Memorandum for the Record
Date:  March 27, 2014
Prepared by:  Richard Ewell, Senior Attorney, SOL 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re:  Telephone conversations with Crane Institute Certification regarding a hearing for the crane operator certification Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published February 10, 2014 (Docket ID - OSHA - 2007 - 0066, RIN 1218 - AC86)
DOL personnel present for conversations:  Paul Bolon (OSHA), Vernon Preston (OSHA), Robert Biersner (SOL), Richard Ewell (SOL)
On March 18, 2014, Mr. Bolon contacted Debbie Dickinson, Executive Director of Crane Institute Certification, to request clarification about whether she was requesting a hearing through her statement in her rulemaking comment that "[a] hearing may be the best solution to put to rest the incur rate [sic] assumptions and implement solutions. If so, CIC respectfully requests a hearing on the matter." 
DOL personnel noted that a hearing, if held, could not "implement any solutions"; any hearing would simply involve further discussion of the issues addressed in the NPRM published February 10, 2014, which proposed to extend for three years the current requirements in the Cranes and Derricks in Construction standard for assuring that crane operators are able to operate cranes safely.  OSHA will make its decision based on the entire record, which includes the 60-plus comments already submitted to the record.
During the conversation, Ms. Dickenson reiterated the views expressed in her comments that a delay in the effective date of the operator certification requirement is not necessary.  Ultimately, Ms. Dickenson requested additional time to consult with others before clarifying her intent.  
Mr. Bolon contacted Ms. Dickenson again on March 26.  Mr. Ewell reiterated that the hearing would only be useful if it added new information to the record that would be relevant to OSHA's decision-making on the only question at issue in this rulemaking:  whether to extend the existing requirements as proposed.  Ms. Dickenson clarified that her intent had been to request a hearing.  She stated that she believes a hearing is necessary to "clear up the myths" about the proposal and to add new information to the record.  

