As it is written, US federal law lags behind industry consensus standards, such as the ANSI/ASME B30 crane regs. It references a 1967 version of a B30 standard.
As good as they may be, the B30 regs are still only voluntary. If they differ from the letter of the law, then in my book there is always the risk of confusion.
Take the case of a crane builder who, under heavy competitive pressure, wins an order for a crane specification that does not meet the B30 crane regs, but does meet the regulations and references laid down in 29 CFR 1910.179, the published federal statute.
Consider the case if there was an accident involving the crane, and OSHA investigates. What standard would that crane builder be held to? Would different OSHA inspectors have different interpretations? Would it make a difference if the job was in California or in Ohio?
The gap between the voluntary standard and the law puts crane builders in an impossible position. They have to decide whether it is better to risk an investigation should the crane fail, or lose the order.
At the moment, there is too much confusion in the market. This confusion is destructive because it sows doubt about the product in the minds of manufacturers, crane builders and end users.
As it happens, this matters for small details like limit switches, which we report on this month – see pp.19-22 for more. But it also matters for big ones, like who exactly is responsible for the safety of imported equipment.
What the industry needs is someone to get off the fence and tell us all what is required by law, and what is not. Crane Manufacturers Association of America, what say you?
