Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

OSHA Delays Crane Certification Requirements

By Stephen Cockerham on June 15, 2017
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

According to a recent Federal Register notice, OSHA is seeking to delay by a year its new certification requirements for construction crane operators, which are currently set to go into effect on November 10, 2017. Before it can officially delay the rules, however, OSHA must consult with the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH). On June 20th, ACCSH will hold a telephone conference, open to the public, to discuss the matter and receive public comments.

This would be the third extension of the OSHA crane operator certification requirements. The cranes standard, 29 CFR 1926.1427, originally went into effect in November of 2010, except for provisions related to operator certification, which were delayed until November 2014. In September 2014, OSHA issued a final rule that again extended the effective date of the operator certification requirements by another three years, until November 10, 2017. This latest announcement would delay the requirements until November 10, 2018. Importantly, each of these extensions also extended the requirement that employers ensure that crane operators are competent to operate the equipment safely.

Under these new certification requirements, any person operating a construction crane subject to OSHA’s cranes standard will have to be certified (except for operators of sidebooms or equipment rated at 2,000 pounds or less). Certification testing involves an equipment-specific written examination and a practical test. Operators on civil projects can be certified or qualified by: 1) an accredited third party testing organization; 2) the employer through an audited employer program; or 3) licensing through a state or local government that meets OSHA’s minimum requirements. The employer must pay certification costs.

OSHA’s delays in implementing the rule are apparently related to industry concerns that third-party testing organizations have to certify the operator for not only the type of crane, but also the lifting capacity of the crane. Also, some have questioned whether the certification requirements are sufficient.

The bottom line: While the crane operator certification requirements will be delayed for another year, employers remain responsible for ensuring that these operators are properly trained on the equipment assigned to them. We suggest that companies do internal compliance or policy reviews periodically to ensure that their policies comply with the latest, changing standards.

Photo of Stephen Cockerham Stephen Cockerham

Stephen has assisted clients in the energy industry for more than 30 years as a labor and employment lawyer, including the nuclear power industry. Stephen advises clients on all types of employment matters, including discipline and discharge issues; work place safety; compliance with…

Stephen has assisted clients in the energy industry for more than 30 years as a labor and employment lawyer, including the nuclear power industry. Stephen advises clients on all types of employment matters, including discipline and discharge issues; work place safety; compliance with employment laws and regulations; and labor issues, including union avoidance, negotiations, contract interpretation, grievances and NLRB cases.

Email
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Employment & Labor
  • Blog:
    Safety Law Matters
  • Organization:
    Husch Blackwell LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo