51986 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 216 / Thursday, November 9, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

(b) * * * 

(1) Items for use by the Cuban private 

sector for private sector economic 

activities, except for items that would be 

used to: 

(i) Primarily generate revenue for the 

state; or 

(ii) Contribute to the operation of the 

state, including through the 

construction or renovation of stateowned buildings. 

(2) Items sold directly to individuals 

in Cuba for their personal use or their 

immediate family’s personal use, other 

than officials identified in paragraphs 

(d)(4)(ii) or (iii) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(ii) Ministers and Vice-Ministers; 

members of the Council of State; 

members of the Council of Ministers; 

members and employees of the National 

Assembly of People’s Power; members 

of any provincial assembly; local sector 

chiefs of the Committees for the Defense 

of the Revolution; Director Generals and 

sub-Director Generals and higher of all 

Cuban ministries and state agencies; 

employees of the Ministry of the Interior 

(MININT); employees of the Ministry of 

Defense (MINFAR); secretaries and first 

secretaries of the Confederation of Labor 

of Cuba (CTC) and its component 

unions; chief editors, editors and deputy 

editors of Cuban state-run media 

organizations and programs, including 

newspapers, television, and radio; or 

members and employees of the Supreme 

Court (Tribuno Supremo Nacional); and 

* * * * * 

PART 746—[AMENDED] 

■ 5. The authority citation for part 746 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50 

U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 287c; Sec 1503, 

Pub. L. 108–11, 117 Stat. 559; 22 U.S.C. 6004; 

22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 

12854, 58 FR 36587, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 

614; E.O. 12918, 59 FR 28205, 3 CFR, 1994 

Comp., p. 899; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 

CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O. 13338, 69 FR 

26751, 3 CFR, 2004 Comp., p 168; 

Presidential Determination 2003–23, 68 FR 

26459, 3 CFR, 2004 Comp., p. 320; 

Presidential Determination 2007–7, 72 FR 

1899, 3 CFR, 2006 Comp., p. 325; Notice of 

May 9, 2017, 82 FR 21909 (May 10, 2017); 

Notice of August 15, 2017, 82 FR 39005 

(August 16, 2017). 

■ 6. Section 746.2 is amended by 

revising Note 2 to Paragraph (b)(3)(i) to 

read as follows: 

§ 746.2 Cuba. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) * * * 

Note 2 to paragraph (b)(3)(i): The policy of 

case-by-case review in this paragraph is 

intended to facilitate exports and reexports to 

meet the needs of the Cuban people. 

Accordingly, BIS generally will deny 

applications to export or reexport items for 

use by state-owned enterprises, agencies, and 

other organizations that primarily generate 

revenue for the state, including those 

engaged in tourism and those engaged in the 

extraction or production of minerals or other 

raw materials. Applications for export or 

reexport of items destined to the Cuban 

military, police, intelligence or security 

services also generally will be denied. 

Additionally, pursuant to section 3(a) of the 

National Security Presidential Memorandum 

on Strengthening the Policy of the United 

States Toward Cuba (NSPM), dated June 16, 

2017, BIS generally will deny applications to 

export or reexport items for use by entities 

or subentities identified by the Department of 

State in the Federal Register or at https://

www.state.gov/e/eb/tfs/spi/cuba/

cubarestrictedlist/index.htm, unless such 

transactions are determined to be consistent 

with sections 2 and 3(a)(iii) of the NSPM. 

* * * * * 

Dated: November 6, 2017. 

Richard E. Ashooh, 

Assistant Secretary for Export 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2017–24448 Filed 11–8–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–33–P 

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 Certification Extension 

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), Labor. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: OSHA is delaying its deadline 

for employers to ensure that crane 

operators are certified by one year until 

November 10, 2018. OSHA is also 

extending its employer duty to ensure 

that crane operators are competent to 

operate a crane safely for the same oneyear period. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

November 9, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: In accordance with 28 

U.S.C. 2112(a)(2), the Agency designates 

Ann Rosenthal, Associate Solicitor of 

Labor for Occupational Safety and 

Health, Office of the Solicitor, Room S– 

4004, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20210, to receive petitions for 

review of the final rule. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

General information and press 

inquiries: Mr. Frank Meilinger, OSHA 

Office of Communications: telephone: 

(202) 693–1999; email: 

Meilinger.Francis2@dol.gov. 

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 

document and news releases: Electronic 

copies of these documents are available 

at OSHA’s Web page at http://

www.osha.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

A. Introduction 

OSHA is publishing this final rule to 

further extend by one year the employer 

duty to ensure the competency of crane 

operators involved in construction 

work. Previously this duty was 

scheduled to terminate on November 10, 

2017, but now continues until 

November 10, 2018. OSHA also is 

further delaying the deadline for crane 

operator certification for one year from 

November 10, 2017, to November 10, 

2018. As explained in more detail in the 

following Regulatory Background 

section, the extension and delay are 

necessary to provide sufficient time for 

OSHA to complete a related rulemaking 

to address issues with its existing 

Cranes and Derricks in Construction 

standard (29 CFR part 1926, subpart CC, 

referred to as ‘‘the crane standard’’ 

hereafter) (75 FR 47905). 

In establishing the effective date of 

this action, the Agency finds good cause 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act that this 

rule be made effective on November 9, 

2017, rather than delaying the effective 

date for 30 days after publication. The 

basis for this finding is that it is 

unnecessary to delay this effective date 

to provide an additional period of time 

for employers to comply with a new 

requirement because OSHA is extending 

the status quo. This final rule 

establishes no new burdens on the 

regulated community; rather, it further 

delays implementation of the crane 

operator certification requirements in 

the crane standard and further extends 

the employer duty in the crane standard 

to ensure the competency of crane 

operators, a duty that employers have 

been required to comply with since 

publication of the crane standard in 

2010. 


nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 216 / Thursday, November 9, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 51987 

OSHA also concludes that delaying 

the effective date of this extension 

rulemaking beyond November 9, 2017, 

would be contrary to the public interest 

and would significantly disrupt the 

construction industry. If the extension 

does not go into effect on November 9, 

2017, the crane operator certification 

requirements in the 2010 crane standard 

would go into effect and the employer 

duty in the crane standard to ensure 

crane operator competency would end. 

As the Agency notes below in Section 

II.A (Extension of operator certification 

deadline), there is evidence in the 

record that many crane operators in the 

construction industry do not have the 

certification required by the crane 

standard and would be out of 

compliance with the standard. This 

would not be offset through the 

employer duty to ensure crane operator 

competency because that duty would no 

longer exist. Therefore, OSHA 

concludes that it is in the public interest 

to avoid such disruption by having this 

extension go into effect by November 9, 

2017. Finally, OSHA notes that by 

delaying the operator certification 

deadline, OSHA is temporarily relieving 

the regulated community of a 

compliance duty, which under 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(1) is a separate basis for allowing 

a rule to become effective in less than 

30 days. 

By delaying the deadline for 

employers to ensure that crane operators 

are certified until November 10, 2018, 

and by extending the employer duty to 

ensure that crane operators are 

competent until that same date, this rule 

will avoid disrupting the construction 

industry and allow OSHA time to 

complete a related crane standard 

rulemaking that will address these and 

other issues. 

In this preamble, OSHA cites to 

documents in Docket No. OSHA–2007– 

0066, the docket for this rulemaking. To 

simplify these document cites, they start 

with ‘‘ID’’ followed by the last four 

digits of their full docket identification 

number. For example, if a document’s 

full docket identification number is ID– 

OSHA–2007–0066–1234, the cite used 

in this preamble would be ID–1234. The 

docket is available at http://

www.regulations.gov, the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal. 

B. Summary of Economic Impact 

This final rule is not economically 

significant. OSHA is revising 29 CFR 

1926.1427(k) (competency assessment 

and training) to delay the deadline for 

compliance with the operatorcertification requirement in the crane 

standard for one year, and to extend the 

existing employer duty to ensure crane 

operator competency for the same 

period. OSHA’s final economic analysis 

shows that delaying the date for 

operator certification and extending the 

employer’s assessment of crane operator 

competency, rather than following the 

current crane standard, will result in a 

net cost savings for the affected 

industries. Delaying the compliance 

date for operator certification results in 

estimated cost savings that exceed the 

estimated new costs for employers to 

continue to assess crane operators to 

ensure their competent operation of the 

equipment in accordance with 

§ 1926.1427(k). The detailed final 

economic analysis is in the ‘‘Agency 

Determinations’’ section of this 

preamble. 

C. Regulatory Background 

1. Operator Certification Options 

On August 9, 2010, OSHA published 

the final crane standard. OSHA 

developed the standard through a 

negotiated rulemaking process. The 

Agency established a Federal advisory 

committee, the Cranes and Derricks 

Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory 

Committee (C–DAC), to develop a draft 

proposed rule. C–DAC met in 2003 and 

2004 and developed a draft proposed 

rule (which included the provisions 

concerning crane operator certification 

at issue in this rulemaking) that it 

provided to OSHA. 

The Agency initiated a Small 

Business Advocacy Review Panel in 

2006 and published the proposed rule 

for cranes in construction on October 9, 

2008 (73 FR 59713). It closely followed 

C–DAC’s draft proposal (73 FR 59718). 

OSHA received public comment on the 

proposal, and conducted a public 

hearing. Among many other provisions, 

OSHA’s 2010 final rule incorporated, 

with minor changes, the four-option 

certification scheme that C–DAC had 

recommended and the Agency had 

proposed. Accordingly, in § 1926.1427, 

OSHA requires employers to ensure that 

their crane operators complete at least 

one of the following: 

Option 1. Certification by an 

independent testing organization 

accredited by a nationally recognized 

accrediting organization; 

Option 2. Qualification by an 

employer’s independently audited 

program; 

Option 3. Qualification by the U.S. 

military; or 

Option 4. Compliance with qualifying 

State or local licensing requirements 

(mandatory when applicable). 

The third-party certification option in 

§ 1926.1427(b)—Option 1—is the only 

certification option that is ‘‘portable,’’ 

meaning any employer who employs an 

operator may rely on that operator’s 

certification as evidence of compliance 

with the crane standard’s operator 

certification requirement. This 

certification option also is the only one 

available to all employers; it is the 

option OSHA, and the parties that 

participated in the rulemaking, believed 

would be the one most widely used. In 

this regard, OSHA is not aware of an 

audited employer qualification program 

among construction industry employers 

(Option 2), and the crane standard 

limits the U.S. military crane operator 

certification programs (Option 3) to 

Federal employees of the Department of 

Defense or the armed services. While 

State and local governments certify 

some crane operators (Option 4), the 

vast majority of operators who become 

certified do so through Option 1—by 

third-party testing organizations 

accredited by a nationally recognized 

accrediting organization. 

Under Option 1, an independent 

testing organization tests crane 

operators to determine if they warrant 

certification. Before a testing 

organization can issue operator 

certifications, § 1926.1427(b)(1) of the 

crane standard provides that a 

nationally recognized accrediting 

organization must accredit the testing 

organizations. To accredit a testing 

organization, the accrediting agency 

must determine that the testing 

organization meets industry-recognized 

criteria for written testing materials, 

practical examinations, test 

administration, grading, facilities and 

equipment, and personnel. The testing 

organization must administer written 

and practical tests that: 

• Assess the operator’s knowledge 

and skills regarding subjects specified in 

the crane standard; 

• provide different levels of 

certification based on equipment 

capacity and type; 

• have procedures to retest applicants 

who fail; and 

• have testing procedures for 

recertification. 

Section 1926.1427(b)(2) of the crane 

standard also specifies that, for the 

purposes of compliance with the crane 

standard, an operator is deemed 

qualified to operate a particular piece of 

equipment only if the operator is 

certified for that type and capacity of 

equipment or for higher-capacity 

equipment of that type. It further 

provides that, if no testing organization 

offers certification examinations for a 

particular equipment type and/or 

capacity, the operator is deemed 

qualified to operate that equipment if 

the operator is certified for the type/ 


nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
51988 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 216 / Thursday, November 9, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

1Transcript for March 31: https://www.osha.gov/ 

doc/accsh/transcripts/accsh_20150331.pdf; 

transcript for April 1: https://www.osha.gov/doc/ 

accsh/transcripts/accsh_20150401.pdf. 

2https://www.osha.gov/doc/accsh/ 

accshcrane.pdf. 

3https://www.osha.gov/doc/accsh/proposed_

crane.html. 

4https://www.osha.gov/doc/accsh/summary_

crane.html. 

capacity of equipment that is most 

similar to that equipment, and for which 

a certification examination is available. 

2. Overview of § 1926.1427(k) (Phase-In 

Provision) 

The crane standard published in 2010 

replaced provisions in 29 CFR part 

1926, subpart N—Cranes, Derricks, 

Hoists, Elevators, and Conveyors, of the 

construction safety standards. OSHA 

delayed the deadline for the operator 

certification requirement for four years, 

until November 10, 2014 (see 

§ 1926.1427(k)(1)). During this four-year 

‘‘phase-in’’ period, the crane standard 

imposed an employer duty to ensure 

that crane operators could safely operate 

equipment (see § 1926.1727(k), Phasein). Thus, pursuant to 

§ 1926.1427(k)(2)(i), OSHA required 

employers to ‘‘ensure that operators of 

equipment covered by this standard are 

competent to operate the equipment 

safely.’’ Under § 1926.1427(k)(2)(ii), 

employers must train and evaluate the 

operator when the operator ‘‘assigned to 

operate machinery does not have the 

required knowledge or ability to operate 

the equipment safely.’’ 

3. Post-Final Rule Developments 

After OSHA issued the crane 

standard, it continued to receive 

feedback from members of the regulated 

community and conducted stakeholder 

meetings on April 2 and 3, 2013, to give 

interested members of the public the 

opportunity to express their views. 

Participants included construction 

contractors, labor unions, crane 

manufacturers, crane rental companies, 

accredited testing organizations, one of 

the accrediting bodies, insurance 

companies, crane operator trainers, and 

military employers. Detailed notes of 

participants’ comments are available at 

ID–0539. Various parties informed 

OSHA that, in their opinion, the 

operator certification option would not 

adequately ensure that crane operators 

could operate their equipment safely at 

a construction site. They said that a 

certified operator would need additional 

training, experience, and evaluation, 

beyond the training and evaluation 

required to obtain certification, to 

ensure that he or she could operate a 

crane safely. 

OSHA also received information that 

two (of a total of four) accredited testing 

organizations have been issuing 

certifications only by ‘‘type’’ of crane, 

rather than offering different 

certifications by ‘‘type and capacity’’ of 

crane, as the crane standard requires. 

The two organizations later confirmed 

this (ID–0521, p. 109 and 246). As a 

result, those certifications do not meet 

the standard’s requirements and 

operators who obtained certifications 

only from those organizations could not, 

under OSHA’s crane standard, operate 

cranes on construction sites after 

November 10, 2014. Some stakeholders 

in the crane industry requested that 

OSHA remove the capacity requirement. 

Most of the participants in the 

stakeholder meetings expressed the 

opinion that an operator’s certification 

by an accredited testing organization 

did not mean that the operator was fully 

competent or experienced to operate a 

crane safely on a construction work site. 

The participants likened operator 

certification to a new driver’s license, or 

a learner’s permit, to drive a car. Most 

participants said that the operator’s 

employer should retain the 

responsibility to ensure that the 

operator was qualified for the particular 

crane work assigned. Some participants 

wanted certification to be, or viewed to 

be, sufficient to operate a crane safely. 

Stakeholders noted that operator 

certification was beneficial in 

establishing a minimum threshold of 

operator knowledge and familiarity with 

cranes. 

D. Initial Extension of the Employer 

Assessment Duties and Deadline for 

Operator Certification 

On February 10, 2014, OSHA 

published a proposal to delay the 

deadline for operator certification by 

three additional years to November 10, 

2017, and to extend the existing 

employer duty to ensure crane operator 

competency for the same period (79 FR 

7611). OSHA conducted a public 

hearing on May 19, 2014. 

Representatives of the construction 

industry reiterated that requiring the 

certification of all operators and 

supplanting the employer duty would 

not ensure the competency of crane 

operators to safely operate cranes to do 

construction work. A representative of 

one of the testing organizations that 

certifies by capacity (and who had 

previously opposed removing the 

capacity requirement) conceded that 

OSHA should undergo a rulemaking to 

consider removing capacity from 

certification requirements. 

On September 26, 2014, OSHA 

published a final rule that delayed the 

operator certification deadline and 

extended the existing employer duty for 

three years to November 10, 2017, to 

provide time for OSHA to consider what 

regulatory approach it should take (79 

FR 57785). 

E. Consulting ACCSH—Draft Proposal 

for Revised Crane Operator 

Requirements 

With the additional three-year 

extension in place, OSHA began work 

on a rulemaking to address the issues 

raised by stakeholders. On March 31 

and April 1, 2015, the Agency consulted 

with the Advisory Committee on 

Construction Safety and Health 

(ACCSH) to solicit feedback from 

industry stakeholders on the draft 

regulatory text for a revised operator 

certification standard.1 Prior to the 

meeting, OSHA made available the draft 

regulatory text,2 an overview of the draft 

regulatory text,3 and a summary of the 

site visits with stakeholders.4 OSHA 

received many comments and 

suggestions for revising the regulatory 

text at the ACCSH meeting. Since that 

meeting, the Agency has worked to redraft the regulatory text and preamble 

for the proposed rule. To ensure the 

Agency has enough time to propose and 

finalize the rulemaking, OSHA 

proposed this one-year extension of the 

certification requirement compliance 

date (82 FR 41184 (Aug. 30, 2017)). As 

with the previous extensions, OSHA 

also proposed an extension of the 

existing employer assessment duty for 

the same time period (Id.). OSHA 

requested public comment on these 

proposals. 

II. Summary and Explanation of the 

Final Rule 

Commenters in their written remarks 

on the proposal to delay the operator 

certification deadline and extend the 

existing employer duty to November 10, 

2018 focused on three issues arising 

from the Agency’s proposed changes: (1) 

Whether to delay the date for crane 

operators to be certified; (2) whether to 

extend the employer duty to ensure 

crane operators are competent and safe; 

and (3) the length of time of an 

extension. This section examines these 

issues—in the order above—by first 

summarizing the comments and then 

explaining the Agency’s decisions and 

determinations based on the record as a 

whole. 


nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 216 / Thursday, November 9, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 51989 

5This commenter misinterpreted OSHA’s 

previous benefits estimate, which stated that the 

cranes standard would prevent 22 fatalities per 

year, as meaning that the enforcement of the 

operator certification requirement would alone 

prevent that number of fatalities. But as OSHA 

noted in the 2014 extension in response to similar 

assertions, in calculating the benefits from fatalities 

prevented ‘‘OSHA did not identify individual 

components of the standard, but rather calculated 

the benefits of the entire cranes standard as a 

whole. OSHA did not separately itemize benefits 

accruing from the operator certification 

requirements.’’ (79 FR 57788, footnote 2). 

A. Extension of Operator Certification 

Deadline 

The majority of commenters 

supported the Agency’s proposed 

extension of the deadline for crane 

operators to be certified (ID–0545, 0561, 

0563, 0566, 0572–575, 0578–582, 0584– 

585, 0588–597, 0599–614, 0617–618, 

0621, 0624–627, 0632–640, 0642–643, 

0645–647, 0651, 0653, 0656–660, 0662– 

664, 0666–667). Most agreed that an 

extension was necessary to give OSHA 

time to address the issues regarding 

crane operation raised after publication 

of the crane standard: Whether to 

remove capacity from the crane 

standard’s certification requirements 

and the preservation of the employer’s 

role in assessing operators for safe crane 

operation (ID–0561, 0563, 0578, 0597, 

0604, 0618, 0632, 0636, 0640, 0646–647, 

0650–651, 0656, 0658, 0667). The 

National Commission for the 

Certification of Crane Operators 

(NCCCO) supports this rule ‘‘only in 

response to OSHA’s stated need to 

address these two issues.’’ (ID–0632). In 

support of the extension, The 

International Union of Operating 

Engineers (IUOE) stated that they along 

with ‘‘contractors, insurers, trade 

associations, and third-party 

certification bodies agree on the 

problems OSHA has identified . . . that 

OSHA’s ‘deemed qualified’ language 

eliminates the employer’s duty . . .’’ 

and ‘‘that certification by ‘capacity’ 

should be eliminated from the 

regulatory requirements.’’ (ID–0651). 

They conclude that ‘‘[t]here is 

widespread agreement in the industry 

regarding the necessity to postpone 

implementation of these two elements 

of the rule in order to correct them.’’ 

(Id.). 

Some commenters asked OSHA to 

delay the compliance date of the 

certification requirements in order to 

alleviate confusion that exists in the 

industry regarding the crane operator 

certification requirements. (ID–0604, 

0606, 0642, 0647, 0650–651). In support 

of the extension, the IUOE asked OSHA 

to ‘‘move quickly to eliminate the cloud 

of uncertainty that has hung over this 

key safety measure for over a decade.’’ 

(ID–0651). Edison Electrical Institute 

hopes that ‘‘OSHA works to clarify and 

formulate the necessary requirements 

for operator certification and 

qualification under the final rule’’ as 

‘‘[t]here are still many questions that 

require answers on the certification 

process and granting this extension will 

enable OSHA to continue its work with 

impacted parties to ensure compliance 

is met and clarity is achieved.’’ (ID– 

0642). Imperial Crane Services, Inc., and 

the Chicago Crane Owners Association 

support the extension ‘‘so that crane 

operator’s proficiency/qualification can 

be further clarified in the existing cranes 

and derrick standard.’’ (ID–0604). 

Commenters were also very 

concerned that without an extension of 

the operator certification requirements 

and the employer’s duty, there would be 

significant disruption to the 

construction industry. (ID–0561, 0580, 

0605, 0611, 0618, 0626–627, 0636, 0640, 

0643, 0646, 0650). In the 2014 

extension, OSHA noted that the record 

indicated that roughly two-thirds of 

certified operators were certified by one 

of the organizations that does not offer 

certification by capacity. Thus, some of 

the commenters observed that with a 

majority of certified operators 

possessing a certification by crane type 

only, many employers of crane 

operators would be in violation of 

operating a crane under OSHA 

requirements and barred from operating 

a crane without the possibility of being 

cited by OSHA. The Texas Crane 

Owners Association asserts that without 

an extension, ‘‘the obligations under 

[the crane standard] will undoubtedly 

disrupt the construction industry by 

creating a large number of crane 

operators without compliant 

certification.’’ (ID–0646). The 

Associated General Contractors of 

America agrees that failure to delay the 

compliance date ‘‘could potentially 

result in significant disruptions in the 

construction industry with the number 

of crane operators in possession of 

certifications that would be deemed 

noncompliant if the November 10, 2017, 

effective date remains in place.’’ (ID– 

0640). Similarly, The Associated 

Builders and Contractors, Inc., (ABC) 

commented that ‘‘many in the 

construction industry believe that 

without an extension the industry will 

face a future crane operator shortage. 

For the industry to continue to perform 

work without disruption, it is important 

an extension is granted.’’ (ID–0650). 

‘‘[W]ithout the proposed extension there 

will be a significant disruption to the 

industry come November 10, 2017,’’ 

commented North America’s Building 

Trades Unions, continuing that ‘‘many 

operators will no longer be able to 

operate certain cranes because their 

current certifications are not by crane 

capacity as currently called for in the 

rule.’’ (ID–0618). 

Commenters opposed to the extension 

of the certification deadline expressed 

concern that it would lead to unsafe 

worksites. (ID–0557, 0562/0665 

(duplicate comments), 0571, 0577, 0620, 

0629, 0644, 0649, 0652). Jack Pitt of 

Murray State University commented 

that if OSHA delayed the compliance 

date, ‘‘then safety would not be a 

priority,’’ continuing that it was his 

opinion that requiring certification 

immediately ‘‘would eliminate quite a 

number of fatalities and injuries. . . .’’ 

(ID–0665 and 0562). Chas Scott of 

Murray State University commented 

that ‘‘[t]he longer the rule is delayed, the 

more fatalities that are likely to occur.’’ 

(ID–0557).5

In making their arguments about the 

impact of the certification deadline 

extension on safety, several of these 

comments equated crane operator 

training and crane operator certification. 

(ID–0571, 0577, 0620, 0629, 0644, 0649, 

0652). OSHA had previously addressed 

the same issue in its 2014 extension, 

pointing out that for the requirements 

for crane operator training at 29 CFR 

1926.1427(f), like the other provisions 

from the crane standard except 

certification, are currently in effect and 

would not be impacted by any extension 

(see 79 FR 57788). Employers currently 

have, and will continue to have, a 

responsibility to ensure crane operators 

they employ are trained according to 

that standard. 

Other comments in opposition of the 

extension stated that employers have 

had enough time to make sure that their 

operators are certified, meeting the 

certification requirements of the 2010 

final rule. (ID–0542, 0551, 0556, 0558, 

0568, 0583, 0587, 0615–616, 0622–623, 

0630–631, 0652, 0661). An anonymous 

commenter stated that ‘‘[s]afety 

conscious construction employers know 

or should have known of this new 

operator certification requirement and 

have been given a substantial amount of 

time to comply,’’ (ID–0551). Another 

commenter noted that employers of 

crane operators ‘‘have had seven years 

to get the new certification.’’ (ID–0661). 

Based on the record as a whole, 

OSHA finds the arguments in favor of 

delaying the operator certification 

deadline to be more persuasive. OSHA 

shares the commenters’ concerns about 

a potential disruption to the industry 

that might occur if the majority of 

certified operators currently hold a form 

of certification that would not comply 


nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
51990 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 216 / Thursday, November 9, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

6Transcript for March 31: https://www.osha.gov/ 

doc/accsh/transcripts/accsh_20150331.pdf; 

transcript for April 1: https://www.osha.gov/doc/ 

accsh/transcripts/accsh_20150401.pdf. 

with OSHA’s standard. The impact on 

the industry would be particularly 

unwarranted in light of OSHA’s public 

disclosure to ACCSH during the 

committee’s meeting on March 31 and 

April 1, 2015, that the Agency intends 

to propose removing the capacity 

component of certification, which is the 

sole reason that most of these operator 

certifications would not comply with 

OSHA’s standard. OSHA also 

acknowledges the commenters’ point 

that while there has been time for more 

operators to become certified, many 

employers may have delayed in 

requiring their employees to be certified 

while they waited for OSHA to clarify 

the criteria for the certification so that 

they could avoid spending funds on a 

certification that would not meet 

OSHA’s standard. To the extent that the 

Agency’s actions have contributed to 

this uncertainty, OSHA agrees that it 

would not be fair to penalize employers 

by enforcing the certification 

requirement before completing the 

separate rulemaking to change that 

criteria. The additional one-year 

extension will provide the Agency with 

the time it needs to address those 

concerns. 

B. Extension of the Existing Employer 

Duty 

The commenters who specifically 

addressed the extension of the existing 

employer assessment duty were 

unanimous in supporting the extension 

to ensure that employers retained 

responsibility for ensuring that their 

operators are competent to operate 

cranes. All of the comments opposed to 

the one-year extension focused entirely 

on certification and did not mention the 

employer duty. 

The North America’s Building Trades 

Union commented that ‘‘without the 

proposed extension there would not be 

an employer duty to ensure operators 

can safely operate equipment, which not 

only puts the operator at risk of fatality 

or injury, but also puts all construction 

workers around the equipment at risk as 

well as the general public on certain 

construction projects.’’ (ID–0618). The 

IUOE argues that even if certification is 

required, ‘‘[c]ertification alone . . . is 

simply insufficient in the absence of 

subsequent employer qualification to 

ensure that a crane operator is qualified 

to safely operate the crane to which he 

or she is assigned.’’ (ID–0651). 

While OSHA is not prepared to make 

a determination whether certification 

alone is insufficient as the IUOE claims, 

OSHA agrees that in order to ensure safe 

and competent crane operations during 

the one-year extension, the employer 

duty must also be extended. Without an 

extension of the employer duty, the 

standard would have no requirement to 

ensure that crane operators know how 

to operate the crane safely during the 

operator certification extension. 

Therefore it is important that the 

Agency extend the employer duty while 

it engages in subsequent rulemaking. 

C. Length of the Extensions 

Having determined that it is 

appropriate to delay the certification 

deadline and extend the employer duty 

to ensure operator competence, the 

remaining issue is the length of the 

extension. In the NPRM, OSHA 

proposed delaying the operator 

certification deadline and extending the 

existing employer duty for one year, 

until November 10, 2018. OSHA 

requested comment on the duration of 

the extension. 

The majority of comments support 

OSHA’s proposed extension of the 

deadline for crane operator certification 

and the employer duty for one year. (ID– 

0545, 0561, 0563, 0566, 0572–575, 0578, 

0580–582, 0585, 0588–600, 0602–605, 

0607–614, 0617–618, 0621, 0624–627, 

0632–640, 0642–643, 0645–647, 0651, 

0653, 0656–660, 0662–6664, 0666–667). 

Some of these comments recommend 

that OSHA move as quickly as possible 

to address these rules. (ID–0605, 0618, 

0632, 0651, 0656). NCCCO agrees with 

the Agency’s proposed extension and 

‘‘urges OSHA to act with all speed to 

ultimately issue its Final Rule well 

within the extension on this vitally 

important safety issue. . . .’’ (ID–0632). 

Jonathan Branton of Murray State 

University commented that ‘‘this issue 

does not need to be pushed back any 

further than one year’’ and it is 

‘‘OSHA’s responsibility to not allow this 

to be further extended.’’ (ID–0605). The 

IUOE asked the Agency to ‘‘[p]lease do 

everything in your power to ensure that 

OSHA completes the process by 

November 2018.’’ (ID–0651). 

Additionally, OSHA received 

comments recommending an extension 

of three years and an indefinite 

extension until OSHA addresses the 

certification issues raised by 

stakeholders after publication of the 

2010 final cranes and derricks standard. 

The National Propane Gas Association 

(NPGA) recommended delaying the 

deadline for the certification 

requirement and extending the 

employer duty ‘‘at least three years’’, 

arguing that ‘‘if three years was not an 

adequate amount of time’’ to address 

certification issues raised by 

stakeholders, ‘‘it is not reasonable to 

presume one year is sufficient.’’ (ID– 

0648). The NPGA continues that ‘‘[w]e 

are concerned that the short delay is 

indicative of the agency’s intent to 

conduct an expedited process . . . . an 

accelerated rulemaking would be 

antithetical to the purpose and spirit of 

public engagement in the regulatory 

process.’’ (ID–0648). The National 

Association of Home Builders 

recommends that OSHA delay the 

deadline for the certification 

requirements and extend the employer 

duty another three years or indefinitely, 

arguing that ‘‘OSHA needs to ensure the 

certification procedures will actually 

improve safety’’ and not allowing 

enough time to address certification 

issues ‘‘only hurts the workers and the 

regulated community with continually 

changing deadlines and requirements.’’ 

(ID–0598). ABC also recommended that 

both the deadline for the certification 

requirement be delayed and the 

employer duty be extended indefinitely 

as recommended by ACCSH in 2014, 

arguing that a one year delay ‘‘will not 

provide a sufficient amount of time for 

OSHA to complete a further 

rulemaking. . . . Limiting the amount 

of time the agency has to complete the 

rulemaking could lead to rushed and 

unclear regulations.’’ (ID–0650). 

While OSHA appreciates the concern 

of some stakeholders that a one-year 

extension is an insufficient amount of 

time to address the issues raised by the 

industry after publication of the crane 

standard, OSHA is not persuaded an 

extension longer than one year is 

necessary. OSHA had not even decided 

whether to pursue rulemaking when it 

finalized the three-year extension in 

2014. The Agency needed time to 

determine what regulatory approach 

would be appropriate for addressing the 

concerns raised by stakeholders after 

publication of the crane standard. (79 

FR 7613). OSHA took time to make site 

visits and spoke to over 40 industry 

representatives about crane operator 

certification and operator competency. 

Using this information, OSHA drafted 

regulatory text that it presented to a 

special meeting of ACCSH on March 31, 

and April 1, 2015, where several 

stakeholders had the opportunity to 

provide feedback to the Agency.6 OSHA 

has taken the information from that 

meeting and worked to develop a 

proposed rule addressing stakeholders’ 

concerns. OSHA has nearly completed 

that proposed rule and intends to 

publish it for public comment shortly. 

OSHA is in a different point of the 

process than it was three years ago and 

is confident that it will be able to 


nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 216 / Thursday, November 9, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 51991 

7As explained in the following discussion, OSHA 

typically calculates the present value of future costs 

Continued 

complete the rulemaking within the 

year extension without curtailing the 

opportunity for stakeholders and the 

general public to participate fully in the 

rulemaking process. 

The Agency rejects the calls for an 

indefinite extension for the same 

reasons that it rejected them in 2014. 

Failing to specify a compliance deadline 

for operator certification is likely to 

result in greater, not less, confusion. In 

addition, if OSHA does not designate a 

fixed period after which the certification 

requirements would automatically take 

effect, the Agency may face additional 

legal challenges to reinstating them. 

Moreover, OSHA has already dedicated 

a significant amount of time and 

resources to implementing the existing 

standard, including conducting an 

extensive negotiated rulemaking process 

before requiring that employers ensure 

their crane operators are certified. The 

Agency therefore finds it prudent and 

efficient to maintain the status quo for 

one more year while it considers 

additional rulemaking. 

The Agency must balance the 

rationale for an additional extension 

against the concerns raised by the other 

commenters who point out that any 

unnecessary delay in the operator 

certification requirement could prevent 

the Agency from obtaining the full 

safety benefit of the cranes standard. For 

example, if OSHA delayed the operator 

certification requirement for another 

three years but completed its 

rulemaking within nine months, then 

delaying the certification deadline 

would be clearly excessive and 

needlessly delay safety benefits. OSHA 

believes that given the progress it has 

made developing a rule addressing 

stakeholders’ concerns regarding 

operator certification, a one-year 

extension of both the deadline for the 

certification requirement and the 

employer duty is appropriate. 

Therefore, OSHA has decided to delay 

the operator certification deadline for 

one year, until November 10, 2018, and 

to extend the employer duty to ensure 

that crane operators are competent to 

operate a crane safely for the same oneyear period, as it proposed. The Agency 

received no comment on the text of its 

proposed revision to § 1926.1427(k), and 

the final rule adopts the provision as 

proposed. 

D. Comments Outside the Scope of This 

Rulemaking 

OSHA received comments to this 

rulemaking that, in part or in whole, 

asked the agency to consider 

alternatives and revisions to the 

certification requirements from the 2010 

final rule. (ID–0544, 0546, 0548, 0549, 

0555, 0564, 0567, 0598, 0606, 0639, 

0646, 0648, 0651, 0655, 0658, 0660, 

0663, 0667). These comments, although 

related to operator certification and the 

employer duty, are outside the scope of 

this rulemaking and the narrowly 

tailored issue OSHA proposed: Whether 

the deadline for the operator 

certification requirements should be 

delayed and whether the employer duty 

to ensure safe and competent crane 

operation should be extended by one 

year. 

III. Agency Determinations 

A. Final Economic Analysis and 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

When it issued the final cranes rule in 

2010, OSHA prepared a final economic 

analysis (2010 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). On 

September 26, 2014, the Agency 

included a separate FEA (2014 FEA) 

when it published a final rule delaying 

until November 10, 2017, the deadline 

for all crane operators to become 

certified, and extending the employer 

duty to ensure operator competency for 

the same period (79 FR 57785). The 

preliminary economic analysis for this 

crane rule extension (2017 PEA) was 

based on these documents along with 

further analysis and is the basis for this 

final economic analysis (FEA). There 

were no comments submitted to the 

record in response to the 2017 PEA that 

included data that could alter OSHA’s 

analysis; therefore, this FEA is 

substantially the same as the 2017 PEA. 

Because OSHA estimates this rule 

will have a cost savings for employers 

of $4.4 million using a discount rate of 

3 percent for the one year of the 

extension, this final 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 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq.). 

This FEA focuses solely on costs, and 

not on any changes in safety and 

benefits resulting from delaying the 

certification deadline and extending the 

employer duties under 

§ 1926.1427(k)(2). As OSHA noted in its 

proposal, the Agency previously 

provided its assessment of the benefits 

of the cranes standard in the 2010 FEA. 

OSHA did not receive any comment on 

this approach or any request for 

additional analysis of benefits. As noted 

elsewhere in this preamble, the primary 

rationale for this final rule is to 

maintain the status quo—including 

preservation of the employer duty to 

ensure that crane operators are 

competent—while providing OSHA 

additional time to conduct rulemaking 

on the crane operator requirements in 

response to stakeholder concerns. 

Extending the employer’s requirement 

to ensure an operator’s competency 

during this period means taking the 

same approach of the previous 

extension: Continuing measures in 

existence since OSHA published the 

crane standard in 2010. As OSHA stated 

in the preamble to the 2010 final rule, 

the interim measures in paragraph (k) 

‘‘are not significantly different from 

requirements that were effective under 

subpart N of this part at former 

§ 1926.550, § 1926.20(b)(4) (‘the 

employer shall permit only those 

employees qualified by training or 

experience to operate equipment and 

machinery’), and § 1926.21(b)(2) (‘the 

employer shall instruct each employee 

in the recognition and avoidance of 

unsafe conditions . . .’)’’ (75 FR 48027). 

Delaying the operator certification 

requirement defers a regulatory 

requirement and produces cost savings 

for employers. There will, however, be 

continuing employer costs for extending 

the requirement to assess operators 

under existing § 1926.1427(k)(2); if 

OSHA does not extend these 

requirements, they will expire in 

November 2017 and employers would 

not have these costs after 2017. With the 

extension, these continuing employer 

costs will be offset by a reduction in 

expenses that employers would 

otherwise have been required to incur to 

ensure that their operators are certified 

before the existing November 2017 

deadline. 

Overview 

In the following analysis, OSHA 

examines costs and savings to determine 

the net economic effect of the rule. By 

comparing the additional assessment 

costs to the certification cost savings 

across two scenarios—scenario 1 in 

which there is no extension of the 2017 

deadline, and scenario 2 in which there 

is an extension until 2018—OSHA 

estimates that the extension will 

produce a net savings for employers of 

$4.4 million per year using a discount 

rate of 3 percent ($5.2 million per year 

using an interest rate of 7 percent).7


nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
51992 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 216 / Thursday, November 9, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

and benefits using two interest rate assumptions, 3 

percent and 7 percent, as recommended by OMB 

Circular A–4 of September 17, 2003. All dollar 

amounts unless otherwise stated are in 2016 

dollars. 

8Though this is a single year extension, the 

analysis needs to extend over several future years. 

For convenience, OSHA refers to the annual time 

period as a ‘‘Certification Year’’ (CY) in this 

economic analysis, which OSHA defines as ending 

November 10 of the calendar year; e.g., CY 2017 

runs from November 10, 2016, to November 9, 2017. 

9OSHA is not making any determination about 

whether a specific certification complies with the 

requirements of the cranes standard. For the 

purposes of this analysis only, OSHA will treat 

certificates that do not include a multi-capacity 

component as not complying with the cranes 

standard, and certificates that include both a type 

and multi-capacity component as complying with 

the cranes standard. 

10Calculations in the text may not exactly match 

due to rounding for presentation purposes. All final 

costs are exact, with no rounding. 

OSHA’s analysis follows the steps 

below to reach its estimate of an annual 

net $4.4 million in savings: 

(1) Estimate the annual assessment 

costs for employers; 

(2) Estimate the annual certification 

costs for employers; and 

(3) Estimate the year-by-year cost 

differential for delaying the certification 

deadline to 2018.8

The methodology used here is 

substantially the same as used in the 

2014 extension FEA, and OSHA did not 

receive any comment on this 

methodology when it included it in the 

2017 PEA. Below, Table 1 summarizes 

these costs and the differentials across 

the two scenarios. The major differences 

are updated wages and a revised 

forecast of the composition of the 

operator pool across certification levels. 

The 2014 FEA analysis addressed a 3- 

year extension, so it gradually increased 

the number of operators without any 

certification during that period. The 

model in this PEA addresses an 

extension of just a single year, so it 

holds the number of operators with each 

certification level constant. The latter 

significantly simplifies the analysis 

versus that presented in the 2014 FEA 

extension. 

a. Annual Assessment Costs 

OSHA estimated the annual 

assessment costs using the following 

three steps: First, determine the unit 

costs of meeting this requirement; 

second, determine the number of 

assessments that employers will need to 

perform in any given year (this 

determination includes estimating the 

affected operator pool as a preliminary 

step); and finally, multiply the unit 

costs of meeting the requirement by the 

number of operators who must meet it 

in any given year. 

Unit assessment costs. OSHA’s unit 

cost estimates for assessments take into 

account the time needed for the 

assessment, along with the wages of 

both the operator and the personnel 

who will perform the assessment. OSHA 

based the time requirements on crane 

operator certification exams currently 

offered by nationally accredited testing 

organizations. OSHA determined the 

time needed for various certification 

tests from the 2014 extension, drawing 

primarily from informal conversations 

with industry sources who participated 

in the public stakeholder meetings. 

The Agency estimates separate 

assessment costs for three types of 

affected operators, which together 

comprise all affected operators: Those 

who have a certificate that is in 

compliance with the existing cranes 

standard; those who have a certificate 

that is not in compliance with the 

existing cranes standard; and those who 

have no certificate.9 As it did in the 

previous extension, OSHA uses 

certification status as a proxy of 

competence in estimating the amount of 

assessment time needed for different 

operators. OSHA expects that an 

operator already certified to operate 

equipment of a particular type and 

capacity will require less assessment 

time than an operator certified by type 

but not capacity, who in turn will 

require less time than an operator who 

is not certified. In deriving these 

estimates, OSHA determined that 

operators who have a certificate that is 

compliant with the crane standard 

would have to complete a test that is the 

equivalent of the practical part of the 

standard crane operator test. The 

Agency estimates that it would take an 

operator one hour to complete this test. 

Operators who have a certificate that is 

not in compliance with the cranes 

standard would have to complete a test 

that is equivalent to both a written 

general test and a practical test of the 

standard crane operator test. OSHA 

estimated that the written general test 

would take 1.5 hours to complete, for a 

total test time of 2.5 hours of testing for 

each operator (1.5 hours for the written 

general test and 1.0 hour for the 

practical test). Finally, operators with 

no certificate would have to complete a 

test that is equivalent to the standard 

written test for a specific crane type 

(also lasting 1.5 hours), as well as the 

written general test and the practical 

test, for a total test time of 4.0 hours (1.5 

hours for the test on a specific crane 

type, 1.5 hours for the written general 

test, and 1.0 hour for the practical test). 

The wages used for the crane operator 

and assessor come from the BLS 

Occupational Employment Survey for 

May 2016 (BLS 2017a), which is an 

updated version of the same source used 

in the 2014 extension. From this survey 

a crane operator’s (Standard 

Occupational Classification (SOC) 53– 

7021 Crane and Tower Operators) 

average hourly wage is $26.58. The full 

cost to the employer includes all 

benefits as well as the wage. From the 

BLS Employer Costs For Employee 

Compensation for December 2016 (BLS 

2017b) the average percentage of 

benefits in total for the construction 

sector is 30.2 percent, giving a markup 

of the wage to the total compensation of 

1.43 (1/(1 ¥ 0.302)). Hence the 

‘‘loaded’’ total hourly cost of an operator 

is $38.08 (1.43 × $26.58), including a 

markup for benefits.10 Relying on the 

same sources, the wage of the assessor 

is estimated to be the same as the 

average wage of a construction 

supervisor (53–1031 First-Line 

Supervisors of Transportation and 

Material-Moving Machine and Vehicle 

Operators) of $28.75, while the total 

hourly cost is $41.19 (1.43 × $28.75). 

Below these total hourly costs will be 

referred to as the respective 

occupation’s ‘‘wage.’’ For assessments 

performed by an employer of a 

prospective employee (i.e., a candidate), 

OSHA uses these same operator and 

assessor wages and the above testing 

times to estimate the cost of assessing 

prospective employees. 

Multiplying the wages of operators, 

assessors, and candidates by the time 

taken for each type of assessment 

provides the cost for each type of 

assessment. Hence, the cost of assessing 

an operator already holding a certificate 

that complies with the standard (both 

type and capacity) is one hour of both 

the operator’s and assessor’s time: 

$79.27 ($38.08 + $41.19). For an 

operator with a certificate for crane type 

only (not crane capacity), the 

assessment time is 2.5 hours for a cost 

of $198.17 (2.5 × ($38.08 + $41.19)). 

Finally, for an operator with no 

certificate, the assessment time is 4.0 

hours for a cost of $317.48 (4.0 × ($38.08 

+ $41.19)). OSHA did not receive any 

comments on these unit cost estimates. 

Besides these assessment costs, OSHA 

notes that § 1926.1427(k)(2)(ii) requires 

employers to provide training to 

employees if they are not already 

competent to operate their assigned 

equipment. To determine whether an 

operator is competent, the employer 

must first perform an assessment. Only 

if an operator fails the assessment must 

the employer provide additional 

operator training required by 

§ 1926.1427(k)(2)(ii). 


nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 216 / Thursday, November 9, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 51993 

However, in determining this cost, 

OSHA made a distinction between a 

nonemployee candidate for an operator 

position and an operator who is 

currently an employee. For an employer 

assessing a nonemployee candidate, 

OSHA assumed, based on common 

industry practice, that the employer will 

not hire a nonemployee candidate who 

fails the assessment. In the second 

situation, an employee qualified to 

operate a crane fails an assessment for 

a crane that differs in type or capacity 

from the crane the employee currently 

operates. In this situation, the costminimizing action for the employer is 

not to assign the employee to that new 

type and/or capacity crane, thereby 

avoiding training costs. While the 

Agency acknowledges that there will be 

cases in which the employer will 

provide this training, it believes these 

costs to be minimal and, therefore, is 

not estimating costs for the training. 

OSHA made the same determinations in 

the 2017 PEA and did not receive public 

comment on them. 

Number of assessments and number 

of affected operators. The number of 

assessments is difficult to estimate due 

to the heterogeneity of the crane 

industry. Many operators work 

continuously for the same employer, 

already have had their assessment, and 

do not need reassessment, so the 

number of new assessments required by 

the cranes standard for these operators 

will be zero. Some companies will rent 

both a crane and an operator employed 

by the crane rental company to perform 

crane work, in which case the rental 

crane company is the operator’s 

employer and responsible for operator 

assessment. In such cases there is no 

requirement for the contractor who is 

renting the crane service to conduct an 

additional operator assessment. 

Assuming that employers already 

comply with the assessment and 

training requirements of the existing 

§ 1926.1427(k)(2), employers only need 

to assess a subset of operators: New 

hires; employees who will operate 

equipment that differs by type and/or 

capacity from the equipment on which 

they received their current assessment; 

and operators who indicate that they no 

longer possess the required knowledge 

or skill necessary to operate the 

equipment. 

To calculate the estimated annual 

number of assessments, OSHA first 

estimated the current number of crane 

operators affected by the cranes 

standard. The 2014 FEA estimated 

117,130 operators and this FEA also 

uses this estimate. The Agency solicited 

comment and additional data on this 

estimate but received none. 

For the purpose of determining the 

number of assessments required each 

year under this proposal, OSHA is 

relying on the 23 percent turnover rate 

for operators originally identified in the 

2008 PEA for the crane rule and used 

most recently in the 2014 extension FEA 

(79 FR 57793) and the 2017 PEA for this 

rule. OSHA requested comment on this 

rate, but received none. 

This turnover rate includes all types 

of operators who would require 

assessment: Operators moving between 

employers; operators moving between 

different types and/or capacities of 

equipment; and operators newly 

entering the occupation. OSHA 

estimated that 26,940 assessments occur 

each year based on turnover (i.e., 

117,130 operators × 0.23 turnover rate). 

In addition, just as it did with the 

previous extension, OSHA assumed that 

15 percent of operators involved in 

assessments related to turnover would 

fail the first test administration and 

need reassessment (79 FR 57793). 

Therefore, OSHA added 4,041 

reassessments (26,940 assessments × 

0.15) to the number of reassessments 

resulting from turnover, for an annual 

total of 30,981 assessments resulting 

from turnover and test failure (26,940 + 

4,041). 

Annual assessment costs. OSHA must 

determine the annual base amount for 

the two scenarios: (1) Retaining the 

original 2017 deadline (status quo); and 

(2) delaying the deadline to 2018 

(extension NPRM). 

The first part of the calculation is the 

same under both scenarios. Because the 

annual assessment costs vary by the 

different levels of assessment required 

(depending on the operator’s existing 

level of certification), OSHA grouped 

the 117,130 operators subject to the 

crane standard into three classifications: 

Operators with a certificate that 

complies with the standard; operators 

with a certificate only for crane type; 

and operators with no certification. In 

order to simplify the estimation for this 

one-year extension (the 2014 extension 

was for 3 years) and reflect the last hard 

data point the Agency has, the Agency 

is using a static crane operator pool and 

the composition of the base operator 

population used in the 2014 deadline 

extension: 15,000 crane operators 

currently have a certificate that 

complies with the existing cranes 

standard, 71,700 have a certificate for 

crane type only (but not capacity), 

leaving 30,430 crane operators with no 

crane certification (117,130 total 

operators ¥ (15,000 operators with 

compliant certification + 71,700 

operators with certification for type 

only)). 

Assuming the turnover rate of 23 

percent and the failure rate of 15 

percent for turnover-related assessments 

are distributed proportionally across the 

three types of operators, then the 

number of assessments for operators 

with compliant certification is 3,968 

((0.23 + (0.23 × 0.15)) × 15,000), the 

number of assessments for operators 

with type-only certification is 18,965 

((0.23 + (0.23 × 0.15)) × 71,700), and the 

number of assessments for operators 

with no certification is 8,049 ((0.23 + 

(0.23 × 0.15)) × 30,430). 

Under scenario 2, there is an 

extension and employers would not 

certify all of their operators during CY 

2017. OSHA estimated the CY 2017 

assessment costs for scenario 2 by 

multiplying the assessment numbers for 

each type of operator by the unit costs, 

resulting in a cost of $6,624,861 (($79.27 

× 3,968) + ($198.17 × 18,965) + ($317.08 

× 8,049)). Under scenario 1, the 

employer-assessment requirement will 

be in effect for all of CY 2017, while 

employers would be gradually certifying 

all of their operators during CY 2017. As 

a result, the CY 2017 assessment costs 

identified for scenario 2 would decrease 

to $4,540,348 from $6,624,861 in 

scenario 1. This is because, as compared 

to scenario 2, there will be more 

operators who will have a compliant 

certificate; and therefore, under the 

approach described above the employer 

assessment will require less time. This 

reduction in the estimated time; and 

therefore, unit cost, lowers the overall 

assessment cost (see discussion in the 

2014 deadline extension FEA for more 

details about this methodology). 

Under both scenarios, once the 

certification requirement becomes 

effective, the employer duty to assess 

the crane operator no longer is in effect 

and so assessment costs are zero. Thus, 

in CY 2018, the assessment costs under 

scenario 1 would be zero. Under 

scenario 2, the assessment costs for CY 

2018 would be the same as those under 

scenario 1 for CY 2017, because 

employers would be gradually certifying 

operators over the course of that year. 

b. Annual Certification Costs 

OSHA estimated the annual 

certification costs using the three steps: 

First, determine the unit costs of 

meeting this requirement; second, 

determine the number of affected 

operators; and, finally, multiply the unit 

costs of meeting the requirement by the 

number of operators who must meet 

them. In this FEA, following the same 

methodology as in the 2014 FEA, OSHA 

estimates that all certifications occur in 

the year prior to the deadline, hence in 

CY 2017 in scenario 1, while in CY 2018 


nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
51994 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 216 / Thursday, November 9, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

11There are no certification costs for operators 

who already have a certificate that complies with 

the cranes standard. 

for the one-year extension in scenario 2. 

As in the annual assessment-cost 

analysis described above, OSHA 

provides the calculations for CY 2017 

under the existing 2017 deadline 

(scenario 1), and then presents the 

certification costs for CY 2018 that 

result from OSHA’s delay of the 

certification requirement to November 

2018 (scenario 2). 

Unit certification costs. Unit 

certification costs vary across the three 

different types of operators in the 

operator pool (operators with compliant 

certification; operators with type-only 

certification; and operators with no 

certification). Among operators without 

certification there is a further 

distinction with different unit 

certification costs: Experienced 

operators without certification and 

operators who have only limited 

experience. As such, there are different 

unit certification costs for four different 

types of operators. There also are 

ongoing certification costs due to the 

following two conditions: The 

requirement for re-certification every 

five years and the need for some 

certified operators to obtain additional 

certification to operate a crane that 

differs by type and/or capacity from the 

crane on which they received their 

current certification. 

OSHA estimated these different unit 

certification costs using substantially 

the same unit-cost assumptions used in 

the FEA for the 2010 cranes standard 

(and exactly the same as the FEA of the 

2014 deadline extension). In those 

previous FEAs, OSHA estimated that 

training and certification costs for an 

operator with only limited experience 

would consist of $1,500 for a 2-day 

course (including tests) and 18 hours of 

the operator’s time, for a total cost of 

$2,185.44 ($1,500 + (18 hours × $38.08)) 

(see 75 FR 48096–48097). OSHA 

continues to use a cost of $250 for the 

tests taken without any training (a 

constant fixed fee irrespective of the 

number of tests (75 FR 48096)), and the 

same number of hours used for each test 

that it used in the assessment 

calculations provided above (which the 

Agency based on certification test 

times). Accordingly, OSHA estimates 

the cost of a certificate compliant with 

the crane standard for an operator who 

has a type-only certificate to be $345.20 

(i.e., 1 type/capacity-specific written 

test at 1.5 hours and 1 practical test at 

1.0 hours (2.5 hours total), plus the 

fixed $250 fee for the tests (2.5 hours × 

$38.08) + $250). For an experienced 

operator with no certificate, the cost is 

$402.32 (i.e., the same as the cost for an 

operator with a type-only certificate 

plus the cost of an added general 

written test of 1.5 hours (4.0 hours × 

$38.08) + $250)).11

For scenario 1, § 1926.1427(b)(4) 

specifies that a certificate is valid for 

five years. OSHA estimates the 

recertification unit cost would be the 

same as the assessment for an operator 

with compliant certification (i.e., 

$79.27). In the 2014 extension, OSHA 

assumed that employers would pay a 

reduced fee for the recertification testing 

as opposed to the cost of a full first-time 

examination. Because OSHA lacked 

data on exactly how much the fee would 

be reduced, it used the assessment cost 

as a proxy for the cost of recertification 

(79 FR 57794). OSHA did not receive 

any comment on that approach and is 

retaining it for this FEA. 

Finally, there will be certified 

operators who must obtain certification 

when assigned to a crane that differs by 

type and/or capacity from the crane on 

which they received their current 

certification. This situation requires 

additional training, but less training 

than required for a ‘‘new’’ operator with 

only limited experience. Accordingly, 

OSHA estimated the cost for these 

operators as one half of the cost of 

training and certifying a new operator, 

or $1,092.72 ($2,185.44/2). 

Number of certifications. After 

establishing the unit certification costs, 

OSHA had to determine how many 

certifications are necessary to ensure 

compliance with OSHA’s standard. In 

doing so, the Agency uses the 5 percent 

new-hire estimate from the FEA 

discussed above to calculate the number 

of new operators; therefore, of the 

117,130 operators affected by the 

standard, 5,857 (0.05 × 117,130) would 

be new operators who would require 

two days for training and certification 

each year. As discussed earlier, OSHA 

estimated that 71,700 operators have 

type-only certification, 15,000 operators 

have certification that complies with the 

existing cranes standard, and the 

remaining 24,574 operators (117,130 ¥ 

(71,700 + 15,000 + 5,857)) are 

experienced operators without 

certification. 

Under scenario 1 (no extension), after 

all operators attain certification by 

November 2017 there will still be 

ongoing certification costs each year. 

With a constant total number of 

operators, the same number of operators 

(5,857) will be leaving the profession 

each year and will not require 

recertification when their current 5-year 

certification ends. This leaves 111,274 

operators (117,130 ¥ 5,857) who will 

need such periodic recertification. If we 

approximate the timing of requirements 

for recertification as distributed 

proportionally across years, then 20 

percent of all operators with a 5-year 

certificate (22,255 operators (.20 × 

111,274)) would require recertification 

each year. 

A final category of unit certification 

costs involves the continuing need for 

certified operators to obtain further 

certification when assigned to a crane 

that differs by type and/or capacity from 

the crane on which they received their 

current certification. This situation 

arises for both operators working for a 

single employer and operators switching 

employers. 

The operators who will not need 

multiple certifications in the postdeadline period are operators with 

certification who move to a new 

employer and operate a crane with the 

same type and capacity as the crane on 

which they received certification while 

with their previous employer. These 

operators will not need multiple 

certifications because operator 

certificates are portable across 

employers, as specified by the cranes 

standard (see § 1926.1427(b)(3)). For an 

employer looking to hire an operator for 

a specific crane, this option will 

minimize cost, and OSHA assumes 

employers will choose this option when 

possible. 

After the certification deadline, OSHA 

estimates that each year 23 percent of 

the 117,130 operators (26,940 = 0.23 × 

117,130) will enter the workforce, 

change employers, or take on new 

positions that require one or more 

additional certifications to operate 

different types and/or capacities of 

cranes. Of these 26,940 operators, OSHA 

estimates 5 of the total 23 percent, or 

5,857 (0.05 × 117,130), will result from 

new operators entering the occupation 

each year; 9 percent, or 10,542 (0.09 × 

117,130), will result from operators 

switching employers but operating a 

crane of the same type and capacity as 

the crane they operated previously (i.e., 

no certification needed because 

certification is portable in this case); 

and the remaining 9 percent, or 10,542, 

changing jobs or positions and requiring 

one or more additional certification to 

operate a crane that differs by type and/ 

or capacity from the crane they operated 

previously. These percentages are 

identical to those in the 2014 FEA and 

the 2017 PEA. 

Annual certification costs. To 

estimate the annual base cost for the 

first scenario, OSHA calculates the 

certification costs for CY 2017 because 

that is the remaining period before the 

existing deadline. The total cost for 


nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 216 / Thursday, November 9, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 51995 

12A positive cost differential indicates cost 

savings and a negative cost differential indicates net 

costs. Savings in the first two years is due to the 

lower cost of assessments versus certification. Then 

net costs in year 2022 are due to the last year of 

annualized certification costs for scenario 2, while 

this cost ends in year 2021 for scenario 1. 

certifying all operators in CY 2017 in 

accordance with the existing cranes 

standard using the above unit-cost 

estimates and numbers of operators is 

$47,436,368 ((71,700 operators with 

type-only certification × $345.20) + 

(24,574 experienced operators without 

certification × $402.32) + (5,857 

operators with no experience or 

certification × $2,185.44)). The Agency, 

following the previous FEAs (75 FR 

48096 and 79 FR 57795), annualized 

this cost for the five-year period during 

which operator certification remains 

effective, resulting in an annualized cost 

of $8,447,719. In section c below, OSHA 

uses this amount in calculating the 

annual certification costs under scenario 

1. 

To determine the annual amount used 

in calculations for the second scenario 

(the extension to 2018), OSHA examines 

the costs in CY 2017 because that is the 

first year with certification costs. All 

numbers are the same, just shifted 

forward a year, so the total cost for 

having all crane operators certified in 

CY 2018 is $47,436,368 (in 2018 

dollars). 

c. Year-by-Year Cost Differential for 

Delaying the Certification Deadline to 

2018 and Preserving the Employer 

Assessment Duty Over That Same 

Period 

The ultimate goal of this analysis is to 

determine the annualized cost 

differential between scenario 1 (the 

status quo) and scenario 2 (the 

extensions of the certification date and 

the employer assessment duty), so the 

final part of this PEA compares the 

yearly assessment and certification costs 

employers will incur under the two 

scenarios. Because the assessment and 

certification costs change across years 

under each scenario, OSHA must 

compare the cost differential in each 

year separately to determine the annual 

cost savings for each year attributable to 

scenario 2. OSHA calculated the present 

value of each year’s differential, which 

provides a consistent basis for 

comparing the cost differentials over the 

extended compliance period. OSHA 

then annualized the present value of 

each differential to identify an annual 

amount that accounts for the discounted 

costs over this period. Table 1 below 

summarizes these calculations. 

Table 1 shows that assessment and 

certification costs are just shifted out 

another year. As noted earlier, OSHA 

estimated the overall cost differential 

between these two scenarios by 

calculating the difference in total 

(assessment and certification) costs each 

year across the two scenarios. The net 

employer cost savings in current dollars 

attributable to adopting the second 

scenario are, for each certification year: 

2017, $18.2 million; 2018, $8.7 million; 

2019–2021, $0; 2022, ¥$7.5 million.12

TABLE 1—YEAR-BY-YEAR COST DIFFERENTIAL IF OSHA DELAYS THE CERTIFICATION DEADLINE TO 2018 

Certification year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 

Operator Pool 

Scenario 1 (No Deadline Extension) 

Operators with Non-Compliant Certification ............ 71,700 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Operators with Compliant Certification .................... 15,000 111,274 111,274 111,274 111,274 111,274 111,274 

Operators with No Certification ................................ 24,574 0 0 0 0 0 0 

New Operators ......................................................... 5,857 5,857 5,857 5,857 5,857 5,857 5,857 

Scenario 2 (Deadline Extension) 

Operators with Non-Compliant Certification ............ 71,700 71,700 0 0 0 0 0 

Operators with Compliant Certification .................... 15,000 15,000 111,274 111,274 111,274 111,274 111,274 

Operators with No Certification ................................ 24,574 24,574 0 0 0 0 0 

New Operators ......................................................... 5,857 5,857 5,857 5,857 5,857 5,857 5,857 

Costs 

Scenario 1 (No Deadline Extension) 

Total Assessment Costs .......................................... 4,540,348 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total Certification Costs ........................................... 20,362,269 33,645,533 33,645,533 33,645,533 33,645,533 26,082,317 26,082,317 

Total Costs ........................................................ 24,902,617 33,645,533 33,645,533 33,645,533 33,645,533 26,082,317 26,082,317 

Scenario 2 (Deadline Extension) 

Total Assessment Costs .......................................... 6,624,861 4,540,348 0 0 0 0 0 

Total Certification Costs ........................................... 0 20,362,269 33,645,533 33,645,533 33,645,533 33,645,533 26,082,317 

Total Costs ........................................................ 6,624,861 24,902,617 33,645,533 33,645,533 33,645,533 33,645,533 26,082,317 

Cost Differential (Scenario 2 ¥ Scenario 

1) ............................................................ (18,277,756) (8,742,916) .................. .................. .................. 7,563,216 ..................

Source: OSHA, ORA Calculations. 

OSHA next determined the present 

value of these cost differentials between 

the two scenarios. OSHA calculated the 

present value of future costs using two 

interest rates assumptions, 3 percent 

and 7 percent, which follow the OMB 

guidelines specified by Circular A–4. At 

an interest rate of 3 percent, the present 

value of the cost differentials for CY 

2017 onwards results in an estimated 

savings of $20.2 million ($21.3 million 

using the 7 percent rate). Finally, 

annualizing the present value over five 

years results in an annualized cost 

differential (i.e., net employer cost 

savings) of $4.4 million per year ($5.2 

million per year using the 7 percent 

rate). 

As a sensitivity analysis the Agency 

looked at including possible overhead 

costs. It is important to note that there 

is not one broadly accepted overhead 

rate and that the use of overhead to 

estimate the marginal costs of labor 

raises a number of issues that should be 

addressed before applying overhead 

costs to analyze the costs of any specific 

regulation. There are several approaches 

to look at the cost elements that fit the 

definition of overhead and there are a 


nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
51996 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 216 / Thursday, November 9, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

13U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ‘‘Wage 

Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release 

Inventory Program,’’ June 10, 2002. 

14 Grant Thornton LLP, 2015 Government 

Contractor Survey. (https://

www.grantthornton.com/∼/media/content-pagefiles/public-sector/pdfs/surveys/2015/GovContractor-Survey.ashx). 

15For a further example of overhead cost 

estimates, please see the Employee Benefits 

Security Administration’s guidance at https://

www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/ebsa/laws-andregulations/rules-and-regulations/technicalappendices/labor-cost-inputs-used-in-ebsa-opr-riaand-pra-burden-calculations-august-2016.pdf. 16See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. 

range of overhead estimates currently 

used within the Federal government— 

for example, the Environmental 

Protection Agency has used 17 

percent,13 and government contractors 

have been reported to use an average of 

77 percent.14 15 Some overhead costs, 

such as advertising and marketing, vary 

with output rather than with labor costs. 

Other overhead costs vary with the 

number of new employees. For example, 

rent or payroll processing costs may 

change little with the addition of 1 

employee in a 500-employee firm, but 

those costs may change substantially 

with the addition of 100 employees. If 

an employer is able to rearrange current 

employees’ duties to implement a rule, 

then the marginal share of overhead 

costs such as rent, insurance, and major 

office equipment (e.g., computers, 

printers, copiers) would be very difficult 

to measure with accuracy (e.g., 

computer use costs associated with 2 

hours for rule familiarization by an 

existing employee). 

If OSHA had included an overhead 

rate when estimating the marginal cost 

of labor, without further analyzing an 

appropriate quantitative adjustment, 

and adopted for these purposes an 

overhead rate of 17 percent on base 

wages, as was done in a sensitivity 

analysis in the FEA in support of 

OSHA’s 2016 final rule on Occupational 

Exposure to Respirable Crystalline 

Silica, the overhead costs would 

increase cost savings from $4.4 million 

to $4.5 million at a discount rate of 3 

percent, an increase of 1.8 percent, and 

would increase cost savings from $5.2 

million to $5.3 million at a discount rate 

of 7 percent, an increase of 1.9 percent. 

d. Certification of No Significant Impact 

on a Substantial Number of Small 

Entities 

Most employers will have savings 

resulting from the one-year extension, 

particularly employers that planned to 

pay for operator certification in the year 

before the existing 2017 deadline. The 

only entities likely to see a net cost will 

be entities that planned to hire an 

operator with compliant certification 

after November 10, 2017. Without the 

one-year extension, these entities will 

have no separate assessment duty, but 

under the one-year extension they will 

have the expense involved in assessing 

operator competency. As noted above, 

however, OSHA estimated the 

maximum cost for such an assessment 

(for operators with no certification) to be 

$317.08 per certified operator. 

Small businesses will, by definition, 

have few operators, and OSHA believes 

the $317.08 cost will be well below 1 

percent of revenues, and well below 5 

percent of profits, in any industry sector 

using cranes. OSHA does not consider 

such small amounts to represent a 

significant impact on small businesses 

in any industry sector. Hence, OSHA 

certifies this final rule will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. After 

providing relatively similar estimates in 

the 2014 FEA, OSHA made the same 

certification in the 2014 FEA and 

proposed the same certification in the 

2017 PEA but did not receive any 

adverse comment on either the 

certification or its underlying rationale. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

requires Federal agencies to obtain the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) approval of information 

collection requirements before an 

Agency can conduct or sponsor the 

information collection requirement; and 

to display the OMB control (approval 

number) (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). Agencies 

submit an Information Collection 

Request (ICR), with paperwork analysis, 

to OMB seeking approval of their 

paperwork requirements. The 

information collection requirements in 

the Cranes and Derricks in Construction 

Standard (29 CFR part 1926, subpart CC) 

have been approved by OMB in the ICR 

titled Cranes and Derricks in 

Construction Standard (29 CFR part 

1926, subpart CC), under OMB control 

Number 1218–0261. These paperwork 

requirements expire on February 28, 

2020. 

In the August 30, 2017 NPRM, OSHA 

notified the public that the Agency 

believed the proposed Cranes and 

Derricks in Construction: Operator 

Certification Extension rule did not 

contain additional collection of 

information, and that OSHA did not 

believe it was necessary to submit a new 

(revised) ICR to OMB. OSHA instructed 

the public to submit comments on this 

determination to OMB and encouraged 

them to submit their comments to 

OSHA. No comments were received and 

OSHA has determined this final rule 

requires no additional collection of 

information or any permanent change to 

the collection program. As a result, the 

Agency did not submit an ICR to OMB. 

The Agency notes that a Federal 

agency generally cannot conduct or 

sponsor a collection of information, and 

the public is generally not required to 

respond to an information collection, 

unless it is approved by OMB under the 

PRA and displays a currently valid 

OMB Control Number. In addition, 

notwithstanding any other law, no 

person may generally be subject to 

penalty for failing to comply with a 

collection of information that does not 

display a valid Control Number.16

C. Federalism 

OSHA reviewed this final 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 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 

13132 (75 FR 48128–29). In States 

without an OSHA-approved State Plan, 

this final rule limits State policy options 

in the same manner as every standard 

promulgated by OSHA. 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 crane standards 


nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 216 / Thursday, November 9, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 51997 

provided these requirements are at least 

as effective in providing safe and 

healthful employment and places of 

employment as the requirements 

specified in this final rule. 

D. State Plans 

When Federal OSHA promulgates a 

new standard or more stringent 

amendment to an existing standard, 

State Plans must either amend their 

standards to be ‘‘at least as effective as’’ 

the new standard or amendment, or 

show that an existing State standard 

covering this area is already ‘‘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 amendment to OSHA’s crane 

standard in this final rule only delays 

the deadline for operator certification 

requirements and does not impose any 

new requirements on employers. 

Accordingly, State Plans are not 

required to amend their standards to 

delay the deadline for their operator 

certification requirements, but they may 

do so if they so choose. If they choose 

to delay the deadline for their 

certification requirements, they also 

would need to include a corresponding 

extension of the employer duty to assess 

and train operators that is equivalent to 

§ 1926.1427(k)(2). 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

When OSHA issued the final rule for 

cranes and derricks in construction, 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 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 final rule does not 

impose any costs on private-sector 

employers beyond those costs already 

taken into account in the 2010 final rule 

for cranes and derricks in construction. 

Because OSHA reviewed the total costs 

of the 2010 final rule under the UMRA, 

no further review of those costs is 

necessary. Therefore, for the purposes of 

the UMRA, OSHA certifies that this 

final rule does 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. 

F. Consultation and Coordination With 

Indian Tribal Governments 

OSHA reviewed this final rule in 

accordance with Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249) and determined that it 

does not have ‘‘tribal implications’’ as 

defined in that order. The rule does 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. 

G. Executive Order 13771: Reducing 

Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

Consistent with E.O. 13771 (82 FR 

9339, February 3, 2017), OSHA has 

estimated the annualized cost savings 

over 10 years for this final rule to range 

from $4.4 million to $5.2 million, 

depending on the discount rate. This 

final rule is considered an E.O. 13771 

deregulatory action. Details on the 

estimated cost savings of this final rule 

can be found in the rule’s economic 

analysis. 

H. Legal Considerations 

The purpose of the Occupational 

Safety and Health Act of 1970 (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(b), 655(b). A 

safety or health standard is a standard 

‘‘which 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 or places of employment.’’ 

29 U.S.C. 652(8). A standard is 

reasonably necessary or appropriate 

within the meaning of Section 652(8) 

when a significant risk of material harm 

exists in the workplace and the standard 

would substantially reduce or eliminate 

that workplace risk. See Industrial 

Union Department, AFL–CIO v. 

American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 

607 (1980). In the cranes rulemaking, 

OSHA made such a determination with 

respect to the use of cranes and derricks 

in construction (75 FR 47913, 47920– 

21). This final rule does not impose any 

new requirements on employers. 

Therefore, this final rule does not 

require an additional significant risk 

finding (see Edison Electric Institute v. 

OSHA, 849 F.2d 611, 620 (D.C. Cir. 

1988)). 

In addition to materially reducing a 

significant risk, a safety standard must 

be technologically feasible. See UAW v. 

OSHA, 37 F.3d 665, 668 (D.C. Cir. 

1994). A standard is technologically 

feasible when the protective measures it 

requires already exist, when available 

technology can bring the protective 

measures into existence, or when that 

technology is reasonably likely to 

develop (see American Textile Mfrs. 

Institute v. OSHA, 452 U.S. 490, 513 

(1981); American Iron and Steel 

Institute v. OSHA, 939 F.2d 975, 980 

(D.C. Cir. 1991)). In the 2010 Final 

Economic Analysis for the crane 

standard, OSHA found the standard to 

be technologically feasible (75 FR 

48079). Therefore, this final rule is 

technologically feasible as well because 

it does not require employers to 

implement any additional protective 

measures; it simply extends the 

duration of existing requirements. 

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1926 

Construction industry, Cranes, 

Derricks, Occupational safety and 

health, Safety. 

Signed at Washington, DC, on November 3, 

2017. 

Loren Sweatt, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for 

Occupational Safety and Health. 

Amendments to Standards 

For the reasons stated in the preamble 

of this final rule, OSHA amends 29 CFR 

part 1926 as follows: 

PART 1926—[AMENDED] 

Subpart CC—Cranes and Derricks in 

Construction 

■ 1. The authority citation for subpart 

CC of 29 CFR part 1926 continues to 

read as follows: 

Authority: 40 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.; 29 U.S.C. 

653, 655, 657; and Secretary of Labor’s 

Orders 5–2007 (72 FR 31159) or 1–2012 (77 

FR 3912), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 

1911. 

■ 2. Revise § 1926.1427(k) to read as 

follows: 


nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
51998 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 216 / Thursday, November 9, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 1926.1427 Operator qualification and 

certification. 

* * * * * 

(k) Phase-in. (1) The provisions of this 

section became applicable on November 

8, 2010, except for paragraphs (a)(2) and 

(f) of this section, which are applicable 

November 10, 2018. 

(2) When paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section is not applicable, all of the 

requirements in paragraphs (k)(2)(i) and 

(ii) of this section apply until November 

10, 2018. 

(i) The employer must ensure that 

operators of equipment covered by this 

standard are competent to operate the 

equipment safely. 

(ii) When an employee assigned to 

operate machinery does not have the 

required knowledge or ability to operate 

the equipment safely, the employer 

must train that employee prior to 

operating the equipment. The employer 

must ensure that each operator is 

evaluated to confirm that he/she 

understands the information provided 

in the training. 

[FR Doc. 2017–24349 Filed 11–8–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of Foreign Assets Control 

31 CFR Part 515 

Cuban Assets Control Regulations 

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets 

Control, Treasury. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the 

Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets 

Control (OFAC) is amending the Cuban 

Assets Control Regulations to 

implement the National Security 

Presidential Memorandum (NSPM), 

‘‘Strengthening the Policy of the United 

States Toward Cuba,’’ signed by the 

President on June 16, 2017. These 

amendments implement changes to the 

authorizations for travel to Cuba and 

related transactions and restrict certain 

financial transactions. These 

amendments also implement certain 

technical and conforming changes. 

DATES: Effective: November 9, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Department of the Treasury’s Office of 

Foreign Assets Control: Assistant 

Director for Licensing, tel.: 202–622– 

2480, Assistant Director for Regulatory 

Affairs, tel.: 202–622–4855, Assistant 

Director for Sanctions Compliance & 

Evaluation, tel.: 202–622–2490; or the 

Department of the Treasury’s Office of 

the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets 

Control), Office of the General Counsel, 

tel.: 202–622–2410. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Availability 

This document and additional 

information concerning OFAC are 

available from OFAC’s Web site 

(www.treasury.gov/ofac). 

Background 

The Department of the Treasury 

issued the Cuban Assets Control 

Regulations, 31 CFR part 515 (the 

‘‘Regulations’’), on July 8, 1963, under 

the Trading With the Enemy Act (50 

U.S.C. 4301–41). OFAC has amended 

the Regulations on numerous occasions. 

Today, OFAC, the Department of 

Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and 

Security, and the Department of State 

are taking coordinated actions to 

implement the NSPM, ‘‘Strengthening 

the Policy of the United States Toward 

Cuba,’’ signed by the President on June 

16, 2017. 

OFAC is making amendments to the 

Regulations with respect to financial 

transactions, travel and related 

transactions, educational activities, 

support for the Cuban people, and 

certain other activities, as set forth 

below. 

Financial Transactions 

Restrictions on direct financial 

transactions with certain entities and 

subentities. In accordance with section 

3(a)(i) of the NSPM, the State 

Department is publishing a list of 

entities and subentities that are under 

the control of, or act for or on behalf of, 

the Cuban military, intelligence, or 

security service or personnel, and with 

which direct financial transactions 

would disproportionately benefit the 

Cuban military, intelligence, or security 

services or personnel at the expense of 

the Cuban people or private enterprise 

in Cuba—the State Department’s List of 

Restricted Entities and Subentities 

Associated with Cuba (‘‘Cuba Restricted 

List’’). In accordance with section 

3(a)(ii) of the NSPM, OFAC is adding 

new § 515.209 to restrict direct financial 

transactions with entities and 

subentities listed on the Cuba Restricted 

List. OFAC is making conforming edits 

to § 515.421 to clarify that transactions 

ordinarily incident to licensed 

transactions do not include direct 

financial transactions with such entities 

and subentities if the terms of the 

applicable general or specific license 

expressly exclude such direct financial 

transactions. 

In order to implement this 

prohibition, OFAC is adding 

corresponding language in the following 

general licenses: §§ 515.530, 515.534, 

515.545, 515.560, 515.561, 515.564, 

515.565, 515.566, 515.567, 515.572, 

515.573, 515.574, 515.576, 515.577, 

515.578, 515.581, 515.584, and 515.590. 

OFAC has not incorporated this 

prohibition into certain general licenses 

in accordance with the exceptions 

detailed in section 3(a)(iii) of the NSPM. 

Travel and Related Transactions 

Educational travel. In accordance 

with section 3(b) of the NSPM, OFAC is 

revising the categories of educational 

travel currently set forth in 

§ 515.565(a)(1)–(6) to authorize travel 

that was permitted by regulation in 

effect on January 27, 2011. 

In addition, OFAC is adding the 

requirement set forth in the NSPM that 

certain categories of educational travel 

authorized by § 515.565(a), which were 

not permitted by regulation in effect on 

January 27, 2011, take place under the 

auspices of an organization that is a 

person subject to U.S. jurisdiction. This 

requirement is incorporated in 

§ 515.565(a)(2). The same provision also 

now will require that all travelers must 

be accompanied by a person subject to 

U.S. jurisdiction who is an employee, 

paid consultant, agent, or other 

representative of the sponsoring 

organization, except in cases where the 

traveler is an employee, paid consultant, 

agent, or other representative traveling 

individually (not as part of a group), if 

the individual obtains a letter from the 

sponsoring organization. Such a letter 

must state that: (1) The individual is 

traveling to Cuba as an employee, paid 

consultant, agent, or other 

representative (including specifying the 

responsibilities of the individual that 

make him or her a representative) of the 

sponsoring organization; (2) the 

individual is acting for or on behalf of, 

or otherwise representing, the 

sponsoring organization; and (3) the 

individual’s travel to Cuba is related to 

his or her role at the sponsoring 

organization. 

In addition, OFAC is adding a 

‘‘grandfathering’’ provision in 

§ 515.565(d) to authorize certain travel 

that previously was authorized where 

the traveler has already completed at 

least one travel-related transaction (such 

as purchasing a flight or reserving 

accommodation) prior to November 9, 

2017. 

People-to-people educational travel. 

In accordance with section 3(b)(ii) of the 

NSPM, OFAC is amending § 515.565(b) 

to require that people-to-people 

educational travel be conducted under 

the auspices of an organization that is 

subject to U.S. jurisdiction and that 

sponsors such exchanges to promote 


nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES