ID–0673).
OSHA does not expect that the
evaluation requirement will be overly
burdensome for employers, particularly
with the flexibility provided in
proposed paragraph (f)(3). One large
construction company, for example,
requires its operators to go through a
formal evaluation for any different
equipment that the operators are
assigned to run, even if the operators
have already demonstrated competency,
through an evaluation, to operate other
equipment (Report #11 of ID–0673).
Another large national construction firm
provides supplemental testing for
different crane configurations (Report
#18 of ID–0673). And one stakeholder at
the March 2015 ACCSH meeting
explained that it requires a ‘‘seat
check,’’ an evaluation that may take a
day or two, ‘‘every time that operator
goes to a new machine . . . [w]e want

E:\FR\FM\21MYP2.SGM

21MYP2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2

23554

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules

to do the walk around inspection. We
want to test him on what he’s absorbed
when we walked around . . .
includ[ing] safety checks, prestart and
post-start’’ (see OSHA–2015–0002–
0036, pg. 232–239).
Although OSHA heard concerns from
several public commenters that OSHA
would require that an operator must be
evaluated on every crane that their
companies might use, or in every
possible configuration (see public
comments OSHA–2015–0002–0036),
OSHA has not proposed such a rule.
Furthermore, these commenters appear
to have mistakenly assumed that OSHA
would require each evaluation to be in
the form of a time-consuming formal
test rather than a much simpler
observation of the operator performing
construction operations using the crane.
The required supplemental reevaluation of a previously evaluated
operator can focus on the operator’s
abilities to handle the differences
between the new equipment and the one
previously assigned; it would not
require a complete evaluation of all of
the operator’s skills, knowledge, and
abilities. For example, an employer may
evaluate an operator and determine that
he or she has demonstrated the ability
to safely operate a large, high capacity
crane of a relatively complex
configuration. If the employer
determines that the operator has the
skills, knowledge, and judgment
necessary to safely operate a lower
capacity crane of the same type and
operating system, in a simpler
configuration with a shorter boom, then
the operator would not need to be reevaluated (assuming that the tasks are
similar). Conversely, although the size
of the crane alone may not be a
definitive reason to make such a
determination (Reports #1, 2 of ID–
0673), an employer would usually need
to evaluate an operator before allowing
the operation of a larger crane if the
operator has only demonstrated
competency on smaller crane of the
same type.
OSHA requests comment on how
employers currently handle reevaluation of operators, to comply with
existing § 1926.1427(k)(2), when the
operator uses new equipment. Please
provide OSHA with examples of
equipment that commenters believe are
sufficiently similar or not for the
purposes of compliance with proposed
paragraph (f), and what makes them
similar or not and why. OSHA is also
interested in obtaining examples of
equipment or configurations that should
require an additional, if limited,
evaluation of the operator and why the
additional evaluation would be needed.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 May 18, 2018

Jkt 244001

OSHA is also interested in public
comments regarding whether the
performance-based language of
proposed paragraph (f)(3) is sufficiently
flexible. Is there a more effective
provision that should be considered for
this purpose?
Proposed paragraph (f)(4) requires the
employer to document the evaluation of
each operator and to ensure that the
documentation is available at the
worksite. This documentation
requirement is similar to documentation
requirements in other OSHA standards
that require competency evaluations,
such as OSHA’s powered industrial
truck operator training requirements
(§ 1910.178). Such documentation
would need to include: The operator’s
name, the evaluator’s name, the date of
the evaluation, and the make, model,
and configuration of the equipment on
which the operator was evaluated. But
the documentation would not need to be
in any particular format. Rather,
employers would have the flexibility to
capture this information using their own
existing systems or create
documentation that best meets the
needs of their workplace. For example,
employers could issue operator cards
that include this information, keep
records electronically in a database
accessible at the worksite, develop logs
for each piece of equipment, or use any
other method that memorializes the
mandatory information.
The documentation requirement is
intended to ensure accountability and to
direct the employer’s attention to the
critical aspects of operating the assigned
equipment that must be considered
during the evaluation. The
documentation of the evaluation would
record key baseline information that an
employer could use to help make
subsequent determinations about
whether the operator is competent to
operate particular equipment. It would
also provide a quick reference for site
supervisors, lift directors, and any
employee, such as a hoist crew member,
whose safety is affected by crane
operations. And it could help prevent
misunderstandings about, or
mischaracterization of, an individual
operator’s established competency, as in
the Deep South fatal incident. There, an
operator was assigned to operate a crane
of a type for which he was certified, but
the controls and operations were
substantially different from those with
which he was familiar. Had the
employer conducted an evaluation and
documented it rather than relying on
certification, this incident could have
been prevented.
The Agency believes that information
about operators is typically collected

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

and available, even if it has not
previously been maintained specifically
for regulatory compliance. Many
employers who spoke with OSHA
during meetings and site visits
explained that they maintain a log or
record to track operator experiences,
certifications, and performance
evaluations. For example, at least two
employers reported that they issue cards
to evaluated and competent operators
with information about those operators’
qualifications. (Reports #11, 18 of ID–
0673). Others use written records to
track operators’ performance, training,
or other criteria. (Reports #1, 2, 3, 4 of
ID–0673). And employers who own
cranes and have long-term operators
must provide lengthy and detailed
operator information to their insurance
providers.
Subcontractors, too, are accustomed
to maintaining a written record of their
operators’ experience and evaluations.
Employers reported to OSHA that, on
multi-employer construction sites,
subcontractors are often asked by
general contractors, insurers, or other
employers on the site to provide
documented information about their
operators, such as certifications and
verifications of training and
‘‘qualification’’ for the cranes operated.
One crane rental company noted that it
keeps records for each operator, and that
this kind of information is often
requested or required by customers.
(Report #6 of ID–0673). Another
company told OSHA that it frequently
provides written information about its
operators to contractors, even when not
requested. (Report #26 of ID–0673). A
contractor that sometimes works with
subcontractors’ operators noted that it
maintains an in-house database of those
operators, site supervisors, and directors
that it has encountered on projects, with
evaluations and notes about their
performance. (Report #22 of ID–0673).
Another company that employs
operators as subcontractors keeps
records of near misses involving its
subcontractors, as well as
documentation of operators that the
company feels may not be qualified to
operate equipment. (Report #14 of ID–
0673). Finally, OSHA notes that it is a
common practice within the
construction industry for operators to
carry certification cards provided by the
testing entities as proof of certification.
This documentation may be useful in
communicating operator competency for
employers who must consider crane
safety on multi-employer worksites.
As previously discussed, proposed
paragraph (f) permits the employer to
evaluate the operator on one crane and
then make a determination that the

E:\FR\FM\21MYP2.SGM

21MYP2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules
operator is also competent to safely run
other equipment that requires the same
level of skills, knowledge, and
judgment. OSHA’s proposal allows
employers to document these
determinations collectively. For
example, if an employer with five
cranes, possibly configured in slightly
different ways, determines that an
operator’s evaluation on Crane #2 also
demonstrates the operator’s competency
with respect to the other four cranes, the
employer could use a single document
to record the operator’s competence to
operate all five cranes. In fact, the
documentation for the original
evaluation could simply be amended to
state that it is also applicable to
equipment that does not require
substantially different skills, knowledge,
or judgment. However, when the
operation of a crane requires a level of
operating skills, knowledge, and
judgment that is significantly different
from the crane on which the operator
was evaluated, a new evaluation must
be documented. Varying the facts in the
earlier example, if two of that
employer’s cranes include computer
software to control safety devices and
the three other cranes do not have such
software but are otherwise similar, then
an operator already evaluated on a crane
without the software would need to be
evaluated separately on the use of that
software, with that evaluation also
documented.
OSHA requests public comments on
how, or if, employers currently
document their evaluations of operators
and how they use the documentation.
Should OSHA require employers to
document evaluations? Please explain
why or why not. If not, how would
other employers and employees know
that an operator has been evaluated and
demonstrated competency to his or her
own employer on the equipment
operated? OSHA is interested in public
comments describing how employers
currently track their operators to comply
with the requirements of existing
§ 1926.1427(k)(2)(i).
Proposed paragraph (f)(5) requires the
employer to re-evaluate an operator
whenever the employer is required to
retrain the operator under
§ 1926.1427(b)(5). Paragraph
1926.1427(b)(5) requires retraining if the
operator’s performance or an evaluation
of the operator’s knowledge indicate
that retraining is necessary. OSHA is
proposing this requirement to ensure
that when an employer becomes aware
that an operator is not competent in a
necessary aspect of safe crane operation,
the employer provides additional
training to the operator and re-evaluates
the operator. Re-evaluation is needed to

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 May 18, 2018

Jkt 244001

ensure that the operator is competent in
the area of the observed deficiency.
Triggers for retraining under
paragraph (b)(5) and re-evaluation under
proposed paragraph (f)(5) might include
a wide variety of feedback, such as (but
not limited to) information from an onsite supervisor or safety manager,
contractor, or other person that the
operator was operating equipment
unsafely, OSHA citations, a crane near
miss, or other incidents that indicate
unsafe operation of the crane. The reevaluation may target the skills,
knowledge, or judgment deficiency that
triggered the retraining. Re-evaluations
would need to be conducted by a person
who meets the requirements of
paragraph (f)(2).
OSHA does not view this proposed reevaluation as a significant departure
from typical practices in the industry.
As discussed previously, many
stakeholders who spoke with OSHA at
meetings and site visits emphasized that
observation and re-evaluation take place
on an ongoing, daily basis (see the
Background and Need for a rule
sections). For example, several
stakeholders told OSHA that they would
re-evaluate an operator if there was a
crane near-miss or incident, or if they
received negative feedback about that
operator’s performance from the
controlling contractor or another party
on a jobsite. (Reports #1, 2, 3, 18, 19, 22,
26 of ID–0673). Some employers
conduct random worksite audits.
(Reports #2, 3, 15, 18, 19 of ID–0673).
One large construction company stated
that it conducts over 100 safety audits
of job sites each year to ensure operators
are properly qualified. (Report #15 of
ID–0673). Four companies that hire
crane rental companies (crane rental
with operators) noted that they raise any
observed issues with the employer of
the crane operator or the union from
which the operator was selected.
(Reports #12, 14, 15, 16 of ID–0673).
The requirements for re-evaluation are
also in line with the powered industrial
truck operator training standard, in
which OSHA requires re-evaluation if
there is reason to believe that the
operator is operating unsafely, if there is
a near-miss or other incident, if the
nature of the work to be performed
changes, or if other factors indicate a
deficiency. (§ 1910.178(l)(4)).
OSHA requests comment about all
aspects of proposed paragraph (f)(5). Is
the need for re-training an appropriate
trigger for re-evaluation, or are there
triggers other than re-training that
OSHA should consider? Also, should
OSHA add additional specification
regarding how in depth re-evaluations
should be or whether there should be

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

23555

additional components of the reevaluation? Should OSHA require reevaluations to be documented in
accordance with proposed paragraph
(f)(4)? Why or why not?
As noted previously, OSHA also
considered and presented to ACCSH
two additional requirements for reevaluation: An annual re-evaluation
requirement and a re-evaluation for
operators who have not operated the
equipment in six months. OSHA
received comments from several
participants that such requirements
would be too burdensome for employers
and unnecessary due to the continuous
or ongoing nature of evaluation by
employers. But at least three entities
reported that they re-evaluate operators
periodically, even absent any evidence
that re-training or re-evaluation is
necessary. (Reports #11, 18, 19 of ID–
0673). Another employer noted that it
meets with each operator to review
performance twice annually. (Report #1
of ID–0673). And a crane rental
company told OSHA that if employees
experience changes in health, vision, or
other medical issue, they are monitored
to ensure that their skills remain sharp
and continue to be safe operators.
(Report #2 of ID–0673). Moreover, both
the powered industrial truck operator
training standard at § 1910.178(l)(4) and
the qualified electrical workers standard
at § 1910.269(a)(2) require periodic reevaluation. Section § 1910.178(l)(4)
requires reevaluation every three years,
while § 1910.269(a)(2) requires annual
re-evaluation of electrical workers on
tasks they did not perform in the past
year. These requirements might help
employers identify when operators need
updated information on a variety of
topics such as the equipment, operating
procedures, and relevant regulations
that were not available at the time of his
or her last evaluation. But ACCSH
recommended that OSHA not move
forward with these requirements, and
they are accordingly not in this
proposal.
OSHA requests comment on whether
more routine re-evaluation
requirements, such as those in the
powered industrial truck training and
qualified electrical workers standards or
any other periodic requirements, should
be included in this standard. Why or
why not? If a periodic re-evaluation is
necessary, then how frequently should
this review be conducted, and why?
OSHA considered several alternative
approaches to the proposed provisions
in proposed paragraph (f)—Evaluation.
OSHA has summarized them in the
following paragraphs. For the reasons
detailed below, OSHA has preliminarily
concluded that these alternatives would

E:\FR\FM\21MYP2.SGM

21MYP2

23556

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules

not be as effective as the proposal in
ensuring crane operator competency.

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2

Approach 1—Remove the Phase-Out of
the Employer Duty Without Providing
Further Guidance or Criteria
OSHA considered simply proposing
to remove the phase-out date for
existing § 1926.1427(k)(2)(i), which
requires employers to ensure the
competence of their operators. That
requirement differs little from the
Agency’s requirements for operator
training or duties in § 1926.20(b)(4),
which previously applied to equipment
covered under former subpart N—
Cranes, Derricks, Hoists, Elevators, and
Conveyors, and permits ‘‘employees
qualified by training or experience to
operate equipment.’’ But OSHA
replaced that general employer duty in
2010, in part because OSHA concluded
that the measures being used to ensure
operator competency were inconsistent
between employers. C–DAC, too, had
concluded that ‘‘human error resulting
from insufficient operator knowledge
and capability is a significant cause of
fatal crane/derrick accidents’’ (73 FR
59810). In sum, OSHA believes that
evaluations of operator competency are
critical to safe crane operations (see
earlier discussion) and that proposing a
general requirement for this purpose,
without providing additional criteria,
would be inadequate.
Approach 2—Coalition for Crane
Operator Safety’s Language
OSHA also considered the ACCSH
committee recommendation that OSHA
adopt an operator competency
requirement developed by a coalition of
representatives from the crane industry.
(ACCSH transcript OSHA–2015–0002–
0036, and Exhibit 12, OSHA–2015–
0002–0051). This approach would
require employers to ensure that
operators ‘‘meet the definition of a
qualified person’’ before operating the
equipment. As defined in the
§ 1926.1401 of the crane standard,
‘‘qualified person’’ means a person who
has ‘‘successfully demonstrated the
ability to solve/resolve problems
relating to the subject matter, the work,
or the project,’’ by ‘‘possession of a
recognized degree, certificate, or
professional standing’’ or through
‘‘extensive knowledge, training and
experience.’’ The coalition also
suggested language requiring employers
to ‘‘ensure that each operator is
evaluated to confirm that he/she
understands the information provided
in the training.’’
OSHA is concerned that this
recommendation, like the general duty
under § 1926.21(b)(4), fails to provide

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 May 18, 2018

Jkt 244001

sufficient specifics to ensure operator
competence. It does not provide
employers with criteria that an operator
must meet to be considered competent.
Nor does it explicitly require the
employer to take any specific step to
‘‘qualify’’ operators (i.e., it can be
argued that under the existing standard
an evaluation is only triggered if the
employer determines retraining to be
required). Moreover, the ability to
‘‘resolve problems,’’ which is a key
component in the definition of a
‘‘qualified person’’ only captures one
aspect of what crane operation entails.
And by relying on the definition of a
‘‘qualified person,’’ which can be met in
some cases solely through ‘‘possession
of a . . . certificate,’’ the whole point of
having some additional assurance of
operator competency beyond operator
certification would be lost: An operator
could still conceivably become both
certified and a qualified person through
the completion of a single certification
test. For these reasons, OSHA believes
that this proposed rule better establishes
the employer’s obligation to ensure
crane operator competency.
Approach 3—Canadian Oversight
System
OSHA also explored the practicality
of modeling a crane operator evaluation
process on that implemented in the
provinces of Ontario and British
Columbia, Canada. In those provinces, a
quasi-governmental agency tracks the
base level of certification and operating
experiences of the operators in an
internet database. The British Columbia
system has at least three different levels
of ‘‘qualification,’’ and employers are
responsible for observing, evaluating,
and ensuring the operators are
competent to perform the work required
at each level (ID–0672). OSHA
concluded, however, that this level of
oversight would be somewhat
impractical on a national scale in the
United States. The resources and
expertise needed to develop and
maintain a system that works for the
entire regulated community, and to
verify the information in such system,
would be substantial. OSHA does not
have the resources needed to
accomplish these functions. However,
even after providing certification for its
operators, employers in Canada still
have the obligation to ensure the
competency of operators to safely
perform assigned work, which is similar
to the operator evaluation requirements
of this proposed rule.
OSHA requests public comment on
these alternative regulatory approaches.
OSHA requests comment on how these
alternatives would contribute to crane

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

operator safety and whether they afford
greater protection than proposed
paragraph (f). Why or why not? Is there
evidence to support one of these
alternatives over the approach that
OSHA is proposing? In addition, are
there other approaches to employer
evaluation of operators that OSHA
should consider? Are there state or local
government certification or licensing
programs that would be more effective?
Paragraph (g) Reserved
This proposed paragraph is reserved
because the current text at
§ 1926.1427(g) was moved to proposed
paragraph § 1926.1427(c)(4). This
provision was moved to improve clarity
of certification program requirements.
Paragraph (h)—Language and Literacy
Requirements
Existing paragraph § 1926.1427(h)
allows operators to be certified in a
language other than English, provided
that the operator understands that
language. Proposed paragraph (h) is
nearly identical to existing paragraph
(h) with one exception. The last
sentence of paragraph (h)(2) has been
reworded to clarify that an operator is
permitted to operate equipment only
when he or she is furnished materials
that are necessary for safe operation of
the equipment and required by subpart
CC, such as operations manuals and
load charts, in the language of the
operator’s certification. The reference to
existing paragraph (b)(2) was not
maintained in proposed (h)(2) because it
is no longer needed.
Existing paragraph (h) allows ‘‘tests’’
in languages understood by the
operator, and OSHA is not proposing to
change that language. In proposed
paragraph (h), ‘‘tests’’ would encompass
both the certification test and the
employer’s evaluation of the operator.
Either or both may be in any language
understood by the operator. And the
language of the operator’s manual or
other furnished materials required by
the standard would only need to match
the language of the certification. For
example, it would be sufficient for an
operator certified in Spanish to have a
Spanish version of the operator’s
manual but be evaluated by the
employer in English. The operator
would not need to also have an English
version of the operator’s manual
because the certification in Spanish
would establish the operator’s ability to
use an operator’s manual written in
Spanish. OSHA seeks comment on this
proposed interpretation of the language
requirement for employer evaluations.

E:\FR\FM\21MYP2.SGM

21MYP2

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Paragraph (i)—[Reserved.]

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2

Paragraph (j)—Certification Criteria
Proposed paragraph (j) specifies
criteria that must be met by an
accredited testing organization under
proposed paragraph (d) and an audited
employer program under proposed
paragraph (e). The criteria specified by
proposed paragraph (j) of this section
are the same as those specified under
existing § 1926.1427(j). However, the
introductory regulatory text in current
§ 1926.1427(j) states that ‘‘qualification
and certifications’’ must be based, at a
minimum, on several criteria for the
written and practical tests found in
§ 1926.1427(j)(1) and (2). Proposed
paragraph (j) deletes the words
‘‘qualification and’’ because they are no
longer necessary: Under the proposed
rule, a certification issued by an audited
employer program is intended to be
equivalent to that of an accredited
testing program for purposes of
complying with OSHA’s rule, and the
proposal removes references to
‘‘qualification’’ from paragraph (e).
Paragraph (k)—Effective Date
There will not be any need for the
phase-in requirements of current
§ 1926.1427(k) if OSHA adopts the
permanent requirement for employer
evaluations of operators as proposed.
Thus, proposed paragraph (k) would be
shortened to retain only the existing
effective date of November 10, 2018.
The rest of Subpart CC is already in
effect, and the effective date of any final
changes made to the standard would be
established in the Federal Register
notice for the final rule, which includes
an effective date for the standard.
OSHA seeks comment on proposed
revision to paragraph (k). Specifically,
OSHA seeks comment on whether the
effective date of the certification
requirement should be delayed for an
additional six months if the final rule is
not issued until after July 2018. Please
share your rationale for why an
extension would or would not be
appropriate.
Even if OSHA did extend the effective
date of the certification requirement, the
Agency would plan to implement as
soon as possible the new requirement
for employers to evaluate their
operators, if it is part of the final rule.
This provision adds clarity to the
existing employer duty to assess
operators, and there does not appear to
be any reason to delay that clarity for
the similar provision. Furthermore,
employer assessment of operators is
now a key part of the entire scheme of
proposed § 1926.1427, so it would be
difficult to implement the remaining

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 May 18, 2018

Jkt 244001

changes to that paragraph while
delaying the effective date of the
employer assessment requirement.
Nevertheless, OSHA seeks comment on
whether the effective date of proposed
paragraph § 1916.1427(f) should be
separate from the effective date of the
other proposed changes to the standard.
Section 1926.1430 (c) Operators
As noted earlier in this preamble,
OSHA is proposing to amend only one
paragraph of the training requirements
in § 1926.1430: Paragraph (c). The
primary purpose of this revision is to
centralize the training requirements that
are specific to operators in proposed
paragraph § 1926.1427(b) of this section.
But OSHA proposes to retain in
§ 1926.1430 the training requirements
that are more broadly applicable.
Proposed paragraph § 1926.1430(c)(1)
requires that the employer train
operators of equipment covered by
subpart CC in accordance with proposed
§ 1926.1427(a) and (b), which contain
all of the requirements for training
under the proposed rule. Operators of
equipment exempted from the training
requirements of § 1926.1427—derricks,
sideboom cranes, and cranes with a
rated hoisting/lifting capacity of 2,000
pounds or less—are addressed by
proposed paragraph § 1926.1430(c)(2).
Proposed (c)(2), which is substantively
the same as current paragraph (c)(3),
provides a general requirement to train
operators on the safe operation of the
equipment. Proposed paragraphs (c)(1)
and (c)(2) of this section work together
to specify training requirements and
clarify that all operators must be
trained, regardless of whether an
operator must be licensed/certified by
any entity (including the U.S. military)
to operate equipment.
Existing paragraph § 1926.1430(c)(2),
Transitional Period, is no longer needed
because employees need to train all
operators under this proposal. The
requirements of existing
§ 1926.1427(c)(4) have been moved to
proposed paragraph (c)(3) of this
section.
Sections 1926.1436(q)—Derricks,
1926.1440(a)—Sideboom Cranes, and
1926.1441(a) Equipment With a Rated
Hoisting/Lifting Capacity of 2,000
Pounds or Less
Proposed paragraph § 1926.1427(a)(2)
would exempt employers from the
training and certification requirements
in that section for three types of
equipment: Derricks, sideboom cranes,
and equipment with a maximum
manufacturer-rated hoisting/lifting
capacity of 2,000 pounds or less. It
would not, however, exempt employers

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

23557

from the requirement in § 1926.1427(f)
to evaluate potential operators to ensure
that they have sufficient knowledge and
skills to perform the assigned tasks with
the assigned equipment, nor would it
exempt employers using sideboom
cranes from the existing broader duty in
§ 1926.1430(c)(3) (which would become
proposed (c)(2)) to train their employees
to operate those cranes safely (section
§ 1926.1436 and § 1926.1441 include
separate training requirements for
derricks and low-capacity equipment,
respectively). Employers of operators of
this equipment will be required to
ensure that their operators are evaluated
in accordance with proposed
§ 1926.1427(f) and trained in accordance
with proposed §§ 1926.1430(c)(2),
1926.1436, and 1926.1441, as
applicable.
Although these three types of
equipment are exempt from all of
§ 1926.1427 in the existing crane
standard as the result of specific
exemptions in §§ 1926.1436, 1440, and
1441, OSHA proposes to narrow the
exemptions so that the evaluation
requirements of paragraph
§ 1926.1427(f) would also apply to these
types of equipment. While C–DAC
recommended those exemptions apply
to certification/qualification
requirements, there is no record that
C–DAC or OSHA considered exempting
operators of this equipment from
employer evaluations. In fact, as noted
earlier, a number of C–DAC participants
later claimed they were surprised to
discover that they had removed the
general requirement for employers to
ensure their operators’ competency.
OSHA has preliminarily concluded
that, although the certification
requirements in § 1926.1427 may not
have been flexible enough to be
appropriate for these categories of
equipment, the employer evaluation
under proposed paragraph
§ 1926.1427(f) is a flexible requirement
suitable for all of the equipment covered
by subpart CC. Many of the hazards
caused by an employer’s failure to
evaluate its operators for competency,
such as equipment collapses and issues
controlling the load, are generally the
same for these three types of exempted
equipment as they are for all other
equipment covered by subpart CC.
Further, an exemption from the
evaluation requirement would be
inconsistent with OSHA’s treatment of
operators of equipment covered by other
rules. For example, OSHA’s
requirements for powered industrial
trucks operator training at § 1910.178(l)
include evaluation requirements similar
to those in this proposed rule,
notwithstanding that operation of

E:\FR\FM\21MYP2.SGM

21MYP2

23558

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules

powered industrial trucks is less
complex and of a lower capacity than
most equipment covered by subpart CC.
OSHA therefore proposes to amend
paragraphs §§ 1926.1436(q),
1926.1440(a), and 1926.1441(a) to
require employers to evaluate operators
of derricks in accordance with proposed
§ 1926.1427(f). Under the current crane
standard, employers of operators of this
equipment do not need to comply with
§ 1926.1427. This proposal keeps most
of those exceptions, but would require
compliance with proposed paragraph
§ 1926.1427(f).
OSHA solicits comments regarding
whether evaluation requirements should
be made applicable to similar provisions
for operators of derricks, sideboom
cranes, and equipment with a maximum
manufacturer-rated hoisting/lifting
capacity of 2,000 pounds or less. OSHA
requests comment on whether
employers of operators of exempted
equipment should continue to be
exempted from operator competency
requirements of § 1926.1427, or whether
advancements in the availability of
types of operator certification make
certification appropriate for these types
of equipment? Are there now crane
certification opportunities that are
appropriate for operators of these types
of equipment?
IV. Agency Determinations

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2

A. Legal Authority
The purpose of the OSH Act, 29
U.S.C. 651 et seq., is ‘‘to assure so far
as possible every working man and
woman in the Nation safe and healthful
working conditions and to preserve our
human resources.’’ 29 U.S.C. 651(b). To
achieve this goal, Congress authorized
the Secretary of Labor to promulgate
and enforce occupational safety and
health standards. 29 U.S.C. 654, 655(b),
and 658. A safety or health standard
‘‘requires conditions, or the adoption or
use of one or more practices, means,
methods, operations, or processes,
reasonably necessary or appropriate to
provide safe or healthful employment
and places of employment.’’ 29 U.S.C.
652(8). A safety standard is reasonably
necessary or appropriate within the
meaning of 29 U.S.C. 652(8) if:
• It substantially reduces a significant
risk of material harm in the workplace;
• It is technologically and
economically feasible;
• It uses the most cost-effective
protective measures;
• It is consistent with, or is a justified
departure from, prior Agency action;
• It is supported by substantial
evidence; and

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 May 18, 2018

Jkt 244001

• It is better able to effectuate the
purposes of the OSH Act than any
relevant national consensus standard.
(See United Auto Workers v. OSHA,
37 F.3d 665, 668 (D.C. Cir. 1994)
(Lockout/Tagout II).) In addition, safety
standards must be highly protective. See
id. at 669. A standard is technologically
feasible if the protective measures it
requires already exist, available
technology can bring these measures
into existence, or there is a reasonable
expectation for developing the
technology that can produce these
measures. (See, e.g., American Iron and
Steel Inst. v. OSHA (Lead II), 939 F.2d
975, 980 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (per curiam).)
A standard is economically feasible
when industry can absorb or pass on the
costs of compliance without threatening
an industry’s long-term profitability or
competitive structure. (See American
Textile Mfrs. Inst. v. Donovan, 452 U.S.
490, 530n. 55 (1981); Lead II, 939 F.2d
at 980.) A standard is cost effective if
the protective measures it requires are
the least costly of the available
alternatives that achieve the same level
of protection. (See, e.g., Lockout/Tagout
II, 37 F.3d at 668.)
Section 6(b)(7) of the OSH Act
authorizes OSHA to include among a
standard’s requirements labeling,
monitoring, medical testing, and other
information-gathering and information
transmittal provisions. 29 U.S.C.
655(b)(7). Finally, the OSH Act requires
that when promulgating a rule that
differs substantially from a national
consensus standard, OSHA must
explain why the promulgated rule is a
better method for effectuating the
purposes of the Act. 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(8).
OSHA explains deviations from relevant
consensus standards elsewhere in this
preamble.
B. Preliminary Economic Analysis and
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
When it issued the final crane rule in
2010, OSHA prepared a final economic
analysis (FEA) as required by the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (OSH Act; 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.)
and Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR
51735 (Sept. 30, 1993)), and 13563 (76
FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011)). OSHA also
published a Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis as required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612). Both
the FEA and Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis are in Docket ID 422. On
September 26, 2014, the Agency
included a separate FEA when it
published a final rule extending until
November 10, 2017, both the deadline
for all crane operators to become
certified, and the employer duty to
ensure operator competency (79 FR

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

57785.) OSHA has recently published
another extension for an additional year,
until November 10, 2018 (82 FR 51986),
which closely tracks the 2014 analysis.
For each rulemaking, OSHA published
a preliminary economic analysis and
received public comment on the
analysis before publishing the final
analysis.
The preliminary economic analysis
(PEA) for this rulemaking relies on some
of those earlier estimates, extensive
Agency interviews with industry
stakeholders, crane incident data, and
other documents in the rulemaking
record. For example, the 2017 FEA for
the deadline extension rule included a
cost analysis of the employer evaluation
to ensure operator competency, so the
cost estimates in this PEA are based on
that analysis, which in turn is drawn
from the 2014 FEA. The current
economic analysis estimates new costs
only for elements that have not
previously been analyzed in either the
2010 final rule or accounted for in the
deadline extensions. These are:
• Additional evaluations to ensure
operator competency when there are changes
not just in the type of crane (accounted for
in the 2017 FEA) but also changes that would
require new skills, knowledge, or judgment
necessary to operate the equipment safely,
including those specific to the use of
equipment or its safety devices, operational
aids, software, or the size or configuration of
the equipment.
• The permanent status of the employer
duty to assess competency. While the cost of
employer’s duty to assess operator
competency was estimated in the 2017 rule,
the duty to assess was assumed to phase out
after the deadline had passed. The proposed
rule would make this duty permanent, so
these costs are included in this PEA.
• Documentation by employers. This
proposed rule requires employers to now
document the successful completion of
operator evaluations.
• Additional training required beyond the
training required for certification.

Certain costs, such as initial cost of
operator certification and recertification
every five years, are not re-analyzed in
this PEA because they would be
unchanged by this rulemaking. This
new rule makes no changes that would
impact the costs of certification by type
of crane; OSHA is simply allowing the
existing operator certification deadline
to be instituted as planned. The
employer evaluation, which under the
2010 final crane rule (and the 2014 and
2017 extensions) was set to be phased
out when certification took effect,
would remain in effect and is therefore
a cost of this proposed rule. The unit
costs of the employer evaluations were
analyzed in the final rule of the
deadline extension FEA, and the

E:\FR\FM\21MYP2.SGM

21MYP2

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2

Agency relies on that analysis in
calculating the ongoing evaluation costs
in this PEA.
The rule’s cost savings are associated
with withdrawing the requirement that
crane operator certification be both for
type and capacity of crane in favor of a
requirement that certification be
required only for type of crane.
This rule results in cost savings. At a
discount rate of 3 percent, this rule has
annualized net cost savings of
$1,827,513. At a discount rate of 7
percent, this rule has annualized net
cost savings of $2,468,595. For either
discount rate, this rule is not
economically significant within the
meaning of Executive Order 12866, or a
major rule under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act or Section 804 of
Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C.
804). In addition, this rule complies
with Executive Order 13563.
For this PEA, OSHA included an
overhead rate when estimating the
marginal of labor in its primary cost
calculation. Overhead costs are indirect
expenses that cannot be tied to
producing a specific product or service.
Common examples include rent,
utilities, and office equipment.
Unfortunately, there is no general
consensus on the cost elements that fit
this definition, and the lack of a
common definition has led to a wide
range of overhead estimates.
Consequently, the treatment of overhead
costs needs to be case-specific. OSHA
adopted an overhead rate of 17 percent
of base wages.11 This is consistent with
the overhead rate used for sensitivity
analyses in the 2017 Improved Tracking
FEA and the FEA in support of OSHA’s
2016 final standard on Occupational
Exposure to Respirable Crystalline
Silica. For example, to calculate the
total labor cost for a crane and tower
operator (SOC: 53–7021), three
components are added together: base
wage ($26.58) + fringe benefits ($11.50,
slightly more than 43% of $26.58) +
applicable overhead costs ($4.52, 17%
of $26.58). This increases the labor cost
of the fully-loaded wage for a crane
operator to $42.60.
11 The methodology was modeled after an
approach used by the Environmental Protection
Agency. More information on this approach can be
found at: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
‘‘Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics
Release Inventory Program,’’ June 10, 2002. This
analysis itself was based on a survey of several large
chemical manufacturing plants: Heiden Associates,
Final Report: A Study of Industry Compliance Costs
Under the Final Comprehensive Assessment
Information Rule, Prepared for the Chemical
Manufacturers Association, December 14, 1989.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 May 18, 2018

Jkt 244001

a. Evaluation Costs
As noted in the preamble explanation
of this proposed rule, OSHA has
received feedback during stakeholder
meetings, site visits, and interviews
that, for a small percentage of
employers, the proposed rule may
increase the number of operator
evaluations they will conduct. The
increase would result if employers need
to conduct additional equipmentspecific or task-specific evaluations.
To estimate the costs for the new
evaluations the Agency has taken the
following steps. First it estimated the
number of new evaluations required by
the proposed rule. Then it estimated the
unit costs for each evaluation. Finally,
the Agency multiplied the number of
evaluations times the unit cost to get the
total costs of the proposed rule due to
new evaluation.
OSHA began its estimate of the
number of evaluations by looking to its
former rulemakings. In the 2017
deadline extension economic analysis,
OSHA estimated the total number of
evaluations needed each year to be
30,981 evaluations (26,940 successful
initial evaluations as well as 4,041 (15
percent of 26,940) for operators who
have to be re-assessed (82 FR 51993)). In
that analysis, OSHA estimated
employers’ evaluations due to turnover
of crane operators between employers,
operators changing the type of
equipment operated for the same
employer, and evaluations of operators
new to the occupation. OSHA used the
same estimate of total number of
evaluations in the original 2010 crane
rule.
OSHA determined, after conducting
extensive interviews with crane
industry stakeholders for this rule, that
it had overestimated the number of
likely evaluations in these former
rulemakings, because OSHA had
assumed that, in the absence of the rule,
no employer would conduct
evaluations. In fact, stakeholders report
that almost all employers conduct
evaluations of new employees. The
Agency has therefore decided to assume
for costing purposes that 50 percent of
employers conduct such evaluations
and as a result 15,490 annual
evaluations will be added to the cost
analysis for this rule. The Agency
believes that even this estimate will
overestimate costs given that most
employers conduct such evaluations.
OSHA requests comment on the number
of evaluations that will be conducted as
a result of this proposed rule.
OSHA is, however, estimating a small
increase in evaluation costs from the
additional specificity in this proposed

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

23559

rule about when evaluations are
required and what an employer must
evaluate. Specifically, proposed
§ 1427(b) requires evaluation as
necessary to ensure that the operator
maintains the ‘‘skills, knowledge, and
judgment necessary to operate the
equipment safely’’ and to perform
assigned tasks, including specialty lifts
such as blind lifts or multi-crane lifts.
The stakeholder meetings and
extensive OSHA interviews indicate
that this new language would not
require many employers to change their
existing operator evaluation practices.
Even before its 2010 rulemaking, OSHA
required employers engaged in
construction to ensure that their
operators were capable of operating
their equipment safely (§ 1926.550 and
§ 1926.20(b)(4) prior to promulgation of
the crane standard on November 10,
2010), so for most employers the
proposal would simply be a requirement
to continue their existing evaluation
practices. None of the stakeholders
OSHA met with expressed any concerns
about their ability to comply with those
requirements. Additionally, major
changes in type or capacity of cranes
appear relatively rare. Based on this, the
Agency preliminarily estimates that this
proposed rule will add 15 percent more
evaluations, or 2,324 (15% × 15,490), as
a small percentage of employers
increase their evaluations of operators
who are switching equipment or
performing more difficult tasks. This
represents a very small percentage of the
total costs of evaluations. The Agency
invites comment on this estimate.
The second element needed is the
unit costs for these evaluations. OSHA’s
unit cost estimates for evaluations take
into account the time needed for the
evaluation, along with the wages of both
the operator and the specialized
operator evaluator who will perform the
evaluation. In its 2017 FEA, OSHA
estimated that an initial evaluation of an
experienced operator with a compliant
certification would take, on average, one
hour (82 FR 51992). The new
evaluations are all for previously
evaluated, experienced operators who
are adding a new skill or new
knowledge to an existing skill set, not
an initial evaluation for a brand new
operator or an experienced employee
new to the firm. Thus, in many cases
any evaluation time will be minimal.
The Agency estimates 25 percent of a
standard evaluation for a compliant
certified operator of one hour, or 15
minutes (0.25 of an hour). OSHA
welcomes any comments or additional
information available on the time to
complete these evaluations.

E:\FR\FM\21MYP2.SGM

21MYP2

23560

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2

The wage of the evaluator is estimated
to be the same as the wage of occupation
First-Line Supervisors of Transportation
and Material-Moving Machine and
Vehicle Operators (SOC: 53–1031 from
the BLS 2016 OES dataset) of $46.08 in
2016 dollars including a markup for
fringe benefits and overhead.12 13 The
operator’s time is valued at the wage
plus fringe benefits of occupation Crane
and Tower Operators (SOC: 53–7021)
plus overhead, at $42.06. Hence the
combined hourly cost for an evaluation
or a training episode is $88.68 ($42.60
+ $46.08). With a 15 minute (quarter of
an hour) evaluation period, the cost per
evaluation is $22.17 ($88.68 × 0.25).
The total cost for the new evaluations
is therefore the product of multiplying
that unit cost by the total number of
evaluations: $22.17 × 2,324 new
evaluations = $51,511.
In addition to the cost for these new
evaluations, OSHA is also including the
ongoing cost for the initial evaluations
which it had estimated previously in the
2017 FEA. These evaluations will
continue to be necessary because of
turnover of crane operators between
employers, operators changing the type
of equipment operated for the same
employer, and evaluations of operators
new to the occupation. The total cost for
these evaluations in this PEA is lower
than the total evaluation cost estimated
in the 2017 FEA. This is because the
evaluations cost in the 2017 FEA was
for an operator population that was a
mix of operators with a compliant
certification (certified by both the type
and capacity of crane), non-compliant
certification (by type but not capacity),
and those with no certification. The
time for evaluation, and hence its cost,
was linked to operator certification
status and varied for these three types
with the least time (one hour) for an
evaluation of an operator with a
compliant certification. The proposed
rule would remove the existing
requirement for certification by
capacity, meaning there would be no
operators in the previously estimated
‘‘non-compliant certification’’ group.
This means that all operators would
12 The fringe markup is 1.43, derived from the
BLS Employer Costs for Employee Compensation,
Private Industry Total benefits for Construction
industries 4th quarter 2016.
13 Throughout this chapter, OSHA presents cost
formulas in the text, usually in parentheses, to help
explain the derivation of cost estimates for
individual provisions. Because the values used in
the formulas shown in the text are shown only to
the second decimal place, while the actual
spreadsheet formulas used to create final costs are
not limited to two decimal places, the calculation
using the presented formula will sometimes differ
slightly from the presented total in the text, which
is the actual and mathematically correct total as
shown in the tables.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 May 18, 2018

Jkt 244001

receive evaluations for operators with a
compliant certification and hence will
have the same unit cost for a one-hour
evaluation of $88.68. Multiplying that
unit cost by the 30,981 initial
evaluations estimated in the 2017 FEA,
the total annual cost for these ongoing
initial evaluations is $1,373,622 ($88.68
× 15,490).
The total annual cost for evaluations
is therefore $1,425,133, which is the
sum of the $1,373,622 in initial
evaluations and the $51,511 for new
evaluations. OSHA welcomes any
comments on, or any available data that
could help the Agency refine these
estimates.
b. Employer Evaluation Documentation
Costs
The proposed rule adds a new
documentation requirement for a
successful evaluation. OSHA estimated
the annual evaluation documentation
costs using the following three steps: It
estimated unit costs of meeting this
requirement; estimated the total number
of cases of documentation that
employers will need to perform in any
given year; and multiplied unit costs of
documentation by the number of cases
to determine the annual costs.
This proposal would require the
employer to document information
about the equipment and include the
evaluator’s signature, so the Agency
estimates the evaluator will complete all
recordkeeping. OSHA’s unit cost
estimates for evaluation documentation
takes into account the time needed and
the wage of the employee who does so.
The time needed for creating and filing
the needed information is estimated to
be 5 minutes of the evaluator’s time. As
above, the wage of the evaluator is
estimated to be $46.08. Hence, the cost
of documenting a successful evaluation
is $3.84 ((5/60) × $46.08).
There will also be the need in the first
year to document previous evaluations
that the employer had not documented.
The Agency estimates that the number
of evaluations needing such
documentation is 15 percent of the
number of operators, or 17,570 (0.15 ×
117,130). This total extra first year cost
is $67,462 ($3.84 × 17,570). Annualized
over 10 years at a 3 percent discount
rate gives an annualized cost of $7,909.
At a discount rate of 7 percent, this
annualized cost is $9,605. OSHA solicits
comment on these estimates and how
many previous evaluations do not now
have the documentation required by this
proposed rule.
From above, OSHA estimates that
ongoing each year there will be 13,470
successful initial evaluations that will
need documentation. Then,

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

additionally, there will be
documentation of previous successful
evaluations due to the proposed rule.
There are a total of 2,324 new
evaluations, of which 2,020 (2,324/1.15)
will be successful. Hence the total
number of documented evaluations is
15,490 (13,470 + 2,020). OSHA therefore
estimates the total annual
documentation cost, absent the first year
extra documentation costs, to be
$59,479 ($3.84 per evaluation × 15,490
evaluations).
c. Employer Costs for Operator Training
The proposed rule clarifies the
operator training requirements. As
explained in the 2010, 2014, and 2017
rulemakings, employers were already
required to train their operators prior to
the 2010 rule, and OSHA did not
estimate additional training costs other
than costs of optional certification
preparation training classes in its recent
rulemakings. (see, e.g., 75 FR 48097).
The proposed rule clarifies that the
training already required under the
existing rule continues to be required
even after an operator is certified,
including training necessary when an
operator requires new knowledge or
skills because of a change in equipment
or tasks. Although OSHA’s site visits
and interviews indicated that most firms
are already providing the required
training, including the additional
training necessary to ensure that
certified operators have the additional
skills and knowledge to operate new
equipment or perform new tasks, OSHA
has calculated costs for additional
trainings that may occur as a result of
this clarification.
OSHA’s calculation of the cost of
these additional trainings requires
several steps. First, OSHA estimated the
average annual number of equipmentspecific or task-specific trainings as a
percentage of the new evaluations
required by the rule, as estimated
earlier. OSHA expects the number of
trainings to be a subset of the number
of evaluations because in many cases
the operator will already possess the
required skills necessary for a new piece
of equipment or a new task and be able
to demonstrate competency after only a
cursory explanation of the differences.
For example, an experienced operator
conducting a blind lift for the first time
may have sufficient mastery of the
equipment such that she could pass an
evaluation after only a very brief
discussion of the signals to be used. The
Agency judged that 50% of these
additional evaluations, or 1,162
evaluations (50 percent of the 2,324 new
evaluations), would also require

E:\FR\FM\21MYP2.SGM

21MYP2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules
trainings. OSHA welcomes comments
on these estimates.
The second step is to identify an
average amount of time that each
training will take. Some trainings are
likely to require detailed instructions
about operating particular equipment
and discussions of protocol prior to a
lift. Other trainings might involve a very
short period of instruction, such as to
familiarize an experienced operator
with the setup of a standard controls in
a different crane of the same type. While
OSHA lacks data about the frequency of
these different types of trainings, it
estimates that the average time for each
training is one hour. For context, this is
the same amount of time that OSHA
previously estimated for an
inexperienced operator to take the
practical portion of the standard crane
operator test. The Agency solicits
comment on this training estimate.
OSHA expects two employees to be
occupied during this hour of training:
the equipment operator and the trainer.
Using the same wage estimates as above,
the hourly wage for the operator would
be $42.60 and a supervisor’s hourly
wage of $46.08 for the trainer. However,
not all of the training time will result in
a loss of productivity to the employer.
OSHA’s site visits and interviews
indicate that it is common for operators
to spend at least some of the training
time operating the crane under the
instruction of the trainer, performing
tasks that actually are useful for the
employer. While all of the trainer’s time
is an opportunity cost for the employer,
at least part of the operator’s time
results in productivity for the employer.
OSHA estimates that, on average, 75
percent of the operator’s training time
(45 minutes of the hour) would consist
of pure instruction or other activities
that would not be productive for the
employer. Based on the estimated one
hour for each training, the unit cost for
each training is therefore the
supervisor’s wage for one hour ($46.08)
plus $31.95 in operator’s wages for the
45 minutes of non-productive time
($31.95 is three quarters of the
operator’s hourly wage of $42.60):
$78.03 per training. Thus, the total cost
of the training industry-wide would be
$90,649 ($78.03 × 1,162). OSHA
requests comments on this estimate and
its components.
d. Cost Savings of Avoiding Additional
Certifications
The proposed rule drops the
‘‘capacity’’ requirement for crane
certification, leaving only certification
by crane type as the obligation of the
crane standard. Absent this proposal, all
crane operators who are currently

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 May 18, 2018

Jkt 244001

certified only by crane type would need
to obtain certification both by type and
capacity. To calculate the cost-savings
of additional certifications that would
be avoided by the proposed rule, OSHA
estimates the number of crane operators
not yet in compliance with the typeand-capacity certification requirement
and multiples that estimate by the
estimated cost of obtaining such
certification.
Based on OSHA’s previous
rulemakings, OSHA estimates that
71,700 crane operators do not yet
possess a type-and-capacity
certification. (82 FR 51993). Although
the 2014 FEA estimated a gradual
decline over time of the number of such
operators (an estimate of 61,474 in 2016,
see Table 1, 79 FR 57796), the 2017
extension estimated that the 71,700
operators were not yet in compliance
and would not be for much of 2017 and
2018 leading up to the new 2018
deadline. (see Table 1, 82 FR 51995). In
this PEA, the Agency accordingly
estimates the number of operators
certified by crane type only will remain
at 71,700 each year. OSHA has adopted
this approach because 71,700 is the last
hard data point the Agency has, and
certification has gradually spread as a
requirement in the crane operator job
market. It is quite possible the number
of operators possessing a type, but not
type-and-capacity certification, is
actually higher today: the largest
certification school gives a certificate
which is by type only. The Agency
requests comment and further data on
this issue.
OSHA also looked to the 2017
deadline extension rule to estimate the
unit cost of a type and capacity
certificate. There, the Agency estimated
that such a test would take 2.5 hours
and require a $250 fixed testing fee (82
FR 51994). At the hourly crane operator
wage noted above ($42.06), the total cost
for a compliant certification is $356.50
($250 + (2.5 × $42.06)). If 71,700 crane
operators needed to take the test the cost
would be $25,560,840 (71,700 ×
$356.50). Because this rule would
remove the requirement for additional
certifications by capacity, that amount
becomes a cost saving.
This, of course, is a one-time cost
savings, while costs of continued
evaluations and most of the other cost
elements of the rule are ongoing. Using
the Agency’s standard 10 year horizon,
the result is an annualized cost savings
of $2,996,510 at a discount rate of 3
percent, and an annualized cost savings
of $3,639,289 at a discount rate of 7
percent.
The Agency estimates there will also
be ongoing cost savings due to a number

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

23561

of certifications that would only be
needed for a change in capacity and
hence no longer will be incurred. More
than half of certified crane operators
have been certified by a certifying body
(including state and local governments)
that does not issue certificates by
capacity, which indicates that many of
these operators may not need multiple
capacity certifications. OSHA
conservatively estimates the value of
this cost savings by taking 50 percent of
the 2,324 additional evaluations, or
1,162 (0.50 × 2,324) as an additional
number of annual certifications required
solely due to changes in capacity. The
unit cost for this certification follows
previous analysis in assigning a $250
flat fee for the certificate, as well as 1.5
hours of the operator’s time for the
written exam and 1 hour for the
practical exam. This gives a unit cost of
$356.50 ($250 + (2.5 × $42.60)). Finally,
the total annual cost savings for these
avoided certifications is $414,172 (1,162
× $356.50). Hence, along with the onetime cost savings due to omitted
certifications, the total cost savings for
these two elements are $3,410,683
($2,996,510 + $414,172) at 3%, and total
cost savings for these two elements of
$4,053,461 ($3,639,289 + $414,172) at
7%.
OSHA requests comment on this cost
savings and its component estimates,
including the estimate of the total
number of operators who might still
require multiple certificates if OSHA
removes the requirement for
certification by capacity as proposed.
e. Total Cost of the Proposed Rule
The total annual cost of the proposed
rule comprises the cost items identified
above: Evaluations (those previously
calculated with offsets from the
proposed removal of the requirements to
certify by capacity, as well as the
additional evaluation costs to account
for new skills and tasks), documentation
of the evaluations (including the onetime first year evaluation
documentation for old operators
without such documentation), and
training costs. The cost savings is due to
averting the need for all operators who
currently have a type only certification
to obtain a type-and-capacity
certification. Since the last item is
relatively large primarily occurs in the
first year while the other costs are
ongoing, the discount rate and discount
horizon have a significant impact on the
final total cost. At a discount rate of 3
percent the sum of those parts is a cost
savings of $1,827,513 ($1,373,622 +
$51,511+ $59,479 + $90,649 + $7,909—
$2,996,510¥$414,172). For a discount
rate of 7 percent there is a cost savings

E:\FR\FM\21MYP2.SGM

21MYP2

23562

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules

of $2,468,595 ($1,373,622 + $51,511 +
$59,479 + $90,649 +
$9,605¥$3,639,289¥$414,172).
f. Economic and Technological
Feasibility
The Agency has preliminarily
determined that the proposal is
technologically feasible because many
employers already comply with all the
provisions of the proposed rule and the
rule would not require any new
technology. The largest cost element of
this proposed rule is a new evaluation
with associated training of $78.03 per
training, which should be a small
expense for the businesses covered
under this proposal. The vast majority
of employers already invest the
resources necessary to comply with the
provisions of the proposed standard.
Hence the Agency preliminarily
concludes that the proposed standard is
economically feasible.

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2

g. Certification of No Significant
Economic Impact on a Substantial
Number of Small Entities
The largest cost element of this
proposed rule is a new evaluation with
associated training of $78.03 per
training. Small businesses will, by
definition, have few operators, and the
$88.68 cost for each operator evaluation
with training will not be a significant
impact for even the smallest businesses.
Hence, OSHA certifies that this
proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
h. Benefits
OSHA’s 2010 Cranes and Derricks in
Construction standard included an
extensive analysis of the benefits
attributed to preventing crane-related
fatalities and serious injuries. In that
analysis, OSHA relied on IMIS injury
data made available in 2008 (see 75 FR
48093), finding that the standard would
prevent 175 injuries and 22 fatalities per
year for a total annual benefit of $209.3
million (75 FR 48079–48080).
As noted in the sections on
‘‘Background’’ and ‘‘Need for a Rule,’’
OSHA received significant feedback
from stakeholders following the 2010
final rule indicating that the standard, to
be fully effective, would need to
preserve the employer duty to evaluate
operators separately from the general
operator certification requirement. The
certifications are intended to address
basic operator knowledge and skills, but
do not assess operators’ familiarity with
the actual equipment they will operate
or the specific tasks they will perform.
The proposed amendments to the
standard would make that employer

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 May 18, 2018

Jkt 244001

duty permanent and add specificity,
thereby ensuring that the full benefits of
the standard would be realized.
The safety benefit of the rule is the
prevention of injuries or fatalities
resulting when operators certified to
operate the type of crane assigned still
lack the knowledge or skill to operate
that crane for the assigned task. As
noted earlier, there are many variables
in equipment and controls between
different models of the same type of
crane, and there are many crane
operations that require additional
knowledge and skill beyond that
demonstrated during certification (e.g.,
swinging a ‘‘headache ball’’ instead of
lifting a load, performing a blind lift,
participating in a multi-crane lift, etc.).
Certification does not address these
variables or provide assurance that the
operators are qualified to operate the
equipment for the task assigned, so
without these amendments operators
could be permitted to perform
equipment operations after November
2018 that they are not qualified to
operate safely. OSHA has already
determined that there is a significant
risk of injury when operators are
allowed to operate heavy machinery
that they are not qualified to operate.
The 2010 crane rule estimated annual
net benefits at $55.2 million in 2010
dollars (75 FR 47914). Since there are
cost savings for this NPRM, net benefits
of the joint 2010 final rule and this
NPRM are vastly greater than zero.
While this proposed rule would
attempt to realize the full benefits
already identified in 2010 for the
standard, and OSHA need not parse the
benefits of each provision of the
standard separately, OSHA recognizes
that the proposal is also likely to
generate additional benefits from the
more specific requirement for employers
to evaluate operators on specific
equipment for specific tasks. To explore
this, OSHA conducted further analysis
of more recent IMIS incident reports in
an effort to illustrate the new benefits of
the proposed evaluation requirements
beyond the benefits that would be
achieved through the existing standard
with operator certification alone.
OSHA looked at IMIS accident reports
for 2009–2013, years subsequent to the
data used for the FEA for the 2010
rulemaking. All accidents with any of
the search terms ‘‘boom,’’ ‘‘crane,’’ or
‘‘pile driver’’ in either the event
description or in the abstract were
examined, the same keywords as used
in the analysis for the 2010 final rule.
OSHA identified incidents where there
was an express mention in the IMIS
description that the crane operator was
unfamiliar with the specific crane

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

equipment used during the incident, or
with the specific task. Using this
methodology, the Agency has been able
to identify three fatalities that may have
been prevented if the proposed
evaluation requirement had been in
place at the time. It is true that there was
a general duty to ensure operator
competency at the time of these
incidents. (See §§ 1926.20(b)(4) and
1427(k)(2)). But, as explained above, the
existing employer duty is stated very
generally and employers might believe
that a preliminary general examination
of the operator could satisfy the
requirement, without accounting for
evaluation of the operator’s ability to
operate different models of the same
type or perform new tasks.
OSHA believes that the proposed rule,
which makes the evaluation duty
permanent and includes more detailed
evaluation documentation requirements,
would make it more likely an employer
conducts the appropriate type of
evaluation and therefore more likely
that such incidents would be avoided in
the future. By specifying the elements to
be evaluated, OSHA expects the
evaluations to be more effective at
preventing injuries by identifying
operator limitations in a timely manner.
For example, the employer might have
believed it was complying with the
existing general employer duty if it
evaluated an operator and found that
the operator was qualified to operate a
particular crane to lift pallets of
material, even though the employer did
not perform any additional evaluation
before assigning the operator to a lift
that required additional skills, such as
a blind lift or lifting poles instead of
pallets. As indicated by the second IMIS
example below, there is greater risk of
injury if the operator is not qualified to
perform the new task. OSHA also
expects the documentation requirement
to assist employers in complying with
the different evaluation elements of the
standard. And OSHA expects that the
documentation requirement will
facilitate communication between
supervisors and operators and help
avoid assignment of an operator to
equipment or tasks for which he or she
is not qualified, thereby reducing the
risk of injury from unqualified
operation.
The IMIS summaries are not
particularly detailed or uniform, so
many more of these incidents may also
have involved similar operator failures
that were not explicitly detailed in the
IMIS summary. But the complete IMIS
abstract of each fatal incident follows.
Case One: Operator not competent to
use specific equipment:

E:\FR\FM\21MYP2.SGM

21MYP2

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules
At approximately 2:50 p.m. on June 16,
2009, an employee was walking toward a
seawall the company was reconstructing
when a section of the boom failed and fell
on him. The employee was killed. The crane
had been built in 1964, and was bought by
Ray Qualmann Marine Construction, Inc. on
April 29, 2008. The company never
performed an annual inspection of the crane
or a monthly one, and documentation was
not available to indicate any maintenance
had been done to the crane. The only
documentation available for the crane was an
inspection report dated June 10 2009, made
by a crane operator who worked for the
company, which failed to identify that the
crane did not have a boom angle indicator,
that several lacings were bent on it, and that
the angles and spacing of the repaired lacings
were uneven. In addition, neither the crane
operator who operated the crane on the day
of the accident, nor the foreman, had ever
seen the operator’s and maintenance manual
for the crane involved in the accident. The
crane operator was not familiar with the
controls of the crane. The operator did not
know the weight of the load, and did not
know the length of the boom. The crane was
overloaded when the accident occurred.

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2

The general manager of Ray
Qualmann Marine Construction claimed
that the operator had extensive crane
experience and had worked for the
company for more than 20 years. OSHA
concluded in its investigation, however,
that the company allowed the operator
use of the Link-Belt LS–58 crane with
no training for this equipment. The
abstract indicates that the lack of
familiarity with the specific equipment
used contributed to the fatality. An
evaluation of the operator’s competency
on the specific equipment, rather than
the general skills and knowledge tested
as part of the third-party certification
process, would have been more likely to
identify the problem in this case and
avoid the resulting fatality.
Case Two: Operator not competent to
perform specific task:
On November 17, 2009, employees with
Moreau’s Material Yard were driving pilings
for an oil rig foundation in which a 4,000 lb
hammer, attached to the top of the lead, was
used to drive 70 to 75 ft poles into the
ground. Employee #1 was working on a
crawler crane platform approximately 20 to
25 ft above the ground. He was wearing a
harness with a lanyard connected to a ladder
rung. When the crane tipped over, Employee
#1 attempted to jump from the platform to
the ground below. He was struck by the crane
and killed. The crane operator sustained
minor injuries. Other employees indicated
that the employer had never lifted poles of
that size and the crane boom may have been
used at an improper angle for the load being
carried.

It is clear from the IMIS report that
the operator was familiar with crane
equipment but had never lifted poles of
that size. While all of the details of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 May 18, 2018

Jkt 244001

task are not included in the abstract, the
note about the different pole size and
the operator’s use of an improper boom
angle suggest that the activity was
significantly different from previous
activities such that it would have
required different knowledge or skills.
This incident and resulting injuries
might have been prevented if the
employer took the time to evaluate the
operator for the specific task assigned.
Case Three: Operator inadequately
trained:
On June 23, 2011, Employee #1, an
ironworker, was installing a structural steel
bracing and painting structural steel beams in
the ceiling of a manufacturing plant addition.
Employee #1 was working alone from a
boom-supported aerial work platform that
was borrowed from another employer. At
approximately 11:15 a.m., an electrician
walked into the area and found the aerial
work platform elevated with Employee #1
slumped over the controls. Employee #1 was
crushed between the work platform and one
of the ceiling beams. Other tradesmen at the
worksite used the ground controls to lower
Employee #1 to the floor. Employee #1 died
from the injuries. Employee #1 had been
trained in operating a boom-supported aerial
work platform by his employer, but was not
trained in the differences between those
aerial work platforms that were owned by the
employer and the borrowed lift being used
the morning of the incident. The drive
controls on the borrowed aerial work
platform may have been reversed from the
actual direction that they would operate.

The abstract does not include enough
information to be certain as to whether
the ‘‘boom-supported aerial work
platform’’ was equipment that would be
covered by the crane standard (it could
be a simple aerial lift not covered by the
standard, or a boom crane or multipurpose machine configured to support
the work platform in a manner that
would be within the scope of the
standard). Nevertheless, the incident
illustrates the potentially fatal
consequence of requiring an employee
to operate new equipment without
ensuring that the employee can account
for differences in control locations and
functions. Like the previous cases, the
employee received training for certain
crane equipment but lacked the skills
necessary to operate the borrowed
machinery used on the day of the
accident. Had the employee been
evaluated by his employer before using
the equipment, the employee’s
unfamiliarity with the equipment could
have been identified earlier and the
fatality might have been prevented.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
A. Overview
The purpose of the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

23563

seq., includes enhancing the quality and
utility of information the Federal
government requires and minimizing
the paperwork and reporting burden on
affected entities. The PRA requires
certain actions before an agency can
adopt or revise a collection of
information (also referred to as a
‘‘paperwork’’ requirement), including
publishing a summary of the collection
of information and a brief description of
the need for, and proposed use of, the
information. The PRA defines
‘‘collection of information’’ as ‘‘the
obtaining, causing to be obtained,
soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to
third parties or the public, of facts or
opinions by or for an agency, regardless
of form or format.’’ (44 U.S.C.
3502(3)(A)). Under the PRA, a Federal
agency may not conduct or sponsor a
collection of information unless it is
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) and displays a
currently valid OMB control number,
and the public is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number (44 U.S.C. 3507). Also,
notwithstanding any other provisions of
law, no person shall be subject to
penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information if the
collection of information does not
display a currently valid OMB control
number (44 U.S.C. 3512).
B. Solicitation of Comments
The ‘‘Cranes and Derricks in
Construction: Operator Qualification’’
proposal would establish new
information collection requirements.
The proposal would also modify a small
number of information collection
requirements in the existing Cranes and
Derricks in Construction Standard (29
CFR part 1926, subpart CC) Information
Collection (IC) approved by OMB.
OSHA has prepared a new Information
Collection request (that modifies the
existing Cranes and Derricks in
Construction package) to reflect the
NPRM’s new or revised collections of
information.
Concurrent with publication of this
proposed rule, OSHA submitted the
new Cranes and Derricks in
Construction Standard (29 CFR part
1926, subpart CC): Operator
Qualification Information Collection
Request (ICR) to OMB for review with
a request for a new control number (ICR
Reference Number 201710–1218–002).
When the final rule is published, OSHA
will submit the final ICR for the final
Cranes and Derricks in Construction
Standard: Operator Qualification to
OMB for approval. If approved, OSHA
will request approval to amend the

E:\FR\FM\21MYP2.SGM

21MYP2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2

23564

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules

comprehensive Cranes and Derricks in
Construction Information Collection
(OMB control number 1218–0261) to
incorporate the ICR analysis associated
with the final Cranes and Derricks in
Construction Standard: Operator
Qualification and to discontinue the
new control number. In addition to
commenting to the agency, the PRA
provides an opportunity for members of
the public to comment on the
information collection requirements
during a 30-day period directly to OMB.
Some of these revisions, if adopted,
would result in changes to the existing
burden hour and/or cost estimates
associated with the current, OMBapproved information collection
requirements contained in the Cranes
and Derricks in Construction Standard
Information Collection. Others would
not change burden hour or cost
estimates, but would substantively
modify language contained in the
currently OMB-approved ICR. Still
others would revise existing standard
provisions that are not collections of
information, will not change burden
hour or cost estimates, and will not
modify any language in the ICR. This
preamble summarizes the first two
categories to ensure that the ICR reflects
the updated regulatory text, but not the
last category of revisions. In addition,
this preamble does not address the
proposed provisions that are
substantively unchanged from the
current, OMB-approved information
collection requirements. Discussion and
justification of these provisions can be
found in the preamble to the final crane
standard (75 FR 48017) and also in the
Supporting Statements for this proposal
as well as the approved Information
Collection.
The Agency and OMB solicit
comments on the Cranes and Derricks
Standard information collection
requirements as they would be revised
by this rule. Particularly, comments are
sought to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed
information collection requirements are
necessary for the proper performance of
the Agency’s functions, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of OSHA’s
estimate of the time and cost burden of
the proposed information collection
requirements, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the
information collection requirements on
those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 May 18, 2018

Jkt 244001

automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
A copy of the ICR for this proposal,
with applicable supporting
documentation; including a description
of the likely respondents, estimated
frequency of response, and estimated
total burden may be obtained free of
charge from the RegInfo.gov website at:
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201710-1218-002
(this link will only become active on the
day following publication of this
notice).
C. Proposed Revisions to the
Information Collection Requirements
As required by 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv)
and 1320.8(d)(1), OSHA is providing the
following summary information about
the information collection requirements
identified in the proposal.
1. Title: Cranes and Derricks in
Construction: Operator Qualification.
2. Description of the ICR. The
proposal creates new information
collection requirements and modifies
approved information collection
requirements in the existing ‘‘Cranes
and Derricks in Construction Standard’’
Information Collection. The major
differences in the information collection
requirements contained in the proposal
from the information collection
requirements currently approved in the
ICR are discussed below and in more
specific detail in Section III: Summary
and Explanation of the Proposed
Amendments to Subpart CC.
Section 1926.1427(a)—Operator
Training, Certification, and Evaluation
The introductory text in proposed
paragraph (a) sets out the employer’s
responsibility to ensure that each
operator is certified/licensed in
accordance with subpart CC, and is
evaluated on his or her competence to
safely operate the equipment that will
be used, before the employer permits
him or her to operate equipment
covered by subpart CC without
continuous monitoring. The proposed
new approach provides a clearer
structure than the existing standard,
which was not designed to
accommodate both certification and
evaluation.
Section 1926.1427(c)—Certification and
Licensing
Under paragraph (c), the employer
must ensure that each operator is
certified or licensed to operate the
equipment. Proposed paragraph (c)
retains the certification and licensing

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

structure of the existing standard with
only a few minor modifications
intended to improve comprehension of
certification/licensing requirements. For
example, OSHA proposes to remove the
somewhat misleading reference to an
‘‘option’’ with respect to mandatory
compliance with existing state and local
licensing requirements that meet the
minimum requirements under federal
law.
Section 1926.1427(d)—Certification by
an Accredited Crane Operator Testing
Organization
Proposed paragraph (d) retains the
requirements of existing paragraph
§ 1926.1427(b), except that the proposal
removes the requirement for
certification by capacity of crane, as
required in existing sub-paragraph
(b)(1)(ii)(B) and (b)(2). The need for this
change is explained in the ‘‘Need for a
Rule’’ section of this preamble. The
proposal also makes some nonsubstantive language clarifications.
Compliance with the requirements of
proposed paragraph (d) is the option
that OSHA expects the vast majority of
employers to use.
Section 1926.1427(f)—Evaluation
Proposed paragraph (f) sets out new
specific requirements that employers
must follow to conduct an operator
evaluation and reevaluation, including
documentation requirements. Proposed
paragraph (f)(4) requires the employer to
document the evaluation of each
operator and to ensure that the
documentation is available at the
worksite. This paragraph also specifies
the information that the documentation
would need to include: The operator’s
name, the evaluator’s name, the date of
the evaluation, and the make, model
and configuration of the equipment on
which the operator was evaluated.
However, the documentation would not
need to be in any particular format.
Under the proposal, not all operators
exempted from certification
requirements would also be exempted
from the evaluation requirements.
Proposed paragraph § 1926.1427(a)(2)
continues the existing exemption from
the training and certification
requirements in that section for
operators of three types of equipment:
derricks, sideboom cranes, and
equipment with a maximum
manufacturer-rated hoisting/lifting
capacity of 2,000 pounds or less. In the
current crane standard, these three types
of equipment are exempt from all of the
requirements in § 1926.1427 as the
result of language in § 1926.1427(a) and
specific exemptions in §§ 1926.1436(q),
1440(a), and 1441(a). The proposal

E:\FR\FM\21MYP2.SGM

21MYP2

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules
would not, however, exempt employers
from the requirements in § 1926.1427(f)
to evaluate the potential operators of
those types of equipment to ensure that
they have sufficient knowledge and
skills to perform the assigned tasks with
the assigned equipment. Accordingly,
OSHA proposes to preserve the
evaluation requirements through the
revision of the language in
§ 1926.1427(a) and corresponding edits
to narrow the exemptions in
§§ 1926.1436(q), 1440(a), and 1441(a).
Section 1926.1427(h)—Language and
Literacy
Existing paragraph § 1926.1427(h)
allows operators to be certified in a
language other than English, provided
that the operator understands that
language. Proposed paragraph (h) is
nearly identical to existing paragraph
(h) with the exception that it removes
the reference to the existing
qualification language in paragraph
(b)(2), which has been replaced.

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2

Sections 1926.1436(q)—Derricks,
1926.1440(a)—Sideboom Cranes, and
1926.1441(a)—Equipment With a Rated
Hoisting/Lifting Capacity of 2,000
Pounds or Less
As discussed earlier, OSHA proposed
to amend paragraphs §§ 1926.1436(q)
1926.1440(a), and 1926.1441(a) to
ensure that the evaluation requirements
in§ 1926.1427(f) apply to employers
using derricks, sideboom cranes, and
equipment with a rated capacity of
2,000 pounds or less.
Number of respondents: 117,130.
Frequency of responses: Various.
Number of responses: 75,591.
Average time per response: Various.
Estimated total burden hours: 4,773.
Estimated cost (capital-operation and
maintenance): $71.
D. Submitting Comments
In addition to submitting comments
directly to the Agency, members of the
public who wish to comment on the
Agency’s information collection
requirements in this proposal may send
written comments to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the DOL–
OSHA (RIN–1218–AC96), Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10235,
Washington, DC 20503. You may also
submit comments to OMB by email at:
[email protected]. Please
reference the ICR Reference Number
201710–1218–002 in order to help
ensure proper consideration. The
Agency encourages commenters also to
submit their comments related to the
Agency’s clarification of the information
collection requirements to the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 May 18, 2018

Jkt 244001

rulemaking docket (Docket Number
OSHA–2007–0066), along with their
comments on other parts of the
proposed rule. For instructions on
submitting these comments to the
rulemaking docket, see the sections of
this Federal Register notice titled DATES
and ADDRESSES.
E. Docket and Inquiries
A copy of the ICR for this proposal,
with applicable supporting
documentation; including a description
of the likely respondents, estimated
frequency of response, and estimated
total burden may be obtained free of
charge from the RegInfo.gov website at:
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201710-1218-002
(this link will only become active on the
day following publication of this
notice). Copies of these documents may
also be obtained by contacting Mr.
Vernon Preston, Directorate of
Construction, OSHA; telephone (202)
693–2020; email Preston.Vernon@
dol.gov.
D. Federalism
OSHA reviewed this proposed rule in
accordance with the Executive Order on
Federalism (Executive Order 13132, 64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999), which
requires that Federal agencies, to the
extent possible, refrain from limiting
state policy options, consult with states
prior to taking any actions that would
restrict state policy options, and take
such actions only when clear
constitutional and statutory authority
exists and the problem is national in
scope. Executive Order 13132 provides
for preemption of state law only with
the expressed consent of Congress.
Federal agencies must limit any such
preemption to the extent possible.
Under Section 18 of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act;
29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.), Congress
expressly provides that states and U.S.
territories may adopt, with Federal
approval, a plan for the development
and enforcement of occupational safety
and health standards. OSHA refers to
such states and territories as ‘‘State Plan
States.’’ Occupational safety and health
standards developed by State Plan
States must be at least as effective in
providing safe and healthful
employment and places of employment
as the Federal standards (29 U.S.C. 667).
Subject to these requirements, State
Plan States are free to develop and
enforce under state law their own
requirements for safety and health
standards.
OSHA previously concluded from its
analysis that promulgation of subpart
CC complies with Executive Order

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

23565

13132 (see 75 FR 48128–29). The
proposed amendments do not change
that conclusion. In states without an
OSHA-approved State Plan, this
proposed rule would limit state policy
options in the same manner as every
standard promulgated by OSHA. But the
proposed rule also requires compliance
with state and local crane operator
licensing programs that meet certain
minimum standards. For State Plan
States, Section 18 of the OSH Act, as
noted in the previous paragraph,
permits State-Plan States to develop and
enforce their own cranes standards
provided these requirements are at least
as effective in providing safe and
healthful employment and places of
employment as the requirements
specified in this proposed rule.
E. State Plans
When Federal OSHA promulgates a
new standard or a more stringent
amendment to an existing standard,
State Plans must either amend their
standards to be identical or ‘‘at least as
effective as’’ the new standard or
amendment, or show that an existing
state standard covering this area is ‘‘at
least as effective’’ as the new Federal
standard or amendment (29 CFR
1953.5(a)). State Plans’ adoption must
be completed within six months of the
promulgation date of the final Federal
rule. When OSHA promulgates a new
standard or amendment that does not
impose additional or more stringent
requirements than an existing standard,
State Plans do not have to amend their
standards, although OSHA may
encourage them to do so. The 21 states
and 1 U.S. territory with OSHAapproved occupational safety and health
plans covering private sector and state
and local government are: Alaska,
Arizona, California, Hawaii, Indiana,
Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan,
Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North
Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont,
Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.
Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, New
Jersey, New York, and the Virgin Islands
have OSHA-approved State Plans that
apply to state and local government
employees only.
The amendments to OSHA’s cranes
standard in this proposed rule would
require employers to implement
permanent evaluations of crane
operators. These evaluations must be
documented and include more
specificity than the existing temporary
employer duty to assess and train
operators under § 1926.1427(k)(2).
Accordingly, State Plans would be
required to adopt an ‘‘at least as
effective’’ change to their standard.

E:\FR\FM\21MYP2.SGM

21MYP2

23566

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules

OSHA is also removing the existing
requirement for crane operators to be
certified by crane capacity as well as
crane type. Because this change removes
a requirement rather than imposing one,
State Plans would not be required to
make this change, but may do so if they
so choose.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
When OSHA issued the final Cranes
and Derricks in Construction rule, it
reviewed the rule according to the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA; 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) and
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255
(Aug. 10, 1999)). OSHA concluded that
the final rule did not meet the definition
of a ‘‘Federal intergovernmental
mandate’’ under the UMRA because
OSHA standards do not apply to state or
local governments except in states that
voluntarily adopt State Plans. OSHA
further noted that the rule imposed
costs of over $100 million per year on
the private sector and, therefore,
required review under the UMRA for
those costs, but concluded that its final
economic analysis met that requirement.
As discussed above in Section III.A
(Final Economic Analysis and
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis) of this
preamble, this proposed rule has cost
savings of approximately $1.8m per
year. Therefore, for the purposes of the
UMRA, OSHA certifies that this
proposed rule would not mandate that
state, local, or tribal governments adopt
new, unfunded regulatory obligations,
or increase expenditures by the private
sector of more than $100 million in any
year.

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2

G. Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
OSHA reviewed this proposed rule in
accordance with Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249) and determined that it
would not have ‘‘tribal implications’’ as
defined in that order. The proposed rule
would not have substantial direct effects
on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes.
H. Executive Order 13771: Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
Consistent with E.O. 13771 (82 FR
9339, February 3, 2017), OSHA has
estimated at a 3 percent discount rate,
there are net annual cost savings of
$1,738,540, and at a discount rate of 7
percent there is an annual cost savings
of $2,230,511. This proposed rule is
expected to be an E.O. 13771

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 May 18, 2018

Jkt 244001

deregulatory action. Details on the
estimated costs and cost savings
estimates for this proposed rule can be
found in the rule’s economic analysis.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1926
Certification, Construction industry,
Cranes, Derricks, Occupational safety
and health, Qualification, Safety,
Training.
Signed at Washington, DC, on May 14,
2018.
Loren Sweatt,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health.

For the reasons stated in the preamble
of this proposed rule, OSHA proposes to
amend 29 CFR part 1926 as follows:
PART 1926—SAFETY AND HEALTH
REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION
Subpart CC—Cranes and Derricks in
Construction
1. The authority citation for subpart
CC continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: Section 3704 of the Contract
Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40
U.S.C. 3701); sections 4, 6, and 8 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
(29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor’s
Order No. 5–2007 (72 FR 31159); and 29 CFR
part 1911.

2. Revise § 1926.1427 to read as
follows:

■

§ 1926.1427 Operator training,
certification, and evaluation.

(a) The employer must ensure that
each operator is trained, certified/
licensed, and evaluated in accordance
with this section before operating any
equipment covered under subpart CC,
except for the equipment listed in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(1) An employee who has not been
certified/licensed and evaluated to
operate assigned equipment in
accordance with this section may only
operate the equipment as an operator-intraining under supervision in
accordance with the requirements of
paragraph (b) of this section.
(2) Exceptions. Operator certification/
licensing and training under this section
is not required for operators of derricks
(see § 1926.1436), sideboom cranes (see
§ 1926.1440), or equipment with a
maximum manufacturer-rated hoisting/
lifting capacity of 2,000 pounds or less
(see § 1926.1441). Note: The training
requirements in those other sections
continue to apply (for the training
requirement for operators of sideboom
cranes, follow section 1926.1430(c)).
(3) Qualification by the U.S. military.
(i) For purposes of this section, an
operator who is an employee of the U.S.

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

military meets the requirements of this
section if he/she has a current operator
qualification issued by the U.S. military
for operation of the equipment. An
employee of the U.S. military is a
Federal employee of the Department of
Defense or Armed Forces and does not
include employees of private
contractors.
(ii) A qualification under this
paragraph is:
(A) Not portable. Such a qualification
meets the requirements of paragraph (a)
of this section only where the operator
is employed by (and operating the
equipment for) the employer that issued
the qualification.
(B) Valid for the period of time
stipulated by the issuing entity.
(b) Operator training. The employer
must provide each operator-in-training
with sufficient training, through a
combination of formal and practical
instruction, to ensure that the operatorin-training develops the skills,
knowledge, and judgment necessary to
operate the equipment safely for
assigned work.
(1) The employer must provide
instruction on the knowledge and skills
listed in paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this
section to the operator-in-training.
(2) The operator-in-training must be
continuously monitored on site by a
trainer while operating equipment.
(3) The employer may only assign
tasks within the operator-in-training’s
ability. However, the operator-intraining shall not operate the equipment
in any of the following circumstances
except as provided in paragraph
(b)(3)(v) of this section:
(i) If any part of the equipment, load
line or load (including rigging and
lifting accessories), if operated up to the
equipment’s maximum working radius
in the work zone (see § 1926.1408(a)(1)),
could get within 20 feet of a power line
that is up to 350 kV, or within 50 feet
of a power line that is over 350 kV.
(ii) If the equipment is used to hoist
personnel.
(iii) In multiple-equipment lifts.
(iv) If the equipment is used over a
shaft, cofferdam, or in a tank farm.
(v) In multiple-lift rigging operations,
except where the operator’s trainer
determines that the operator-in-training
skills are sufficient for this high-skill
work.
(4) Monitored Training. The employer
must ensure that an operator-in-training
is monitored as follows when operating
equipment covered by this subpart:
(i) Trainer. While operating the
equipment, the operator-in-training
must be continuously monitored by an
individual (‘‘operator’s trainer’’) who
meets all of the following requirements:

E:\FR\FM\21MYP2.SGM

21MYP2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules
(A) The operator’s trainer is an
employee or agent of the operator-intraining’s employer.
(B) Have the knowledge, training, and
experience necessary to direct the
operator-in-training on the equipment in
use.
(ii) While monitoring the operator-intraining, the operator’s trainer performs
no tasks that detract from the trainer’s
ability to monitor the operator-intraining.
(iii) For equipment other than tower
cranes: The operator’s trainer and the
operator-in-training must be in direct
line of sight of each other. In addition,
they must communicate verbally or by
hand signals. For tower cranes: The
operator’s trainer and the operator-intraining must be in direct
communication with each other.
(iv) Continuous monitoring while
operating the equipment. The operatorin-training must be monitored by the
operator’s trainer at all times, except for
short breaks where all of the following
are met:
(A) The break lasts no longer than 15
minutes and there is no more than one
break per hour.
(B) Immediately prior to the break the
operator’s trainer informs the operatorin-training of the specific tasks that the
operator-in-training is to perform and
limitations to which he/she must adhere
during the operator trainer’s break.
(C) The specific tasks that the
operator-in-training will perform during
the operator trainer’s break are within
the operator-in-training’s abilities.
(5) Retraining. The employer must
provide refresher training in relevant
topics for each operator when, based on
the performance of the operator or an
evaluation of the operator’s knowledge,
there is an indication that retraining is
necessary.
(c) Operator certification and
licensing. The employer must ensure
that each operator is certified or
licensed to operate the equipment as
follows:
(1) Licensing. When a state or local
government issues operator licenses for
equipment covered under subpart CC,
the equipment operator must be
licensed by that government entity for
operation of equipment within that
entity’s jurisdiction if that government
licensing program meets the following
requirements:
(i) The requirements for obtaining the
license include an assessment, by
written and practical tests, of the
operator applicant regarding, at a
minimum, the knowledge and skills
listed in paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this
section.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 May 18, 2018

Jkt 244001

(ii) The testing meets industryrecognized criteria for written testing
materials, practical examinations, test
administration, grading, facilities/
equipment, and personnel.
(iii) The government authority that
oversees the licensing department/office
has determined that the requirements in
paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this
section have been met.
(iv) The licensing department/office
has testing procedures for re-licensing
designed to ensure that the operator
continues to meet the technical
knowledge and skills requirements in
paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this section.
(v) The license must specify the type,
or type and capacity, of equipment for
which the individual is licensed.
(vi) For the purposes of compliance
with this section, a license is valid for
the period of time stipulated by the
licensing department/office, but no
longer than 5 years.
(2) Certification. When an operator is
not required to be licensed under
paragraph (c)(1), the operator must be
certified in accordance with paragraph
(d) or (e) of this section.
(3) Whenever operator certification/
licensure is required under § 1926.1427,
the employer must provide the
certification at no cost to employees.
(4) A testing entity is permitted to
provide training as well as testing
services as long as the criteria of the
applicable governmental or accrediting
agency (in the option selected) for an
organization providing both services are
met.
(d) Certification by an accredited
crane operator testing organization. (1)
For a certification to satisfy the
requirements of this section, the crane
operator testing organization providing
the certification must:
(i) Be accredited by a nationally
recognized accrediting agency based on
that agency’s determination that
industry-recognized criteria for written
testing materials, practical
examinations, test administration,
grading, facilities/equipment, and
personnel have been met.
(ii) Administer written and practical
tests that:
(A) Assess the operator applicant
regarding, at a minimum, the knowledge
and skills listed in paragraphs (j)(1) and
(2) of this section.
(B) Provide certification based on
equipment type, or type and capacity.
(iii) Have procedures for operators to
re-apply and be re-tested in the event an
operator applicant fails a test or is
decertified.
(iv) Have testing procedures for recertification designed to ensure that the
operator continues to meet the technical

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

23567

knowledge and skills requirements in
paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this section.
(v) Have its accreditation reviewed by
the nationally recognized accrediting
agency at least every 3 years.
(2) If no accredited testing agency
offers certification examinations for a
particular type of equipment, an
operator will be deemed certified for
that equipment if the operator has been
certified for the type that is most similar
to that equipment and for which a
certification examination is available.
The operator’s certificate must state the
type of equipment for which the
operator is certified.
(3) A certification issued under this
option is portable among employers
who are required to have operators
certified under this option.
(4) A certification issued under this
paragraph is valid for 5 years.
(e) Audited employer program. The
employer’s certification of its employee
must meet the following requirements:
(1) The written and practical tests
must be either:
(i) Developed by an accredited crane
operator testing organization (see
paragraph (d) of this section); or
(ii) Approved by an auditor in
accordance with the following
requirements:
(A) The auditor is certified to evaluate
such tests by an accredited crane
operator testing organization (see
paragraph (d) of this section).
(B) The auditor is not an employee of
the employer.
(C) The approval must be based on the
auditor’s determination that the written
and practical tests meet nationally
recognized test development criteria
and are valid and reliable in assessing
the operator applicants regarding, at a
minimum, the knowledge and skills
listed in paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this
section.
(D) The audit must be conducted in
accordance with nationally recognized
auditing standards.
(2) Administration of tests. (i) The
written and practical tests must be
administered under circumstances
approved by the auditor as meeting
nationally recognized test
administration standards.
(ii) The auditor must be certified to
evaluate the administration of the
written and practical tests by an
accredited crane operator testing
organization (see paragraph (d) of this
section).
(iii) The auditor must not be an
employee of the employer.
(iv) The audit must be conducted in
accordance with nationally recognized
auditing standards.
(3) The employer program must be
audited within 3 months of the

E:\FR\FM\21MYP2.SGM

21MYP2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2

23568

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules

beginning of the program and at least
every 3 years thereafter.
(4) The employer program must have
testing procedures for re-qualification
designed to ensure that the operator
continues to meet the technical
knowledge and skills requirements in
paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this section.
The re-qualification procedures must be
audited in accordance with paragraphs
(e)(1) and (2) of this section.
(5) Deficiencies. If the auditor
determines that there is a significant
deficiency (‘‘deficiency’’) in the
program, the employer must ensure that:
(i) No operator is qualified until the
auditor confirms that the deficiency has
been corrected.
(ii) The program is audited again
within 180 days of the confirmation that
the deficiency was corrected.
(iii) The auditor files a documented
report of the deficiency to the
appropriate Regional Office of the
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration within 15 days of the
auditor’s determination that there is a
deficiency.
(iv) Records of the audits of the
employer’s program are maintained by
the auditor for 3 years and are made
available by the auditor to the Secretary
of Labor or the Secretary’s designated
representative upon request.
(6) A certification under this
paragraph is:
(i) Not portable. Such a certification
meets the requirements of paragraph (c)
of this section only where the operator
is employed by (and operating the
equipment for) the employer that issued
the qualification.
(ii) Valid for 5 years.
(f) Evaluation. (1) Through an
evaluation, the employer must ensure
that each operator demonstrates:
(i) The skills, knowledge, and
judgment necessary to operate the
equipment safely, including those
specific to the safety devices,
operational aids, software, and the size
and configuration of the equipment.
Size and configuration includes, but is
not limited to, lifting capacity, boom
length, attachments, luffing jib, and
counterweight set-up.
(ii) The ability to perform the hoisting
activities required for assigned work,
including, if applicable, blind lifts,
personnel hoisting, and multi-crane
lifts.
(2) The evaluation must be conducted
by an individual who has the
knowledge, training, and experience
necessary to assess equipment
operators.
(3) Once the evaluation is completed
successfully, the employer may allow
the operator to operate other equipment

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 May 18, 2018

Jkt 244001

that the employer can demonstrate does
not require substantially different skills,
knowledge, or judgment to operate.
(4) The employer must document the
completion of the evaluation. This
document must provide: the operator’s
name; the evaluator’s name and
signature; the date; and the make,
model, and configuration of equipment
used in the evaluation. The employer
must make the document available at
the worksite.
(5) When an employer is required to
provide an operator with retraining
under paragraph (b)(6) of this section,
the employer must re-evaluate the
operator with respect to the subject of
the retraining.
(g) [Reserved.]
(h) Language and literacy
requirements. (1) Tests under this
section may be administered verbally,
with answers given verbally, where the
operator candidate:
(i) Passes a written demonstration of
literacy relevant to the work.
(ii) Demonstrates the ability to use the
type of written manufacturer procedures
applicable to the class/type of
equipment for which the candidate is
seeking certification.
(2) Tests under this section may be
administered in any language the
operator candidate understands, and the
operator’s certification documentation
must note the language in which the test
was given. The operator is only
permitted to operate equipment that is
furnished with materials required by
this subpart, such as operations manuals
and load charts, that are written in the
language of the certification.
(i) [Reserved.]
(j) Certification criteria. Certifications
must be based on the following:
(1) A determination through a written
test that:
(i) The individual knows the
information necessary for safe operation
of the specific type of equipment the
individual will operate, including all of
the following:
(A) The controls and operational/
performance characteristics.
(B) Use of, and the ability to calculate
(manually or with a calculator), load/
capacity information on a variety of
configurations of the equipment.
(C) Procedures for preventing and
responding to power line contact.
(D) Technical knowledge of the
subject matter criteria listed in appendix
C of this subpart applicable to the
specific type of equipment the
individual will operate. Use of the
appendix C criteria meets the
requirements of this provision.
(E) Technical knowledge applicable to
the suitability of the supporting ground

PO 00000

Frm 00036

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

and surface to handle expected loads,
site hazards, and site access.
(F) This subpart, including applicable
incorporated materials.
(ii) The individual is able to read and
locate relevant information in the
equipment manual and other materials
containing information referred to in
paragraph (j)(1)(i) of this section.
(2) A determination through a
practical test that the individual has the
skills necessary for safe operation of the
equipment, including the following:
(i) Ability to recognize, from visual
and auditory observation, the items
listed in § 1926.1412(d) (shift
inspection).
(ii) Operational and maneuvering
skills.
(iii) Application of load chart
information.
(iv) Application of safe shut-down
and securing procedures.
(k) Effective date. The certification
requirements of this section are
applicable November 10, 2018.
■ 3. Amend § 1926.1430 to:
■ a. Revise paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2);
■ b. Remove paragraph (c)(3); and
■ c. Redesignate paragraph (c)(4) as
(c)(3) to read as follows:
§ 1926.1430

Training.

*

*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) The employer must train each
operator in accordance with
§ 1926.1427(a) and (b), on the safe
operation of the equipment the operator
will be using.
(2) Operators excepted from the
requirements of § 1926.1427. The
employer must train each operator
covered under the exception of
§ 1926.1427(a)(2) on the safe operation
of the equipment the operator will be
using.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. Amend § 1926.1436 by revising
paragraph (q) to read as follows:
§ 1926.1436

Derricks.

*

*
*
*
*
(q) Qualification and Training. The
employer must train each operator of a
derrick on the safe operation of
equipment the individual will operate.
Section 1926.1427 of this subpart
(Operator training, certification, and
evaluation) does not apply, except for
the evaluation requirements of
§ 1926.1427(f).
■ 5. Amend § 1926.1440 by revising
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 1926.1440

Sideboom cranes.

(a) The provisions of this subpart
apply, except § 1926.1420 (Ground
conditions), § 1926.1415 (Safety

E:\FR\FM\21MYP2.SGM

21MYP2

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules
devices), § 1926.1416 (Operational aids),
and § 1926.1427 (Operator training,
certification, and evaluation) paragraphs
(a)–(e) and (g)–(k). Section 1926.1427(f)
(Evaluation) applies.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 6. Amend § 1926.1441 by revising
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 1926.1441 Equipment with a rated
hoisting/lifting capacity of 2,000 pounds or
less.

*
*
*
*
(a) The employer using this
equipment must comply with the

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2

*

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 May 18, 2018

Jkt 244001

following provisions of this subpart:
§ 1926.1400 (Scope); § 1926.1401
(Definitions); § 1926.1402 (Ground
conditions); § 1926.1403 (Assembly/
disassembly—selection of manufacturer
or employer procedures); § 1926.1406
(Assembly/disassembly—employer
procedures); §§ 1926.1407 through
1926.1411 (Power line safety);
§ 1926.1412(c) (Post-assembly);
§§ 1926.1413 through 1926.1414 (Wire
rope); § 1926.1418 (Authority to stop
operation); §§ 1926.1419 through
1926.1422 (Signals); § 1926.1423 (Fall
protection); § 1926.1425 (Keeping clear

PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 9990

23569

of the load) (except for § 1926.1425(c)(3)
(qualified rigger)); § 1926.1426 (Free fall
and controlled load lowering);
§ 1926.1427(f) (Evaluation); § 1926.1432
(Multiple crane/derrick lifts—
supplemental requirements);
§ 1926.1434 (Equipment modifications);
§ 1926.1435 (Tower cranes); § 1926.1436
(Derricks); § 1926.1437 (Floating cranes/
derricks and land cranes/derricks on
barges); § 1926.1438 (Overhead & gantry
cranes).
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2018–10559 Filed 5–18–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P

E:\FR\FM\21MYP2.SGM

21MYP2