State Preemption of the Regulation of Hoisting Equipment:
HB 6009 would amend Florida law governing hoisting equipment by removing the existing statutory language that expressly preempts local regulation of certain hoisting equipment to the state. The bill targets local acts, ordinances, building codes, and permit requirements adopted by counties, municipalities, or other political subdivisions that regulate hoisting equipment used in construction, demolition, or excavation work, including cranes, derricks, hoists, elevators, and conveyors, to the extent those matters are not already preempted by federal OSHA rules.
As drafted, the bill would change the state-local balance by allowing local governments greater authority to regulate hoisting equipment, including local worksite rules tied to hurricane preparedness or public safety, while preserving the existing exceptions for elevator regulation under chapter 399 and airspace height restrictions under chapter 333. The bill would take effect July 1, 2025, if enacted.
The bill would alter section 489.113, Florida Statutes, by deleting the state preemption framework for local regulation of hoisting equipment. That would potentially open the door for counties and municipalities to adopt or enforce local rules, permit conditions, or building-code provisions affecting cranes, hoists, derricks, and related equipment, subject to any limits already imposed by federal OSHA law and the bill’s express carve-outs for elevators and airspace height restrictions. In practical terms, contractors, developers, equipment operators, and local governments would be the primary affected parties.
There is limited recorded discussion or voting history available for this bill, so the overall sentiment can only be inferred from the bill’s movement and outcome. HB 6009 died in the Industries & Professional Activities Subcommittee, which indicates it did not advance through the committee process. The absence of recorded votes or transcripts suggests there is no documented floor-level debate in the available materials, and the bill did not receive enough support to continue.
The central point of contention is the allocation of regulatory authority between the state and local governments. Supporters of the bill would likely favor local flexibility to address site-specific safety, hurricane preparedness, and public safety concerns, while opponents would likely prefer a uniform statewide standard to avoid a patchwork of local rules for the construction and equipment industries. The bill’s explicit reference to local worksite regulation suggests that local safety regulation was a likely flashpoint, especially for industry stakeholders concerned about inconsistent permitting and compliance requirements.