Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Workplace Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Crane‑operator licensing bill fails after extensive floor amendments and safety debate
Summary
Senate Bill 29, a proposal to license crane operators, was amended repeatedly (including changing a tonnage exemption ultimately to 100 tons and adding employer‑equivalent certification language) before failing on final passage in the House 35–39.
Senate Bill 29, a bill to license crane operators in Utah, reached the House floor on March 1 and became the chamber's most contested item of the day. After motions to circle and uncircle, representatives debated a sequence of amendments addressing tonnage thresholds, industry exemptions and certification mechanisms. The final recorded vote was 35 yes and 39 no, and the bill failed.
Key amendment sequence
Representative Huer initially moved to circle the bill; floor action later uncircled it for amendment and debate. Representative Eurer offered amendments including increasing an exemption threshold from 10 tons to 30 tons and exempting petroleum refining and certain manufacturing activities. Representative Morley proposed a substitute amendment to change the threshold to 100 tons; that substitute passed after recorded votes, effectively exempting a wider class of smaller cranes commonly used in residential construction.
Certification language and safety arguments
Representative Clark proposed adding language to allow "equivalent certification by the operator's employer or crane owner," a change supporters said would help small local operators who lack access to national certifying programs. Opponents, including Representative Hansen (a heavy‑equipment operator), warned that employer self‑certification could undermine safety; Representative Bowman and others argued for national certification standards and referenced national statistics on crane‑related injuries and fatalities. After debate the House also considered an amendment to allow certification by any organization the division determines meets testing standards rather than naming a particular national body.
Outcomes and floor rationale
Proponents argued licensing raises safety standards and protects ground workers; opponents questioned whether the state needed new licensing given industry practices and the professional review committee's previous rejection. The bill ultimately failed on a recorded vote of 35 to 39 and will not proceed from the House.
