Last week, I spoke with a few industry professionals who had reviewed the A10.29 standard. The ASC A92—which issued a public statement last Friday—sees the A10.29 standard as a direct conflict to its existing series of standards. It noted that if adopted, the standard will create confusion in the industry. Emily Bannwarth, A92 secretariat, said an essential requirement for standard developers is to avoid duplication or conflict with other existing standards unless there is a compelling need or a differentiating factor that needs to be addressed. “With this one, we haven’t found a difference with it,” she said.

Another industry professional said the A10.29 standard was developed to address the unique needs of the construction industry. “The issue at hand is the conflict and confusion that … both A92 and A10 standards are addressing a product that most in the industry do not see as having any unique differences than AWPs used in any other industry,” he said.

However, Mike McCann, an A10.29 subcommittee member, points out a key difference between the two standards. He said that the A92 Series is geared toward manufacturers of aerial work platforms while the A10.29 standard concentrates on the users of AWPs in construction applications. “Many of the user issues are similar with slight variations depending on the machine,” he said. “But in general, they all need training; they all need inspections.” Additionally, the standard focuses on common areas of operation, such as usage around overhead power lines and curbs.

By addressing the issues that apply to all users, the A10.29 standard is only one document as opposed to the different standards developed for each individual machine in the A92 Series. “It’s one standard that a contractor can look at for guidance,” McCann said.

It will be up to the industry to decide next week whether there is a compelling need for another aerial work platform standard. For more information on the ANSI/ASSE A10.29 proposed standard, visit www.asse.org.