Oklahoma’s Mixed Message on Lifting Equipment Legislation

Tony Groat is the executive vice president of Aerial Work Platform Training Inc., Schenectady, N.Y., the North American training division of the International Powered Access Federation.

January 27, 2009 – A recent news article entitled, “Oklahoma Rules for Safe Crane Use Could Be Coming Soon,” published in the Oklahoman on Jan 19, 2009, provided a picture of the scene of a fatal accident involving a boom lift that occurred on Oct. 20, 2008, in Oklahoma City, Okla. The first sentence in the article read, “Crane and aerial basket operators might soon need a state license, a state lawmaker said last week.” After reading the news article, I began to investigate what action needed to occur to ensure the interest of International Powered Access Federation members and the AWP industry were addressed.

The article interspersed references to both cranes and aerial lifts. The article read: “Labor Commissioner Lloyd Fields called for crane safety reviews after a fatal accident in downtown Oklahoma City on Oct. 20. A worker died when an aerial basket toppled onto Main Street between Robinson and Broadway avenues. The worker was using the aerial basket to paint the side of a building.”

Further the article said, “State Rep. Paul Wesselhoft, R-Moore, filed legislation Thursday that would establish a state license for crane operators. House Bill 2079 would require crane and hoist operators to be licensed by Nov. 1, 2011.”

I immediately sent correspondence to the offices of both Labor Commissioner Lloyd Fields and Rep. Paul Wesselhoft, requesting the opportunity to present an industry voice on the issue and provide expert opinion on the issue.

Commissioner Fields’ office sent the following response:

“The Oklahoma Department of Labor forwarded all information collected during meetings held regarding crane safety to Rep. Paul Wesselhoft. He has filed legislation to be considered during the upcoming session. We are referring all questions and concerns about the legislation to him. His office can be reached at 405-521-2711. Please contact me again if I can provide further information.”

The following day, Rep. Paul Wesselhoft replied, “My bill does not pertain to your concern.” This reply specifically indicates that his proposed legislation addresses only crane operators, not aerial lift operators.

While the current activity in Oklahoma is not focusing on aerial lift legislation, it is easy to see how high-profile accidents raise the awareness of legislators and make their actions swift to address “issues visible to the public.” This situation clearly points to the need for the AWP industry to self regulate before we are regulated to.

In 2008, Michigan implemented changes to rules regulating the use of aerial lifts. Its regulation now requires the employer of an AWP operator to provide training defined in their General Industry safety Standard Part 58 and Construction safety Standard Part 32. The regulation requires the employer to issue a permit to each employee who will operate an aerial work platform after they receive instruction and training regarding the equipment. The permit shall be carried by the operator or be available at the jobsite and made available upon request by the department of labor. The permit to operate the aerial platform is valid only when performing work for the employer who issued it.

IPAF is working with many AWP industry leaders to investigate best practices and to look at establishing an industry standard for AWP operator training. The activity in Oklahoma raises the importance and swiftness that this issue needs to take to ensure others with less knowledge of the products and issues do not implement their rules upon the industry. It also points to the added concern that a common standard will best serve the market over a mixture of federal and various state regulations without a consistent approach or standard.