[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 230 (Tuesday, December 1, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66238-66274]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-31283]
[[Page 66237]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of Labor
_______________________________________________________________________
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918, and 1926
Powered Industrial Truck Operator Training; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 230 / Tuesday, December 1, 1998 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 66238]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918, and 1926
[Docket S-008]
RIN 1218-AB33
Powered Industrial Truck Operator Training
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is
revising its existing requirements for powered industrial truck
operator training (codified at 29 CFR 1910.178(l)) and issuing new
requirements to improve the training of these operators. The new
requirements are intended to reduce the number of injuries and deaths
that occur as a result of inadequate operator training. They apply to
all industries (general industry, construction, shipyards, marine
terminals, and longshoring operations) in which the trucks are being
used, except agricultural operations.
These provisions mandate a training program that bases the amount
and type of training required on: the operator's prior knowledge and
skill; the types of powered industrial trucks the operator will operate
in the workplace; the hazards present in the workplace; and the
operator's demonstrated ability to operate a powered industrial truck
safely. Refresher training is required if: the operator is involved in
an accident or a near-miss incident; the operator has been observed
operating the vehicle in an unsafe manner; the operator has been
determined during an evaluation to need additional training; there are
changes in the workplace that could affect safe operation of the truck;
or the operator is assigned to operate a different type of truck.
Evaluations of each operator's performance are required as part of the
initial and refresher training, and at least once every three years.
OSHA estimates that this rule will prevent 11 deaths and 9,422
injuries per year. OSHA estimates that the annualized cost of this rule
is approximately $16.9 million for all affected industries.
DATES: Effective Date: The effective date is March 1, 1999.
Compliance Dates: The dates by which powered industrial truck
operators must be trained are shown on the following table.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The initial training and
If the employee was hired evaluation of that employee
must be completed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before December 1, 1999................ By December 1, 1999.
After December 1, 1999................. Before the employee is assigned
to operate a powered
industrial truck.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 18, 1998, the Office of Management and Budget granted
approval of the information collection requirements under Office of
Management and Budget Control Number 1218-0242.
ADDRESSES: Send petitions for review of the provisions of this standard
to the Associate Solicitor for Occupational Safety and Health; Office
of the Solicitor, Room S-4004; U.S. Department of Labor; 200
Constitution Avenue, N.W.; Washington, D.C. 20210.
For additional copies of this publication contact USDOL, OSHA,
Office of Publications, Room N3101; 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.;
Washington, D.C. 20210; telephone (202) 219-4667, FAX (202) 219-9266.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct press inquiries to: Bonnie
Friedman, Director, Office of Information and Consumer Affairs; OSHA,
U.S. Department of Labor, Room N3637; 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20210; telephone (202) 693-1999, FAX (202) 693-1634.
Direct technical inquiries to: Richard Sauger, OSHA, Directorate of
Safety Standards Programs, Room N3621; telephone (202) 693-2082; FAX
(202)693-1663; Larry Liberatore, OSHA, Office of Maritime Safety
Standards, Room N3621; telephone (202) 693-2086; FAX (202) 693-1663; or
Laurence Davey; OSHA, Office of Construction Standards and Compliance
Assistance, Room N3621; telephone (202) 693-2073; FAX (202) 219-6599,
all at U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.;
Washington, D.C. 20210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. General Industry
B. Shipyards and Marine Cargo Handling
C. Construction
D. Development of the Proposal
E. Updated Consensus Standard
II. Powered Industrial Truck Characteristics
III. Powered Industrial Truck Hazards
IV. Studies of Accident and Injury Data and Training Effectiveness
A. Accident and Injury Data
B. Studies Measuring the Effectiveness of Powered Industrial
Truck Safety Training Programs
V. Basis for Agency Action
VI. Training
VII. The Issues
VIII. Summary and Explanation of the Final Standard
A. General
B. Scope
C. Safe Operation--Paragraph (l)(1)
D. Training Program Implementation--Paragraph (l)(2)
E. Training Program Content--Paragraph (l)(3)
F. Refresher Training and Evaluation--Paragraph (l)(4)
G. Avoidance of Duplicative Training--Paragraph (l)(5)
H. Certification--Paragraph (l)(6)
I. Compliance Dates--Paragraph (l)(7)
J. Appendix
IX. Statutory Considerations
X. Economic Analysis
XI. Environmental Impact
XII. OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act
XIII. State Plan Standards
XIV. Federalism and Children's Executive Order
XV. List of Subjects
XVI. Authority
XVII. Regulatory Text
I. Background
A. General Industry
On May 29, 1971 (36 FR 10466), OSHA adopted many existing Federal
standards and national consensus standards as OSHA standards under
Section 6(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) (29
U.S.C. 655 et al.). Section 6(a) permitted OSHA to adopt these
standards without rulemaking for a period of two years after the
effective date of the OSH Act.
One of the consensus standards that was adopted under the Section
6(a) procedure was the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
B56.1-1969, Safety Standard for Powered Industrial Trucks. Among the
provisions adopted from that consensus standard was the operator
training requirement subsequently codified by OSHA at 29 CFR
1910.178(l). That requirement states:
``Only trained and authorized operators shall be permitted to
operate a powered industrial truck. Methods shall be devised to
train operators in the safe operation of powered industrial
trucks.''
[[Page 66239]]
In that consensus standard, a powered industrial truck is defined
as a mobile, power-driven vehicle used to carry, push, pull, lift,
stack, or tier material. Vehicles that were commonly referred to as
high lift trucks, counterbalanced trucks, cantilever trucks, rider
trucks, forklift trucks; high lift platform trucks; low lift trucks,
low lift platform trucks; motorized hand trucks, pallet trucks; narrow
aisle rider trucks, straddle trucks; reach rider trucks; single side
loader rider trucks; high lift order picker rider trucks; motorized
hand/rider trucks; or counterbalanced front/side loader lift trucks
1 are included. Vehicles used for earth moving or over-the-
road haulage are excluded from the scope of the consensus standard, and
consequently from coverage by the OSHA standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The use of a single characteristic to describe a truck, such
as ``high lift'' truck, does not fully describe a single type of
truck but rather defines a group of different trucks that have that
same characteristic. A given truck can only be accurately described
by referring to all of its characteristics. For example, the common
type of truck used in a warehouse is a high lift, counterbalanced,
sit-down rider truck.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Shipyards and Marine Cargo Handling
In 1958, Congress amended the Longshore and Harbor Workers'
Compensation Act (LHWCA) (33 U.S.C. 901 et seq.) to provide maritime
employees with a safe work environment. The amendments (Pub. L. 85-742,
72 Stat. 835) required employers covered by the LHWCA to ``furnish,
maintain and use'' equipment and to establish safe working conditions
in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor.
Two years later, the Bureau of Labor Standards issued the first set of
safety and health regulations for shipyards as parts 6, 7, and 8, and
longshoring activities as 29 CFR part 9 (25 FR 1565, February 20,
1960). However, the longshoring regulations only covered those
activities taking place aboard vessels.
As discussed earlier, the OSH Act authorized the Secretary of Labor
to adopt established Federal standards issued under other statutes,
including the LHWCA, as occupational safety and health standards.
Accordingly, the Secretary adopted the existing shipyards and
longshoring regulations (39 FR 22074, June 19, 1974). These regulations
are at 29 CFR part 1915 for shipyards and 29 CFR part 1918 for
longshoring. Because the OSH Act comprehensively covers all private
employments, the longshoring standards also were applied to shoreside
cargo handling operations (i.e., marine terminal operations). (See 29
CFR 1910.16.) OSHA's requirements for using mechanically powered
vehicles aboard vessels were codified at Sec. 1918.97, which includes a
general requirement for the training of all vehicle operators.
In addition, in accordance with established policy codified at 29
CFR 1910.5(c)(2), OSHA has applied its general industry standards to
shoreside activities not covered by its older longshoring rules. Under
section 1910.5(c)(2), a general industry standard covering a hazardous
condition applies to shoreside activities not covered by a specific
standard addressing that hazard. Shipyards are covered by the general
industry standard.
On July 5, 1983 (48 FR 30886), OSHA published its final standard
for Marine Terminals (29 CFR part 1917). This rule was intended to
further address the shoreside segment of marine cargo handling. Section
1917.27, Personnel, states:
(a) Qualifications of machinery operators.
(1) Only those employees determined by the employer to be
competent by reason of training or experience, and who understand
the signs, notices and operating instructions and are familiar with
the signal code in use shall be permitted to operate a crane, winch
or other power operated cargo handling apparatus, or any power
operated vehicle, or give signals to the operator of any hoisting
apparatus.
Exception: Employees being trained and supervised by a
designated person may operate such machinery and give signals to
operators during training.
The marine terminals standard also includes requirements for
powered industrial trucks at Sec. 1917.43, Powered industrial trucks.
However, these requirements are for operating, maintaining, and
outfitting these vehicles and do not expand on the training
requirements found at Sec. 1917.27.
On July 25, 1997, OSHA published in the Federal Register (62 FR
40147) final rules revising the marine terminals standard (29 CFR part
1917) and the longshoring standard (29 CFR part 1918). Those final
rules left to this rulemaking the issue of improving the training
requirements for powered industrial truck operators in the marine cargo
handling industries. Accordingly, the final rule being published today
includes requirements for the training of powered industrial truck
operators in shipyards, longshoring operations, and marine terminals to
ensure that all covered employees operating such vehicles have improved
protection.
C. Construction
In 1969, Congress amended the Contract Work Hours Standards Act
(CWHSA) (40 U.S.C. 327 et seq.) by adding a new section 107 (40 U.S.C.
333) to provide employees in the construction industry with a safer
work environment and to reduce the frequency and severity of
construction accidents and injuries. The amendment, commonly known as
the Construction Safety Act (CSA) (Pub. L. 91-54; August 9, 1969),
significantly strengthened employee protection by providing for the
adoption of occupational safety and health standards for employees of
the building trades and construction industry working on Federally
financed or Federally assisted construction projects. Accordingly, the
Secretary of Labor issued safety and health regulations for
construction at 29 CFR part 1518 (36 FR 7340, April 17, 1971) pursuant
to section 107 of the CWHSA.
As noted earlier, the OSH Act authorized the Secretary of Labor to
adopt existing Federal standards issued under other statutes as
occupational safety and health standards. Accordingly, in 1971, the
Secretary of Labor adopted the standards that had been issued under the
CWHSA at 29 CFR 1518 as OSHA construction standards. These standards
were redesignated as part 1926 on December 30, 1971 (36 FR 25232). The
provisions pertaining to powered industrial trucks used in construction
are contained at Sec. 1926.602(c). Paragraph 1926.602(c)(1)(vi) states:
(vi) All industrial trucks in use shall meet the applicable
requirements of design, construction, stability, inspection,
testing, maintenance, and operation, as defined in American National
Standards Institute B56.1-1969, Safety Standards for Powered
Industrial Trucks.
Therefore, by incorporating by reference the same ANSI standard that
was the source document for 29 CFR 1910.178, this provision imposes the
identical truck operator training requirements on the construction
industry as they apply to general industry.
D. Development of Proposal
Since promulgation of the OSHA standards for powered industrial
trucks in 1971, interested persons have requested that OSHA improve its
training requirements for powered industrial truck operators. In the
interval since 1971, the ASME B56.1 Committee has also substantially
upgraded its training provisions for powered industrial truck
operators.
On March 15, 1988, the Industrial Truck Association (ITA)
petitioned
[[Page 66240]]
OSHA to revise its standard for the training of powered industrial
truck operators (Ex. 3-2). The petition contained suggested language
for a proposed requirement and a model operator training program that
would meet the ITA-recommended requirement. OSHA responded to the
petition on April 8, 1988, stating that it would revise the OSHA
powered industrial truck operator training requirements when it
completed work on other priority rulemaking projects.
Congress has expressed a special interest in this rulemaking. A
resolution urging OSHA to revise its regulations on powered industrial
truck operator training was introduced in the Senate during the 103rd
Congress. Senate Concurrent Resolution 17 had 55 cosponsors and broad
bipartisan support. Its companion measure in the House of
Representatives, H. Con. Res. 92, had 236 cosponsors from both parties.
No formal vote was ever taken on either resolution, however.
On March 14, 1995, OSHA published in the Federal Register (60 FR
13782) a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to revise the training
requirement of the general industry standard for powered industrial
trucks (Sec. 1910.178(l)). This notice also proposed to add training
requirements for powered industrial truck operators in the shipyard
industry (1915.120(a)), marine terminal industry (1917.43(i)), and the
longshoring industry (1918.77(a)).
OSHA provided copies of a draft of the March 14, 1995, Federal
Register NPRM to the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and
Health (ACCSH) at the Committee's meetings on February 28 and March 1,
1995. The Committee advised OSHA that it would like additional time to
study the proposal and would finalize its recommendations by its next
meeting on May 25-26, 1995. Because ACCSH had provided no
recommendations or other information, OSHA decided to delay proposing
the revision of the training requirements for powered industrial truck
operators in the construction industry until the Committee had
concluded its deliberations.
ACCSH met on May 25-26, 1995, at which time the Committee prepared
its comments and recommendations. The Committee recommended that OSHA
propose somewhat different requirements for powered industrial truck
operator training for construction workers than the Agency had proposed
for general industry, longshoring, shipyards, and marine terminals.
OSHA reviewed the ACCSH recommendations and determined that these
changes might be appropriate for other industries as well. OSHA decided
that the most effective way to fully consider the Committee's
recommendations was to raise a series of issues in the preamble of the
proposed training requirements for construction and to invite public
comment.
On Jan. 30, 1996, OSHA published an NPRM in the Federal Register
(61 FR 3094) proposing to adopt as a new paragraph 1926.602(d)
essentially the same training requirements for powered industrial truck
operators in the construction industry as had been proposed for general
industry and the shipyard and marine cargo handling industries. OSHA
also published in that notice the following four issues that responded
to the ACCSH recommendations:
1. In the construction industry, should an employer be allowed to
accept the certification of training by a third party such as a union,
manufacturer, consultant, or other private or public organization?
Since OSHA does not accredit certifiers, what criteria should be used
to establish their credibility?
2. What type of testing should be conducted during initial training
to judge the competency of the trainee (performance testing and oral
and/or written tests)?
A. If tests are administered, what subjects should be tested, and
what methods, if any, should be used to judge that the tests are
reliable and address the subject matter adequately?
B. What, if any, should be the acceptable pass/fail requirement for
the tests?
3. Are some of the listed training subjects not needed?
4. Should an employee receive refresher or remedial training only
if operating a vehicle unsafely or if involved in an accident? Is there
any fixed operator retraining frequency suitable for the construction
industry?
In a companion Federal Register notice (61 FR 3092), OSHA announced
that a public hearing would be held. The hearing was to cover all
industry sectors. That notice also advised the public that the issues
raised in the construction notice should be considered for general
industry and the shipyard and marine cargo handling industries and
invited public comment. The hearing was held on April 30 through May 2,
1996.
There were 109 commenters who responded to the proposals outlined
above and 22 participants at the public hearing. The presiding
Administrative Law Judge allowed 60 days for post-hearing comments and
an additional 30 days for post-hearing briefs. All comments,
transcripts, and other evidence have been placed in the rulemaking
record and are available for public inspection and copying. The
rulemaking record was closed and certified as complete and final by the
Administrative Law Judge on June 1, 1998. In preparing these final
rules, OSHA has considered the entire rulemaking record and has made
changes to the general industry, construction, shipyard, and marine
cargo handling industries standards, as appropriate, based on the
comments, testimony, and other evidence received.
As the following discussion demonstrates, OSHA concludes that
upgrading the training requirements for powered industrial truck
operators will substantially reduce the significant risk of death and
injury caused by the unsafe operation of powered industrial trucks
driven by untrained or inadequately trained operators.
E. Updated Consensus Standard
Since promulgation of the OSHA safety and health standards in 1971,
the consensus standard (ANSI B56.1-1969) (now ASME B56.1) on which the
general industry powered industrial truck standard was based has
undergone four complete revisions (dated 1975, 1983, 1988, and 1993).
The current edition standard, ASME B56.1-1993 (Ex. 3-1), addresses
truck operator training as follows.
4.19 Operator Training
4.19.1 Personnel who have not been trained to operate powered
industrial trucks may operate a truck for the purposes of training
only, and only under the direct supervision of the trainer. This
training should be conducted in an area away from other trucks,
obstacles, and pedestrians.
4.19.2 The operator training program should include the user's
policies for the site where the trainee will operate the truck, the
operating conditions for that location, and the specific truck the
trainee will operate. The training program shall be presented to all
new operators regardless of previous experience.
4.19.3 The training program shall inform the trainee that:
(a) The primary responsibility of the operator is to use the
powered industrial truck safely following the instructions given in the
training program.
(b) Unsafe or improper operation of a powered industrial truck can
result in: death or serious injury to the operator or others; damage to
the powered industrial truck or other property.
4.19.4 The training program shall emphasize safe and proper
operation to
[[Page 66241]]
avoid injury to the operator and others and prevent property damage,
and shall cover the following areas:
(a) Fundamentals of the powered industrial truck(s) the trainee
will operate, including:
(1) characteristics of the powered industrial truck(s), including
variations between trucks in the workplace;
(2) similarities to and differences from automobiles;
(3) significance of nameplate data, including rated capacity,
warnings, and instructions affixed to the truck;
(4) operating instructions and warnings in the operating manual for
the truck, and instructions for inspection and maintenance to be
performed by the operator;
(5) type of motive power and its characteristics;
(6) method of steering;
(7) braking method and characteristics, with and without load;
(8) visibility, with and without load, forward and reverse;
(9) load handling capacity, weight and load center;
(10) stability characteristics with and without load, with and
without attachments;
(11) controls--location, function, method of operation,
identification of symbols;
(12) load handling capabilities; forks, attachments;
(13) fueling and battery charging;
(14) guards and protective devices for the specific type of truck;
(15) other characteristics of the specific industrial truck.
(b) Operating environment and its effect on truck operation,
including:
(1) floor or ground conditions including temporary conditions;
(2) ramps and inclines, with and without load;
(3) trailers, railcars, and dockboards (including the use of wheel
chocks, jacks, and other securing devices);
(4) fueling and battery charging facilities;
(5) the use of ``classified'' trucks in areas classified as
hazardous due to risk of fire or explosion, as defined in ANSI/NFPA
505;
(6) narrow aisles, doorways, overhead wires and piping, and other
areas of limited clearance;
(7) areas where the truck may be operated near other powered
industrial trucks, other vehicles, or pedestrians;
(8) use and capacity of elevators;
(9) operation near edge of dock or edge of improved surface;
(10) other special operating conditions and hazards which may be
encountered.
(c) Operation of the powered industrial truck, including:
(1) proper preshift inspection and approved method for removing
from service a truck which is in need of repair;
(2) load handling techniques, lifting, lowering, picking up,
placing, tilting;
(3) traveling, with and without loads; turning corners;
(4) parking and shutdown procedures;
(5) other special operating conditions for the specific
application.
(d) Operating safety rules and practices, including:
(1) provisions of this Standard in Sections 5.1 to 5.4 addressing
operating safety rules and practices;
(2) provisions of this Standard in Section 5.5 addressing care of
the truck;
(3) other rules, regulations, or practices specified by the
employer at the location where the powered industrial truck will be
used.
(e) Operational training practice, including;
(1) if feasible, practice in the operation of powered industrial
trucks shall be conducted in an area separate from other workplace
activities and personnel;
(2) training practice shall be conducted under the supervision of
the trainer;
(3) training practice shall include the actual operation or
simulated performance of all operating tasks such as load handling,
maneuvering, traveling, stopping, starting, and other activities under
the conditions which will be encountered in the use of the truck.
4.19.5 Testing, Retraining, and Enforcement
(a) During training, performance and oral and/or written tests
shall be given by the employer to measure the skill and knowledge of
the operator in meeting the requirements of the Standard. Employers
shall establish a pass/fail requirement for such tests. Employers may
delegate such testing to others but shall remain responsible for the
testing. Appropriate records shall be kept.
(b) Operators shall be retrained when new equipment is introduced,
existing equipment is modified, operating conditions change, or an
operator's performance is unsatisfactory.
(c) The user shall be responsible for enforcing the safe use of the
powered industrial truck according to the provisions of this Standard.
Note: Information on operator training is available from such
sources as powered industrial truck manufacturers, government
agencies dealing with employee safety, trade organizations of users
of powered industrial trucks, public and private organizations, and
safety consultants.
Since 1971, the national consensus committee has adopted other
volumes 2 for specific types of vehicles that fall within
the broad definition of a powered industrial truck. Supplementary
volumes have been developed and adopted for: guided industrial
vehicles; rough terrain forklift trucks; industrial crane trucks;
personnel and burden carriers; operator controlled industrial tow
tractors; and manually propelled high lift industrial trucks. The
training provisions OSHA is adopting are performance-oriented and could
be applied to operator training for all types of industrial trucks.
However, this final rule covers only those types of powered industrial
trucks that fall within the scope of 29 CFR 1910.178(a) for general
industry, construction, and shipyards. That scope includes some types
of powered industrial trucks that have supplementary ASME volumes, such
as rough terrain forklift trucks, but does not include earth moving
equipment or vehicles for over-the-road haulage, for which ASME has
also developed specific volumes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The national consensus committees call the standards for
different pieces of equipment ``volumes'' and all of the volumes
produced by the committee the ``standard.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Powered Industrial Truck Characteristics
The term ``powered industrial truck'' is defined in the ASME B56.1
(formerly the ANSI B56.1) standard as a ``mobile, power propelled truck
used to carry, push, pull, lift, stack, or tier material.'' Vehicles
that are used for earth moving and over-the-road hauling are excluded.
Powered industrial trucks are classified by their manufacturers
according to their individual characteristics. There are seven classes
of powered industrial trucks:
Class 1--Electric Motor, Sit-down Rider, Counter-Balanced Trucks
(Solid and Pneumatic Tires).
Class 2--Electric Motor Narrow Aisle Trucks (Solid Tires).
Class 3--Electric Motor Hand Trucks or Hand/Rider Trucks (Solid
Tires).
Class 4--Internal Combustion Engine Trucks (Solid Tires).
Class 5--Internal Combustion Engine Trucks (Pneumatic Tires).
Class 6--Electric and Internal Combustion Engine Tractors (Solid
and Pneumatic Tires).
Class 7--Rough Terrain Forklift Trucks (Pneumatic Tires).
Each of the different types of powered industrial trucks has its
own unique characteristics and some inherent hazards. To be most
effective, training must address the unique characteristics
[[Page 66242]]
of the type of vehicle(s) the employee is being trained to operate.
Powered industrial trucks may operate on almost any type of
surface, from smooth and level floors to rocky, uneven ground, provided
they were manufactured to operate on that type of floor or ground and
the surface does not have an excessive slope. For example, construction
forklift trucks (most commonly, those that are classified as Class 7,
rough terrain forklifts) are more often operated on uneven, ungraded
terrain than is the case for trucks in other industries.
Different trucks are designed and manufactured to operate in
different work environments. Some powered industrial trucks are used
for moving material in a particular type of workplace. For example,
high lift trucks can be used to raise loads up to 30 or 40 feet above
the ground, deposit the material on a rack, mezzanine, roof under
construction, scaffold, or another elevated location, and subsequently
retrieve and lower the material. Some vehicles are used to raise a
palletized load just a few inches above the floor and move that load to
another location in a warehouse or other indoor workplace.
Powered industrial trucks can be equipped with, or can be modified
to accept, attachments that permit the truck to move odd-shaped
material or carry out tasks that may not have been envisioned when the
truck was designed and manufactured. Many of these attachments are
added to or installed on the vehicle by the dealer or the employer. For
example, there are powered industrial truck attachments for grasping
barrels or drums of material. Some of these attachments not only grasp
a barrel or drum but allow the vehicle operator to rotate the barrel or
drum to empty it or lay it on its side.
OSHA recognizes that certain attachments may limit the safe use of
the vehicle. To ensure that modifications or additions do not adversely
affect the safe use of the vehicle, OSHA requires at
Sec. 1910.178(b)(4) that:
(ii) Modifications and additions which affect capacity and safe
operation shall not be performed by the customer or user without
manufacturer's prior written approval. Capacity, operation, and
maintenance instruction plates, tags, or decals shall be changed
accordingly.
Note: A similar provision for construction is contained at
Sec. 1926.602(c)(1)(ii).
When a powered industrial truck is used with specialized
attachments, or when the truck is used for hazardous operations (such
as when the truck is used to lift people), operator training must
include instruction on the safe conduct of those operations so that the
operator knows and understands the restrictions or limitations imposed
on vehicle operation in these situations.
III. Powered Industrial Truck Hazards
Powered industrial trucks are used in almost all industries. They
can be used to move, raise, lower, or remove large objects or a number
of smaller objects on pallets or in boxes, crates, or other containers.
Because powered industrial truck movement is controlled by the operator
and is not restricted by the frame of the machine or other impediments,
virtually unrestricted movement of the vehicle about the workplace is
possible.
The hazards commonly associated with powered industrial trucks vary
for different vehicle types, makes, and models. Each type of truck
presents different operating hazards. For example, a sit-down,
counterbalanced high lift rider truck is more likely than a motorized
hand truck to be involved in a falling load accident, because the sit-
down rider trucks can lift a load much higher than can a hand truck.
The method or means to prevent an accident and to protect employees
from injury varies for different types of trucks. For example,
operators of sit-down rider trucks are often injured in tipover
accidents when they attempt to jump clear of the vehicle as it tips
over. Because the operator's natural tendency is to jump downward, he
or she lands on the floor or ground and is then crushed by the
vehicle's overhead guard. Therefore, operators of sit-down trucks need
to be trained to remain in the operator's position in a tipover
accident and to lean away from the direction of fall to minimize the
potential for injury.
On the other hand, when a stand-up rider truck tips over, the truck
operator can exit the vehicle by simply stepping backward,
perpendicular to the direction of the vehicle's fall, to avoid being
crushed. In this situation, the operator usually should attempt to jump
clear of the vehicle, and should be trained accordingly.
Driving a powered industrial truck at excessive speed can result in
loss of control, causing the vehicle to skid, tip over, or fall off a
loading dock or other elevated walking or working surface. This
condition can be made more dangerous because the load being carried
sometimes partially obscures the operator's vision. A vehicle that is
out of control or being operated by a driver whose view in the
direction of travel is restricted can strike an employee, run into a
column or other part of the building, or strike stored material,
causing the material to topple and injure employees in the area.
Effective driver training teaches operators to act properly to minimize
these hazards to themselves and other employees.
Other characteristics of a powered industrial truck that affect
safe truck operation are: the truck's tendency to become unstable; its
ability to carry loads high off the ground; and its characteristic mode
of steering, i.e., with the rear wheels while being powered by the
front wheels. Moving loads upward, downward, forward, and backward
causes a shift of the center of gravity and can adversely affect the
vehicle's stability. When a load is raised or moved away from the
vehicle, the vehicle's longitudinal stability is decreased.3
When the load is lowered or moved closer to the vehicle, its
longitudinal stability is increased. Training also is needed to avoid
accidents that can be caused by these characteristics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ This assumes that the load is moved forward of the vehicle.
When a load is on a side loader vehicle, moving the load away from
the vehicle will reduce the longitudinal and lateral stability of
the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To reduce the instability hazard caused by the shifting of the
material being handled, the ANSI B56.1-1969 standard had seven
provisions that addressed proper operation of a powered industrial
truck. Knowledge of these principles, as well as the requirements of
the OSHA standard, are essential for safe vehicle operation:
604 Q. While negotiating turns, speed shall be reduced to a safe
level by means of turning the hand steering wheel in a smooth, sweeping
motion. Except when maneuvering at a very low speed, the hand steering
wheel shall be turned at a moderate, even rate.
605 A. Only stable or safely arranged loads shall be handled.
Caution shall be exercised when handling off-center loads which cannot
be centered.
605 B. Only loads within the rated capacity of the truck shall be
handled.
605 C. The long or high (including multiple-tiered) loads which may
affect capacity shall be adjusted.
605 D. Trucks equipped with attachments shall be operated as
partially loaded trucks when not handling a load.
605 E. A load engaging means shall be placed under the load as far
as possible; the mast shall be carefully tilted backward to stabilize
the load.
605 F. Extreme care shall be used when tilting the load forward or
backward, particularly when high tiering. Tilting forward with load
engaging means elevated shall be
[[Page 66243]]
prohibited except to pick up a load. An elevated load shall not be
tilted forward except when the load is in a deposit position over a
rack or stack. When stacking or tiering, only enough backward tilt to
stabilize the load shall be used.
Note: The corresponding provisions appear at
Secs. 1910.178(n)(15) and (o)(1) through (o)(6) of the general
industry standard and are also incorporated by reference in part
1926.
The hazards addressed in this final rule are those associated with
industrial trucks in general, as well as those posed by specific makes
or models of truck. Each powered industrial truck has distinct
characteristics that make its operation different from the operation of
other trucks. Therefore, operators must know how these differences
affect safe truck operation.
The workplaces where these trucks are being used also present a
variety of different hazards. The safety of industrial truck operations
can be decreased by workplace conditions such as rough, uneven, or
sloped surfaces; unusual loads; hazardous areas; narrow aisles, blind
spots, or intersections; and pedestrian traffic or employees working
close to the path of travel. Finally, there are hazardous work
practices that relate to all trucks, including driving at excessive
speed, poor loading, and carrying unauthorized passengers. In addition,
poor truck maintenance can contribute to accidents.
The record contains evidence of many accidents that have occurred
because of unsafe truck operation, as discussed below. For example,
employees have fallen from trucks while using them to change light
bulbs on overhead fixtures or riding on the forks to manually retrieve
items from high racks. Many accidents have occurred when an operator
has attempted to drive with an obstructed view in the direction of
travel and has run into another employee. Improper truck maintenance
has caused death from over exposure to carbon monoxide, loss of brakes,
or rupture of hydraulic lines.
As the above discussion indicates, it is not possible to identify
all the hazards that are encountered in all industrial truck
operations. Accordingly one cannot develop a single ``generic''
training program that covers in detail all hazards for all powered
industrial trucks and all workplaces.
Four major areas of concern need to be addressed in an effective
powered industrial truck training program: (1) the general hazards that
apply to the operation of all or most powered industrial trucks; (2)
the hazards associated with the operation of particular types of
trucks; (3) the hazards of workplaces generally; and (4) the hazards of
the particular workplace where the vehicle operates. The requirements
that OSHA is promulgating are performance-oriented to permit employers
to tailor a training program to the characteristics of their workplaces
and the particular types of powered industrial trucks operated.
IV. Studies of Accident and Injury Data and Training Effectiveness
This section of the preamble discusses the reports, studies, and
other sources of data and information that were analyzed to determine
the magnitude and extent of the problems that powered industrial truck
operator training can mitigate. It also contains a discussion of the
studies that demonstrate how better training can improve safety.
A. Accident and Injury Data
1. The Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) maintains a database entitled
Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI). The CFOI is a compilation
of information on fatal work injuries that occurred in the 50 States
and the District of Columbia. BLS gathers pertinent information from
death certificates, workers' compensation reports, and other Federal
and State records. Information is verified by using at least two source
documents.
The census contains a collection of information on the workers and
the circumstances surrounding each fatality. The data are compiled
annually.
In April, 1994, BLS published a booklet entitled Fatal Workplace
Injuries in 1992: A Collection of Data and Analysis (Ex. 3-4). This
booklet contains an article written by Gary A. Helmer entitled
Fatalities Involving Forklifts and Other Powered Industrial Carriers,
1991-1992. This report contains information from the CFOI on 170 fatal
powered industrial truck accidents. Table 1 lists the reported causes
of these accidents.
Table 1.--Classification of Forklift Fatalities, CFOI, 1991-1992
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How the accident occurred Number Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forklift overturned............................................................. 41 24
Forklift struck something or ran off dock....................................... 13 8
Worker pinned between objects................................................... 19 11
Worker struck by material....................................................... 29 17
Worker struck by forklift....................................................... 24 14
Worker fell from forklift....................................................... 24 14
Worker died during forklift repair.............................................. 10 6
Other accident.................................................................. 10 6
-------------------------------
Total....................................................................... 170 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Fatal Workplace Injuries in 1992, A Collection of Data and Analysis, Report
870, April 1994.
2. Characteristics of Work-Related Injuries Involving Forklift Trucks
In 1987, Nancy Stout-Wiegand of the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) published an article in the
Journal of Safety Research (Winter 1987, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 179-190)
entitled Characteristics of Work-Related Injuries Involving Forklift
Trucks (Ex. 8-6). This article contained an analysis of powered
industrial truck injuries reported in two occupational injury
databases--the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS)
and the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Supplementary Data System (SDS).
The NEISS database is composed of records from a national sample of
200 hospital emergency rooms and burn centers handling all types of
injuries. The NEISS database was originally established by the Consumer
Product Safety Commission, and its original intent was to gather data
about accidents involving consumer products rather than industrial
injuries. The hospital emergency rooms included in the sample were not
necessarily those
[[Page 66244]]
located in industrial areas, predominantly treating industrial injuries
and illnesses. The data from this sample are weighted to represent the
nation in numbers and characteristics of traumatic injuries treated in
emergency rooms and burn centers.
A subset of this database--the work-related injuries-- is
maintained by NIOSH. Because the NEISS database records only injuries
treated in emergency rooms and burn centers, traumatic work injuries
treated by private practitioners or by industry or private clinics are
not included. Moreover, chronic injuries, such as those caused by
overexertion, are not as likely to be treated in emergency rooms as are
acute traumatic injuries and, therefore, are probably under-represented
in the NEISS database. Other probable sources of error in calculating
accident rates include misclassification of the sources of injury or
the agent of injury. For example, if an employee fell from the elevated
forks of a powered industrial truck, the accident could be
misclassified as a fall from elevation rather than a fall from a
forklift. Similarly, if an employee were struck in the head by part of
a load that fell from a powered industrial truck, the accident could be
classified as an ``employee struck by falling object'' accident. In
either case, the accident would have involved a powered industrial
truck, but in neither case would it be classified as a powered
industrial truck accident.
The Supplementary Data System (SDS) database is composed of
workers' compensation claims for injuries involving lost workdays.
Thirty states provide information to the SDS system. The SDS system
reports the occupations of injured workers and states where the claims
are filed. The SDS includes only compensable injuries. The definition
of a compensable injury varies from state to state. In some states,
injuries are compensable, for example, if they result in one day or
more away from work. In other states, the time away from work may be up
to 7 days before the injury becomes compensable.
The SDS and NEISS data do not necessarily include the same injuries
because injuries treated in emergency rooms do not always result in
lost workdays. At the same time, compensable injuries included in the
SDS may not have been treated in emergency rooms and thus would not be
represented in NEISS. However, both of these databases represent the
more serious injuries involving powered industrial trucks, that is,
those requiring treatment in emergency rooms and those that result in
compensable injuries.
In 1983, the SDS system identified 13,417 workers' compensation
claims for lost-workday injuries involving powered industrial trucks.
Assuming that the 30 states in the SDS system are representative of and
proportional in population to the whole country (50 states),
approximately 22,400 compensation claims (\5/3\ x 13,417) are filed
nationally for lost-workday injuries involving powered industrial
trucks. This number is comparable to the estimated 24,000 forklift-
related injuries that were treated in U.S. emergency rooms in 1983 as
reported by NIOSH from information gathered by the NEISS system. In
1985, the NEISS system reported a total of approximately 34,000 powered
industrial truck-related accidents that were treated in emergency
rooms. This reflects an increase in the number of such accidents
reported by NEISS studies of about 39% over the three-year period from
1983 to 1985.
The SDS report also contained a tabulation of the occupations of
the injured workers. The breakdown of the occupations of those
employees and the corresponding percentage of accidents are listed in
Table 2.
Table 2.--Percentage Distribution of Powered Industrial Truck Injuries
by Occupation of Injured Employee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupation Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Professional, technical, and kindred workers............. 0.3
Managers and administrators (except farm)................ 2.0
Sales workers............................................ 0.8
Clerical and kindred workers............................. 5.0
Craftsmen and kindred workers............................ (15.5)
Mechanics............................................ 6.5
Foremen.............................................. 3.0
Other craftsmen and kindred workers.................. 6.0
Operatives (except transportation)....................... (17.5)
Assemblers........................................... 1.4
Packers/wrappers..................................... 1.1
Welders.............................................. 0.9
Miscellaneous/unspecified operatives................. 9.2
Other operatives..................................... 4.9
Transportation equipment operatives...................... (20.8)
Powered industrial truck operators................... 12.3
Truck drivers........................................ 5.5
Motor men............................................ 1.7
Deliverymen.......................................... 1.2
Other transportation equipment operators............. 0.1
Laborers (except farm)................................... (33.9)
Warehousemen......................................... 10.4
Freight and material handlers........................ 7.3
Stock handlers....................................... 4.4
Construction laborers................................ 2.2
Miscellaneous/unspecified laborers................... 8.0
Other laborers....................................... 1.6
Farmers (managers and laborers).......................... 1.5
Service workers.......................................... 1.8
Occupation Unspecified................................... 1.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Characteristics of Work-Related Injuries Involving Forklift
Trucks, Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 18, No. 4, Winter 1987, pp.
179-190.
[[Page 66245]]
3. Industrial Forklift Truck Fatalities--A Summary
OSHA's Office of Data Analysis (ODA) examined 53 investigative case
files involving powered industrial truck fatalities that occurred
between 1980 and 1986 (Ex. 3-7). The results of ODA's analysis are
summarized in Table 3, below. Note: the columns do not always add to
100 percent in various tables because of rounding.
Table 3. Office of Data Analysis--Type Accidents, 53 Powered Industrial Truck Fatalities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type Accident Number Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crushed by tipping vehicle...................................................... 22 42
Crushed between vehicle and surface............................................. 13 25
Crushed between two vehicles.................................................... 6 11
Struck or run over by vehicle................................................... 5 10
Struck by falling material...................................................... 4 8
Fall from platform on forks..................................................... 2 4
Accidental activation of controls............................................... 1 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Industrial Forklift Truck Fatalities--A Summary, Report from Office of Data Analysis, Office of
Statistics, OSHA, Dated June 1990.
The single largest cause of accidents was vehicle tipovers
(percentages attributed to specific causes may not track those in Table
3 because a single specific cause--tipover--may be classified under
more than one accident type in that table). These tipovers were
attributed to the following: (1) The vehicle was out of control
(speeding, elevated loads, mechanical problems, etc.; 7 instances--13
percent); (2) the vehicle was run off/over the edge of the surface (4
instances--8 percent); (3) the operator attempted to make too sharp a
turn (excessive speed, unbalanced load, etc.; 4 instances--8 percent);
(4) an employee jumped from an overturning vehicle being pulled by
another vehicle (2 instances--4 percent); (5) the vehicle skidded or
slipped on a slippery surface (2 instances--4 percent); (6) the wheels
on one side of the vehicle ran over a raised surface or object (2
instances--4 percent); and (7) the vehicle tipped over when struck by
another vehicle (1 instance--2 percent).
The second highest number of fatalities reported in the ODA study
resulted from accidents when employees were crushed between a vehicle
and a surface. These accidents were attributed to the following: (1)
The operator got off the vehicle while it was running (7 instances--13
percent); (2) a worker on a platform was crushed between the platform
and an overhead surface (2 instances--4 percent); (3) an employee's leg
was caught when a vehicle sideswiped a metal surface (1 instance--2
percent); (4) an employee attempted to prevent a vehicle tipover by
holding up the overhead guard (1 instance--2 percent); (5) an employee
changed a tire and the vehicle fell from the jack (1 instance--2
percent); and (6) an empty 55 gallon drum used to support the vehicle
during maintenance collapsed (1 instance--2 percent).
Four of the six accidents where employees were crushed between two
vehicles were caused by contact between two moving powered industrial
trucks, and the other two involved contact between a powered industrial
truck and a stationary vehicle.
Of the five accidents that were identified as being caused by an
employee being struck or run over by a vehicle, four were accidents
where employees other than the vehicle operator were struck by the
vehicle. The remaining one involved an operator trying unsuccessfully
to board a free rolling vehicle.
4. Selected Occupational Fatalities Related to Marine Cargo Handling as
Found in Reports of OSHA Fatality/Catastrophe Investigations
In 1992, the OSHA Office of Data Analysis (ODA) published a study
of fatalities and catastrophes that had occurred in the marine terminal
industry (SIC 4491, Marine Cargo Handling) between the years 1975 and
1984. This report is entitled Selected Occupational Fatalities Related
to Marine Cargo Handling as Found in Reports of OSHA Fatalities/
Catastrophe Investigations (Ex. 27). This report contains an analysis
of the causes of and other information about 141 accidents that
resulted in 165 fatalities that occurred during the period of the
report. Of those accidents, 19 (11.5 percent) were attributed to the
unsafe use of powered industrial trucks.
5. The OSHA Fatality/Catastrophe Reports
OSHA records a summary of investigation results of accidents
resulting in fatalities, catastrophes, amputations, and
hospitalizations of two or more days, and those accidents that have
received significant publicity or involved extensive property damage.
These summaries are recorded on an OSHA Form 170 and include an
abstract describing the activities taking place at the time of each
accident and the causes of the accident. These reports are stored in a
computerized database system, and cover inspection data from 1984 to
1991. There were 4268 reports of accidents in the system that resulted
in 3038 fatalities, 3244 serious injuries, and 1413 ``non-serious''
injuries (many of the accidents resulted in multiple fatalities and/or
injuries).
OSHA queried the database for all reports that contained the
keyword ``industrial truck.'' This produced a printout of 208 accidents
(Ex. 8-8). These 208 accidents resulted in 147 fatalities, 115 serious
injuries, and 34 ``non-serious'' injuries.
By adding the number of fatalities, serious injuries, and ``non-
serious'' injuries and dividing that sum by the number of accidents,
OSHA determined that 1.4 injuries of some nature occurred per serious
accident reported. OSHA also determined that 4.8 percent of the
fatalities, 3.5 percent of the serious injuries, and 2.4 percent of the
``non-serious'' injuries were attributable to an accident that involved
a powered industrial truck.
These percentages are derived by dividing truck-related fatalities,
serious injuries, and other injuries by the corresponding total number
of reported fatalities, serious injuries, and other injuries. For
example, the 147 forklift fatalities were divided by the 3038 total
fatalities to arrive at the 4.8 percent figure.
OSHA examined the OSHA Form 170s to determine the causes of the
accidents that were attributable to the use of powered industrial
trucks. Table 4 is a compilation of the causes of these accidents.
[[Page 66246]]
Table 4.--Causes of Accidents \1\: OSHA Investigation Summaries (OSHA
170s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Cause reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No training \2\.............................................. 19
Improper equipment........................................... 10
Overturn..................................................... 53
Unstable load................................................ 45
Overload, improper use....................................... 15
Obstructed view.............................................. 10
Carrying excess passenger.................................... 8
Operator inattention......................................... 59
Falling from platform or curb................................ 9
Falling from trailer......................................... 6
Elevated employees........................................... 26
Operator struck by load...................................... 37
Other employee struck by load................................ 8
Accident during maintenance.................................. 14
Vehicle left in gear......................................... 6
Speeding..................................................... 5
Not powered industrial truck accident........................ 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The causes of the accidents were determined by the narrative in the
accident report. In most cases, the narrative emphasized the cause of
the accident; however, in a few cases, reasonable and appropriate
assumptions were made. In some cases, multiple accident causes were
described in the narrative portion of the report, or were assumed to
have caused the accident. (See Ex. 8-8.) Note that some of the
accidents that were originally attributed to powered industrial truck
operations were, on review, determined not to be caused by truck
operations and are reflected in the final row of the table.
\2\ Of the 19 instances when the report contained an indication that a
lack of training was one of the causal factors of the accident,
citations were issued for 6 serious violations, and 2 non-serious
violations. In 11 instances, no violation was issued.
Source: Office of Electrical/Electronic and Mechanical Engineering
Safety Standards, Directorate of Safety Standards Programs, OSHA.
It should be noted that many of the accidents could have been
caused by improper training. For example, when a vehicle tipped over,
an employee might have been transporting an unbalanced load because
that employee had not been trained about load balance.
Using the OSHA Form 170 data, OSHA also compiled a listing of the
industries in which these accidents occurred. Table 5 provides list of
industries, and the number of accidents that occurred in those
industries. (For a complete listing of the individual industries, see
Ex. 3-9.)
Table 5--Industries Where Accidents Occurred, OSHA Investigative Summary
Reports (OSHA Form 170)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Times
SIC division Industry description cited
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B........................... Oil and Gas Extraction........... 4
C........................... Construction..................... 25
D........................... Manufacturing.................... 95
E........................... Transportation, Communication, 22
and Utilities.
F........................... Wholesale Trades................. 25
G........................... Retail Trades.................... 18
I........................... Services......................... 7
J........................... Public Administration............ 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The breakdown of accidents does not include agricultural accidents
because establishments of 10 or fewer employees in that industry are
exempt from OSHA jurisdiction.
Source: Office of Electrical/Electronic and Mechanical Engineering
Safety Standards, Directorate of Safety Standards Programs, OSHA.
6. OSHA Emergency Communications System Reports
OSHA has another internal system for collecting information about
serious accidents. This system requires that serious and/or significant
accidents be reported to the National Office over the telephone.
This telephone system is part of the OSHA emergency communications
system. Regional Administrators are required to file a first report of
fatalities, catastrophes, and other important events (such as those
that receive significant publicity) with the National Office. The
information contained in these reports is disseminated to responsible
officials in OSHA. The National Office receives approximately 1200
reports yearly. (See Ex. 8-10.)
None of the reports is screened before the OSHA National Office
receives them. Although these reports are not considered statistically
significant for the purpose of calculating the total number of serious
workplace accidents, OSHA believes that they represent a reasonable
sampling of the most serious type of accidents and that the causes of
the accidents closely parallel the distribution of the causes of all
accidents.
OSHA has examined the First Report of Serious Injury reports for
the years 1980-1991 and has identified 247 that involved powered
industrial trucks. Table 6 lists the number of reports received each
year, the number of those accidents that involved powered industrial
trucks (PITs), and the corresponding percentages.
Table 6.--Yearly Summary of First Reports of Serious Accidents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total PIT
Year reports accidents Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1980.................................... 200 2 1
1981.................................... 125 2 1.6
1982.................................... 113 0 0
1983.................................... 115 3 2.6
1984.................................... 181 1 .6
1985.................................... 456 15 3.3
1986.................................... 1,147 44 3.8
1987.................................... 1,236 38 3.1
1988.................................... 1,330 47 3.5
1989.................................... 1,150 44 3.8
1990.................................... 1,105 41 3.7
1991.................................... \1\ 215 10 4.7
-------------------------------
Totals \2\............................ 6,424 247 3.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These are the number of reports received between the first of the
year and March 31.
\2\ The total number of reports, the number of accidents involving
powered industrial trucks and the percentage were calculated using the
figures from 1985 to 1990. The number of accidents reported during the
period 1980 through 1984 and those reported during 1991 were too few
to be representative.
Source: Office of Electrical/Electronic and Mechanical Engineering
Safety Standards, Directorate of Safety Standards Programs, OSHA.
Each of the reports involving powered industrial trucks was
examined to determine the causes of the accidents. In some instances,
multiple causes were identified. Table 7 lists the number of the
accidents that were attributable in whole or in part to each cause.
Table 7.--Causes of Accidents (Powered Industrial Trucks) First Reports
of Serious Accident
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Cause of the accident accidents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tipover...................................................... 58
Struck by powered industrial truck........................... 43
Struck by falling load....................................... 33
Elevated employee on truck................................... 28
Ran off loading dock or other surface........................ 16
Improper maintenance procedures.............................. 14
Lost control of truck........................................ 10
Truck struck material........................................ 10
Employee overcome by carbon monoxide or propane fuel......... 10
Faulty powered industrial truck.............................. 7
Unloading unchocked trailer.................................. 7
Employee fell from vehicle................................... 7
Improper use of vehicle...................................... 6
Electrocutions............................................... 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Office of Electrical/Electronic and Mechanical Engineering
Safety Standards, Directorate of Safety Standards Programs, OSHA.
[[Page 66247]]
7. OSHA General Duty Clause Citation Analysis
OSHA's Office of Mechanical Engineering Safety Standards analyzed
the citations that were issued between 1979 and 1984 for violations of
the general duty clause [section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act]. During that
period, there were 3637 inspections that resulted in the issuance of at
least one such citation. (See Ex. 8-11.)
Sixty-five general duty clause citations involved powered
industrial truck operation. These citations were issued under the
general duty clause because the dangerous condition did not appear to
be covered by a specific requirement in Section 1910.178. Each was
examined to determine the nature of the violation. Table 8 lists the
type and number of violations that were cited.
Table 8.--Summary of General Duty Clause Citations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Violation instances
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employee elevated on forks of vehicle........................ 44
Improper operation of vehicle................................ 13
Improper maintenance of vehicle.............................. 5
No vehicle operator training................................. 2
Order picker without fall protection......................... 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Office of Electrical/Electronic and Mechanical Engineering
Safety Standards, Directorate of Safety Standards Programs, OSHA.
B. Studies Measuring the Effectiveness of Powered Industrial Truck
Safety Training Programs
In 1984, H. Harvey Cohen and Roger C. Jensen, working under
contract with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH), published an article in the Journal of Safety Research (Fall
1984, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 125-135) entitled Measuring the Effectiveness
of an Industrial Lift Truck Safety Training Program (Ex. 3-5). The
authors analyzed two studies undertaken to measure objectively the
effects of safety training on powered industrial truck operators'
driving performance and safety practices.
This article detailed the results of an experiment that was
conducted to evaluate powered industrial truck operator training using
a work sampling procedure to obtain objective data about work practices
that correlate with injury risk. Two separate studies were conducted in
this experiment, one at each of two similar warehouses. These studies
were conducted to assess the value of training and the influence of
post-training actions on workers' safety performance. These studies
demonstrate that training powered industrial truck operators reduced
the operators' error rates (number of unsuccessful operations divided
by the total number of operations) and that training combined with
feedback further reduced error rates.
The studies were conducted at different warehouses using similar
training techniques. The training emphasized those operator driving
behaviors that were measurable, frequently observed, capable of being
reliably observed, related to frequent accident occurrence, and
amenable to corrective action through training. Fourteen driving
behaviors were evaluated in these studies. Positive reinforcement
during the training (use of praise rather than criticism) was used with
some trainees to measure its effectiveness. The experiment was
conducted in four phases:
(1) The pre-training phase, during which none of the operators had
been trained;
(2) The post-training 1 phase, during which the control group
remained untrained, the training group (called the treatment group in
the study) had been trained, and the training-plus-feedback group had
been trained and had also received performance feedback;
(3) The post-training 2 phase, during which all three groups had
been trained but only the training-plus-feedback group had received
performance feedback; and
(4) The retention phase, which started three months after the end
of the post-training 2 phase (and the end of the feedback program).
Table 9.--Summary of Mean Error Rates\1\
[Warehouse 1]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre- Post- Post-
Group training training 1 training 2 Retention
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control..................................................... .34 .32 .23 ...........
Training.................................................... .33 .27 .26 ...........
Training + Feedback......................................... .35 .27 .25 ...........
All Operators After Training................................ .34 .27 .25 .19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The mean error rate is defined in the study as the number of incorrect behaviors observed divided by the
total number of behaviors observed.
Note: The mean error rate for all operators began at .34, that is, for 34 percent of the observed behaviors, the
tasks observed and evaluated were performed improperly.
Source: Measuring the Effectiveness of Industrial Lift Truck Safety Training Program, Journal of Safety
Research, Vol. 15, No. 3, Fall 1984, pp. 125-135.
Following the initial training (post-training 1), all three groups
showed a decrease in their mean error rates, with the training-plus-
feedback group showing the largest decrease (from .35 to .27, a 23
percent decrease), followed by the training-only group (from .33 to
.27, an 18 percent decrease), and the control group (from .34 to .32, a
6 percent decrease). The control group's reduction in error rate from
the pre-training to the post-training 1 phase of the study was
attributed to the influence of peer modeling, i.e., the untrained
control group operators were copying the behavior of their trained
counterparts. Toward the end of the post-training 1 phase, the error
rates of the three groups converged, suggesting that the effects of the
training program had begun to wear off. Observers also noted that some
behaviors were being compromised when employees with different
knowledge levels were required to interact, particularly in conflict-
avoidance situations such as signaling and yielding at blind
intersections.
During the post-training 2 phase of the study, all groups'
performance improved. The control group's performance improved by 28
percent (from a mean error rate of .32 to .23), while the training
group experienced a four percent improvement (from a mean error rate of
.27 to .26) and the training-
[[Page 66248]]
plus-feedback group had a seven percent improvement (from .27 to .25).
There was further evidence of a peer modeling effect because all three
groups' performance continued to improve although no additional
instruction was given.
The retention phase was conducted three months after the completion
of the post-training 2 phase of the study to determine the longer term
effects of the training. During this phase of the study, mean error
rates were checked, as they were during the other phases of the study.
The results of this phase of the study indicate a further improvement
in the operators' performance, with the mean error rate decreasing from
.25 to .19, a 24 percent improvement in performance. The total
performance gain achieved during this study was a 44 percent
improvement from the pre-training (baseline) phase through the
retention phase (from a mean error rate of .34 to a final error rate of
.19). These data indicate that there were significantly fewer errors at
each successive phase of the study.
The second study was conducted to verify and extend the findings of
the first study. A modified experimental design was used to eliminate
the mitigating influence of the untrained control group. In the second
study, all operators were trained at the same time and all received
performance feedback. Comparisons were made only before and after
training. The study was divided into three phases: pre-training; post-
training; and retention. The retention phase of the study was again
conducted three months after the conclusion of the prior phase.
Table 10.--Summary of Mean Error Rates--Warehouse 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-training Post-training Retention
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.23.................... .09 .07
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Measuring the Effectiveness of Industrial Lift Truck Safety
Training Program, Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 15, No. 3, Fall
1984, pp. 125-135.
After the vehicle operators were trained, they experienced a 61
percent improvement in performance scores (from an error rate of .23 to
.09). During the retention phase of the study, there was a further
reduction of 22 percent in mean error rates (from .09 to .07 mean error
rate). The overall improvement in mean error rates between the pre-
training error rate (.23) and that achieved during the retention phase
(.07) was a reduction of 70 percent.
Not all errors cause accidents; however, most accidents are caused
by one or more errors. The final rule is intended to minimize operator
errors. The studies show that better training reduces operator errors.
OSHA, the authors of the studies described in the preamble, and other
experts believe that accidents will be reduced by about the same
percentage as the reduction in the error rate. The studies that OSHA
has used are among the best available for cause and effect.
V. Basis for Agency Action
OSHA concludes that, as the above discussion indicates, there are
sufficient data and information on which to base a revision of the
existing standard for powered industrial truck operator training. The
data indicate that a substantial number of fatalities and injuries
result from industrial truck accidents in all industries. Studies
indicate that better training would substantially reduce the number of
accidents that result in fatalities and serious injuries.
OSHA concludes that adherence to these new powered industrial truck
operator training requirements will prevent 11 fatalities and 9422
injuries annually that result from accidents involving powered
industrial trucks. (See also the analysis of benefits in the Final
Economic Analysis section and the analysis of substantial reduction of
significant risk in the Statutory Considerations section, below.)
OSHA further concludes that this improved operator training
standard is needed to reduce powered industrial truck injuries and
fatalities in maritime (including shipyards, marine terminals, and
longshoring), construction, and general industry. As noted above,
OSHA's Office of Data Analysis found that about 11.5 percent of the
fatalities that occurred in marine terminals between 1975 and 1984 were
attributable to the use of powered industrial trucks. Additionally, an
OSHA-sponsored contractor study found that 28.1 percent of the
fatalities that occurred in the marine cargo handling industries were
forklift-related. This is much higher than the percentage of such
fatalities occurring in general industry. Clearly, these numbers
indicate the need to ensure better powered industrial truck operator
training in the marine cargo handling industries covered by this final
standard. OSHA has not specifically analyzed truck-related fatalities
in the shipyard industry, but believes that the accident experience in
shipyards is likely to be similar to that in manufacturing.
In the study of the OSHA Fatality/Catastrophe reports that was
previously discussed, 25 of the 208 accidents (about 12 percent) that
were reported on the OSHA Form 170 occurred in the construction
industry. OSHA has determined that there are approximately 46,456
powered industrial trucks in use in construction. This is less than 5
percent of the total 998,671 powered industrial trucks in use. Although
the number of powered industrial trucks in use in the construction
industry is less than 5 percent of the total number of such vehicles,
accidents involving them account for about 12 percent of the total
number of construction accidents reported on the OSHA Form 170.
In addition, OSHA's Final Economic Analysis estimates that there
were, on average, 16 powered industrial truck related fatalities and
2,380 injuries per year in the construction industry. This also
indicates that fatality and injury rates are higher per truck user in
the construction industry than in general industry. Accordingly, OSHA
concludes that these high accident rates justify covering the
construction industry with a better training standard. (See also the
discussion of scope, below.)
Many actions taken by other organizations also point to the need to
address the hazards posed by unsafe operation of powered industrial
trucks: the voluntary consensus standard on this subject has been
updated several times since OSHA adopted 29 CFR 1910.178 in 1971; OSHA
has been petitioned to improve the requirements for industrial truck
training; the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health has
recommended improving the standard; and resolutions have been
introduced in the Senate and House urging OSHA to revise its outdated
powered industrial truck operator training standards.
VI. Training
Training provides a person with the necessary specialized
instruction and practice to become proficient at a particular task.
Training is the means by which an employer ensures that employees have
the knowledge and skills they need to do their jobs correctly and
safely. The alternative to formal training is learning by trial and
error, an approach that results in an inadequate knowledge base and
relies on mistakes (which often involve accidents, injuries, and near-
miss incidents) for learning to occur. Reliance on this approach would
create a greater chance of injuries and fatalities.
After employees have received initial training, acquired the basic
knowledge, and perfected their operating skills, the employer may rely
on refresher training to reinforce or improve the employee's
[[Page 66249]]
knowledge of the basic training material; to impart new information; to
teach material in a new manner; or simply to maintain an acceptable
level of awareness of workplace conditions, operating hazards, and
truck-related characteristics.
There are several approaches to assembling the necessary materials
and methods for an effective training program. One approach is to make
use of existing literature and model programs already developed.
Another approach is to look at problems that occur during ongoing
operations and identify what an operator must know to avoid or
otherwise minimize the potential for an accident due to those problems.
A third approach to developing a training program is to analyze the
accidents that have occurred and develop a training program that will
minimize the potential for a recurrence of the conditions that caused
the accident. A problem with this third method of program development
is that it is reactive rather than proactive, i.e., tends to emphasize
the problems that have caused an accident (the training is in reaction
to an accident). By contrast, proactive training teaches employees to
prevent accidents rather than waiting for accidents to occur before
recognizing the need for the training and determining what the scope
and content of the training should be.
According to one hearing participant, a professional trainer (Tr.
p. 129):
In principle we are in support of the proposed training rule.
The key issue as we see it is that any prescribed training has to be
both effective and efficient. Our viewpoint is that the need for
prevention of accidents among lift truck operators is not arguable
but we also believe that the current rule is ineffective.
Additionally, our view is that the final rule must use what is at
this time, common knowledge among the professional training
community in the United States regarding effective and efficient
training strategies. For the purpose of clarifying our testimony,
we're defining operator training as instructional or other influence
strategies used to help operators learn to change their on-truck
behavior. We believe that effective training of operators is that
which results in fewer injuries and fatalities. In that regard, the
most important issue for the training rule to address in our
viewpoint, is not to just require traditionally accepted training
strategies but to require operator training strategies that actually
transfer to the operating environment.
Another benefit of proactive training is that the person observing
the worksite and the work being conducted to develop a training program
for powered industrial truck operators may identify other problems in
the workplace and offer solutions to those problems. Identifying and
resolving these other problems can reduce the total number and/or
severity of accidents in the workplace, not only those related to
powered industrial truck use but also those associated with other
workplace activities. According to another hearing participant (Tr. p.
425):
Our processes include an evaluation of the facility and
recommendations for improvement. We do not pass a problem within a
company without trying to correct that problem before the training
is implemented.
The training requirements in the final rule reflect all three
approaches discussed above. They require training in specific topics
unless a particular topic is not relevant to the types of vehicles or
the employer's workplace. They require the training to address topics
specific to the employer's workplace and to cover information learned
from accidents or near-misses that have occurred in the employer's
workplace. As discussed below, OSHA believes that this approach will
result in operator training that is most effective in reducing truck-
related deaths and injuries.
The topics OSHA requires to be covered in the training mandated by
this standard can also be used to evaluate the effectiveness of a
powered industrial truck operator's training. For example, an employer
can use the list of required topics to determine what should be taught
and then compare that with what is being taught. In this manner,
employers can ensure that the training is appropriate for the types of
trucks being used and the conditions in the workplace that affect the
safe operation of those trucks.
Training comes in many forms. It may be as simple and informal as a
supervisor discussing the correct way to operate a vehicle, correcting
an error in the way an employee is doing a job, or showing an employee
how to perform a particular task properly. Alternatively, training may
consist of detailed, structured instruction using formal training
methods (e.g., lectures, formal demonstrations, practical exercises,
examinations, etc.). Formal training is usually used to provide
trainees with a large amount of information. OSHA believes, and the
record confirms, that a combination of training methods is most
effective in training powered industrial truck operators.
For the most part, employees do not start out with the knowledge
and skills they need to operate a powered industrial truck safely.
Although many employees selected or assigned to operate powered
industrial trucks are licensed to drive automobiles, there are enough
differences between these two types of vehicles and their operation to
require additional knowledge and skills to operate a powered industrial
truck safely. For example, industrial trucks, compared with cars, have
limited forward visibility when carrying a large load, have rear wheel
steering and front wheel drive, have different centers of gravity and
balance, have different control configurations, and can carry heavy
loads with the weight concentrated at one end of the vehicle. Employees
need formal training and practice to gain the knowledge and to master
the skills they need to safely operate powered industrial trucks with
these characteristics.
Effective employee training and supervision also can lessen the
frequency with which employees perform unsafe acts such as speeding,
failing to look in the direction of travel, and failing to slow down or
stop and sound the vehicle's horn at blind intersections and other
areas where pedestrian traffic may not be observable. This, in turn,
reduces the frequency and severity of accidents.
Another case where training can prevent accidents or lessen their
severity is when powered industrial trucks travel with an elevated
load. Effective operator training must emphasize that the operator
moves the vehicle only when the load is at its lowest practical point.
In addition, even if a sit-down rider truck operator fails to follow
this practice and the vehicle tips over, both the chance and severity
of injury are reduced if the operator is trained to stay with the
vehicle and lean away from the direction of fall. When a sit-down rider
truck tips over and the operator attempts to jump off the vehicle while
it is tipping over, the operator is often crushed when struck by the
overhead guard. In these cases, since the normal tendency is for a
person to jump downward, the operator lands on the floor or ground in
the path of the overhead guard, and receives a crushing injury to the
head, neck, or back. Training an employee to stay with this type of
vehicle and lean away from the direction of fall will reduce the
severity of or eliminate these injuries.
On the other hand, when a stand-up rider truck tips over laterally,
the operator must be trained to step off the vehicle toward the rear of
the vehicle. The operator can safely do this because he/she is not
moving in the direction in which the truck is falling, but rather is
moving perpendicular to the direction of the vehicle's fall.
[[Page 66250]]
The studies conducted by Cohen and Jensen, discussed under Studies
of Accident and Injury Data and of Training Effectiveness earlier in
this preamble, found that training reduced operator error rates by as
much as 70 percent. Although a 70 percent error rate reduction does not
necessarily correspond with an equivalent reduction in the number of
accidents that a given group of operators will experience, improper or
unsafe operation of powered industrial trucks is clearly the major
cause of accidents and their resultant fatalities and injuries.
Therefore, reducing the number of unsafe acts that are committed when
operating these trucks will reduce the number of accidents, fatalities,
and injuries.
Proper employee training must take into account different operating
conditions (including the type and size of the load, the type and
condition of the surface on which the vehicle is being operated, and
other factors that can adversely affect vehicle operation). Operator
training must emphasize two points regarding potential accidents: (1)
the employee must not engage in activities that will increase the
potential for an accident to occur; and (2) the employee must take
appropriate action to minimize the potential for injury to himself/
herself or to other employees if an accident occurs.
OSHA's current powered industrial truck training standard (codified
at 1910.178(l)), has a very general training requirement. It states:
Only trained and authorized operators shall be permitted to
operate a powered industrial truck. Methods shall be devised to
train operators in the safe operation of powered industrial trucks.
As discussed above, this provision has not been adequate to reduce
the large number of fatalities, accidents, and injuries caused by
untrained or poorly trained operators. Consequently, OSHA proposed more
extensive training requirements to improve operator training (60 FR
13782, March 14, 1995, and 61 FR 3094, January 30, 1996).
There were 64 commenters who discussed the need for training
powered industrial truck operators (Exs. 7-1, 7-5, 7-8, 7-10, 7-19, 7-
22, 7-28, 7-29, 7-31, 7-32, 7-34, 7-36, 7-38, 7-39, 7-40, 7-43, 7-45,
7-46, 7-47, 7-48, 7-49, 7-50, 7-51, 7-59, 7-66, 7-67, 7-69, 7-71, 11-1,
11-2, 11-6, 11-12, 11-13, 11-15, 11-17, 11-18, 11-19, 11-22, 11-25, 11-
27, 11-29, 11-31, 11-35, 11-36, 11-40, 11-41, 11-44, and 11-46; Tr. Pp.
22-24, 27-29, 35 and 44, 49, 62, 75, 94, 129 and 143, 172, 196, 306,
331, 340, 383, 398, 416, 443). The great majority of these commenters
agreed on the need to train powered industrial truck operators.
For example, one commenter (Ex. 7-66) stated:
The WGMA [West Gulf Maritime Association] supports operator
skill and safety training for powered industrial truck operations.
We have for years had operator training and certification
requirements for certain equipment. These requirements are part of
our collective bargaining agreement between management and labor.
A second commenter (Ex. 11-2) stated:
AGC [Associated General Contractors] believes that worker
training is the key to worker protection and AGC commends OSHA for
its recent emphasis on powered industrial truck operator training.
A third commenter (Ex. 7-34) said:
In general, Dow agrees with OSHA that there are risks associated
with the operation of powered industrial trucks and that those
persons operating them must be knowledgeable and skilled prior to
being authorized to operate the vehicle. Dow believes that the
training its people receive on these vehicles has been adequate. As
a result, comments will focus on retaining the performance language
in this training so that we can continue the success we have had
thus far.
One commenter (Ex. 7-48), however, expressly disagreed that there
is a need for OSHA to issue a standard for training powered industrial
truck operators. It stated:
Overall, UPS [United Parcel Service] questions the need for a
standard regulating the training of powered industrial truck
operators. UPS has never experienced a noteworthy amount of
workplace accidents involving powered industrial trucks. We do not
expect that implementation of this type of standard will reduce the
already low number of accidents in this category. This proposed
standard would substantially increase costs to employers without a
corresponding reduction in injuries, providing little justification
for its implementation. As such, UPS cannot support the promulgation
of this standard.
Many commenters generally supported OSHA's proposal to make the
training requirements more explicit. For example, one commenter (Ex. 7-
29) stated:
UTC [United Technologies Corporation] agrees with OSHA's stated
purpose ``to amend the current powered industrial truck operator
training requirements for general industry and to adopt the same
requirements for the maritime industries'', which will eliminate
redundant standards for separate industries. In addition, UTC
approves of OSHA's approach in mandating ``the development of a
training program that would base the amount, type, degree and
sufficiency of training on the knowledge and the skills and
abilities that are necessary to safely operate the truck'' rather
than mandating specific universal training requirements that would
not take into consideration the variety of truck, necessary operator
knowledge and training levels, and operating situations.
Overall, OSHA's proposed changes to the original 1971 powered
industrial truck standard are reasonable and provide a sound basis
for enhancing the safe operation of powered industrial trucks in the
workplace while allowing a maximum of flexibility in the methods
employers may select for implementation.
A second commenter (Ex. 7-31) stated:
As an association, we [American Warehouse Association] have
urged our members to adopt training programs. One member reports
that although one-third of the accidents in the warehouse were lift
truck-related, one-half of the costs associated with accidents were
lift truck related. Although this example is just a snapshot of the
industry, this anecdotal information confirms that proper training
is in the best interests of our industry.
It is appropriate to consider revising the existing OSHA
regulations. A more defined standard will be of benefit to both
employers and employees. However, as our comments will suggest, the
revised standard need not be overwhelming or unnecessarily complex
to achieve the desired result.
A third commenter (Ex. 7-36) stated:
API [American Petroleum Institute] generally supports the
standard proposed by OSHA, with minor revisions, to replace the
existing requirements under 29 CFR 1910.178(l) and to be added as
new requirements under 29 CFR 1915.120, 1917.43, and 1918.77,
provided the proposed standard remains performance oriented. Powered
industrial trucks vary greatly in configuration and application,
making operator training requirements very site specific.
Accordingly, API supports OSHA's development of a flexible,
performance based standard that will allow each facility to best
address the specific training needs of operators at that location.
Finally, one commenter (Ex. 7-28) said:
NAWGA/IFDA appreciates the concerns that have led OSHA to
propose this rule, and believes that benefits can flow to companies
and their workers through the dissemination of guidance on
appropriate training for employees who operate powered industrial
trucks. While we have comments and suggestions regarding certain
aspects of the proposal's requirements, our organization believes
that many of the training elements noted in the rule are appropriate
topics to be covered in the instruction provided to powered
industrial truck operators.
Some commenters opposed changing OSHA's existing training
requirement (Exs. 7-1, 7-5, 7-6, 7-8, 7-19, 7-20, 7-22, 7-27, 7-28, 7-
33, 7-34, 7-38, 7-40, 7-69, 11-7, 11-15, 11-16, 11-20, 11-23, 11-35,
11-42, Tr. pp. 121, 151, 246).
[[Page 66251]]
One reason given for not changing the existing requirement is that it
is written in general language and therefore allows employers complete
freedom to tailor their powered industrial truck operator training
program. These commenters generally stated that they already conduct
the appropriate operator training. For example, one commenter (Ex. 7-8)
stated:
The proposed training requirements that would mandate the
development of a training program that would base the amount, type,
degree and sufficiency of training on the knowledge of the trainee
and the ability of the vehicle operator to acquire, retain and use
the knowledge and skills and abilities that are necessary to safely
operate the truck would require quite a bit of additional time and
categories of paperwork and would be, in many instances very
subjective and difficult to document. The basic requirements that
presently exist are quite sufficient and any safety professional
worth their salt is going to look at the things you are proposing
anyway.
Some of these commenters also suggested that the proposed standard,
if adopted, would create too structured a program and would be overly
burdensome to the employer. For example, one commenter (Ex. 7-19)
stated:
Current regulations, 29 CFR 1910.178, have provided Mobil and
other companies like Mobil sufficient direction and discretion to
develop and implement effective training processes for its powered
industrial truck operators. Mobil is concerned that the more
detailed nature of these proposed regulations will require costly
changes to currently effective training processes.
Other commenters stated that OSHA's proposed training requirements
were appropriate and not overly burdensome. For example, one commenter
(Tr. p. 418) stated:
I * * * commend your efforts and give you my profound support.
Your proposed rules were well researched and, if passed into law,
will assist industry leaders by providing the needed guidelines to
develop, implement and follow up their operator training programs *
* *
From our company's conception in 1987, it was apparent that our
present occupational safety at 1910.178 Code of Regulations for
material handling and storage did, in fact, supply some foundation
for training materials content, but did not supply enough direction
to allow the meeting of the minds within a single company.
Although there was a starting point, technical advances have
caused tremendous pressures on our industries, manufacturers, as
well as the end user.
New problems were identified as a result of these advances that
never had to be addressed in the past. Professionally, I believe
that the proposed rules are on target and will prove to be a
sufficient step forward in providing guidelines and benchmarks for
industries.
Another commenter (Ex. 7-17) stated:
I also believe that inadequate operator training and supervision
are the cause of the great majority of industrial truck accidents.
Your proposed rule change therefore not only has the potential to
substantially reduce the number of fatalities and serious accidents
that occur each year; it also has the potential to reduce the large
number of unreported accidents and near-misses that occur every day.
It is a step in the right direction that should be applauded.
Several representatives of the longshoring and marine terminals
industries, however, opposed the proposed rule (Exs. 7-43, 7-46, 7-63,
11-7, 11-20, 11-42, Tr. p. 246). These commenters contended that they
already have regulations that cover powered industrial truck operator
training (Secs. 1917.27(a) and 1918.98(a) respectively) and that those
regulations have served their industry well. Indeed, one commenter
claimed that there were few powered industrial truck injuries or
fatalities in the industry. (See Tr. p. 248.) According to this
commenter:
Again, there is no proof of a significant risk to injury to
employees to warrant this additional training regulation in our
industry. We've heard some raw data quoted yesterday. This is all
dependent on the number of truck hours and the amount of exposure
the employees have, personal injury and property damage. Our people
are exposed to this every day and our record is not that bad.
Another commenter from this industry stated (Tr. p. 248):
The PMA [Pacific Maritime Association] conducts forklift
training based on ASME B56.1 to provide skilled operators for
employers to meet the requirements of Sec. 1917.27(a) and
Sec. 1917.97(a)). This program has served the industry well. Also,
on-the-job training is a tradition on the waterfront and
qualification by experience and training have proved to be
effective.
On the other hand, several witnesses at the hearing testified about
powered industrial truck accidents that resulted in deaths and serious
injuries in the marine cargo-handling industry. They supported OSHA's
proposal to improve training for operators in this sector.
For example, one commenter (Tr. p. 437) stated:
One of the port authorities in the U.S. contracted [with] me to
conduct training for the stevedoring and the ILA on the east coast.
We conducted a three-day training program and we had a 54
percent failure factor on basic knowledge.
Another hearing participant (Tr. p. 393) reported:
In fact, last year I investigated a death on a stevedoring area
where a supervisor was driving a lift truck with no training that
ran over an employee on a shipping dock.
It is clear to OSHA that powered industrial truck accidents are a
major cause of injuries and deaths in the marine cargo handling
industry. An OSHA contractor that studied fatality reports for the
period 1991-1993 collected by the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health for the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries Program
determined the number of fatal and serious injury accidents reported
during the period of study (Ex. 38). According to this study the
longshoring and marine terminal industries experienced a percentage of
powered industrial truck accidents that was 10 times greater then the
second highest industry (28.1 percent of all fatal accidents in the
maritime industries compared with 2.8 percent in the second-ranked
industry). An OSHA study of fatalities in the marine cargo handling
industry indicated that 19 of 165 fatalities that occurred between 1975
and 1984 were attributable to the improper operation of powered
industrial trucks. (See section IV. A. 4 above.)
Based on this information and other evidence discussed elsewhere in
this preamble, OSHA concludes that powered industrial truck accidents
are a major cause of serious injuries and deaths in the marine cargo
handling industry. OSHA further concludes that the Agency's current
training requirements do not sufficiently protect employees in that
industry from death and serious injury from powered industrial truck
accidents, and that it is necessary to issue these training
requirements to protect those employees from a significant risk of
injury and death.
There are a number of additional responses to those commenters in
all industries who recommended that OSHA retain the present, very
general, training requirements. First, the statistics demonstrate a
high level of accidents, injuries, and deaths resulting from improper
powered industrial truck operation in all industries. (See the
discussion at part IV.A. above.) The Agency's existing training
requirements have not worked well enough to reduce those injury rates.
However, without the existing requirements, rates would likely have
been much higher. The studies demonstrate that trained operators make
fewer errors. The FEA points out that a percentage of current operators
are trained. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the existing
general training requirement has resulted in the
[[Page 66252]]
training of a percentage of the operators and without this existing
training there would be more errors and, therefore, more accidents. The
new standard will increase the number of trained operators and the
quality of the training, further reducing accidents.
Second, the existing requirement is so general that employers may
believe that they have fulfilled their obligation by providing very
little effective training. Third, the existing provisions provide very
little guidance on what training is necessary and effective. Fourth, as
discussed above, studies are available that show that effective
training will reduce accidents (Ex. 38). Finally, many commenters told
OSHA that their experience demonstrates that better training will
reduce fatalities and injuries, and some provided examples of how their
training programs (similar to the program required by the final rule)
had reduced accidents.
The revised training provisions require the employer to develop a
training program based on the general principles of safe truck
operation, on the type of vehicle(s) being used in the workplace, the
hazards of the workplace created by the use of the vehicle(s), and the
general safety requirements of the OSHA standard. OSHA is not
specifying the time that must be spent on the training or the exact
methods that must be used to train operators. OSHA is, however,
requiring that trained operators know how to do the job properly and do
it safely, as demonstrated by workplace evaluations at the time of
initial and refresher training and at periodic intervals (at least once
every three years). This approach gives employers the flexibility to
develop training programs appropriate to their workplace and avoids
unnecessary specification. Thus, this final standard will be both
performance-oriented and effective.
VII. The Issues
In the January 30, 1996, Federal Register notices, 61 FR 3092 and
3094, OSHA asked for comment on four specific issues as well as any
other relevant issues. These four issues were developed by OSHA after
input from the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health
(ACCSH). The following is a restatement of each issue, a summary of the
comments and hearing testimony received, and the Agency's decision on
each issue.
1. Should an employer be allowed to accept the certification of
training by a third party such as a union, training institute,
manufacturer, consultant, or other private or public organization?
Since OSHA does not accredit certifiers, what criteria should be used
to establish their credibility?
OSHA specified in the proposals that all training must be conducted
by a designated person. In those proposals, OSHA defined a designated
person as one who has the requisite knowledge, training, and experience
to train powered industrial truck operators and judge their competency.
(See proposed Sec. 1910.178(l)(2)(iii) and the corresponding provisions
of the other proposed standards.) 4 OSHA did not, however,
specify that the training must be conducted by the employer, a
supervisor, or any other particular person, but only that the training
be conducted by a person who is qualified to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Throughout this preamble, OSHA uses the reference to the
general industry standard, Sec. 1910.178, when discussing this final
rule. Because the provisions of the final rule also apply to
construction, shipyards, marine terminals, and longshoring, the
discussion applies equally to these other sections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There were 50 commenters who addressed this issue. (See Exs. 7-11,
7-15, 7-29, 7-38, 7-39, 7-48, 7-50, 7-51, 7-56, 7-64, 7-65, 7-70, 11-1,
11-3, 11-5, 11-6, 11-8, 11-9, 11-10, 11-15, 11-16, 11-18, 11-19, 11-24,
11-25, 11-28, 11-29, 11-31, 11-33, 11-34, 11-36, 11-37, 11-39, 11-40,
11-43, 11-46, Tr. pp. 20, 25-27, 52, 83, 92, 94, 104, 137, 153, 324,
333, 340-341, 384-386, 422.) These participants all agreed that
trainers must have basic knowledge of training methods and/or powered
industrial truck operations that enables them to conduct the training
of these vehicle operators. There was, however, one comment (Ex. 7-11)
that suggested specific requirements for a qualified trainer. This
commenter stated:
* * * A competency standard for the ``designated person''
[should] be incorporated in the proposed rule change. Such a
competency standard * * * could include, but would not be limited
to:
1. Experienced and skilled in the safe and efficient operation
of a powered industrial truck(s).
2. Is familiar with, comprehends, understands and employs
applicable OSHA codes and all consensus standards as they apply to
worker safety and economic impact on the employer.
3. Is skilled and practiced in the training of adults or has the
ability, knowledge and desire to attain such skills.
Some commenters recommended that trainers be accredited by OSHA or
have some other professional certification (see Exs. 7-29, 7-56, 7-64,
7-73, 11-5, 11-40, Tr. p. 326). One of these commenters (Ex. 11-5)
stated:
The ASSE believes it is appropriate for OSHA and the ACCSH to
create general qualification guidelines when establishing the
criteria for lift truck trainers. However, we strongly recommend
that OSHA not get into the business of ``certifying'' these
trainers. The society believes that OSHA does not have the resources
to undertake such an endeavor, and the private sector professional
safety and health organizations have been certifying qualified
safety and health professionals for decades. To have OSHA take on
this responsibility would be equivalent to a ``reinventing the
wheel''. Certified Safety Professionals (CSPs), as an example, could
be recognized as a level of expertise appropriate to develop/
implement this type of training.
OSHA has decided not to include trainer accreditation requirements
in the final rule for several reasons. First, OSHA believes that the
training criteria are sufficiently detailed so that employers and
professional trainers who follow the criteria will provide adequate
training. Second, a large number of trainers and individual employers
(potentially in the tens of thousands) would need to be accredited,
which would overwhelm OSHA's resources. Finally, many small businesses
choose to conduct their own training, and requiring them to become
accredited to do so would be unnecessarily burdensome.
Since the proposal, OSHA has changed the language of the final rule
to clarify that the employer does not need to administer the training
but may have it provided by an outside training provider. The employer
may need to provide additional training on site-specific or truck-
specific matters. OSHA believes that this clarification of the language
of the final rule responds to the suggestions of ACCSH and the needs of
the construction industry. In addition, as a style change the term
``designated'' has been omitted. Instead ``person'' is used followed by
the same qualifications that had been required of ``designated
person.''
2. What type of testing should be conducted during initial training
to judge the trainee's competency (performance testing and oral and/or
written tests)?
A. If tests are administered, what subjects should be tested, and
what methods, if any, should be used to judge that the tests are
reliable and address the subject matter adequately?
B. What, if any, should be the acceptable pass/fail requirement for
the tests?
OSHA proposed that operators must successfully complete their
training and be evaluated. OSHA believes that evaluation is an
essential element of any training program. Evaluation provides a
measure not only of the effectiveness of the training but also the
trainees' ability to understand the need for and the
[[Page 66253]]
important elements of the training. Evaluation also allows the trainer
to reemphasize the most important points of the training.
Most of the 32 participants who commented on this issue agreed that
some evaluation is necessary when training is conducted. (See Exs. 11-
1, 11-3, 11-5, 11-8, 11-10, 11-18, 11-19, 11-24, 11-25, 11-28, 11-30,
11-33, 11-34, 11-36, 11-37, 11-39, 11-40, 11-41, 11-46, Tr. pp. 21, 35,
53, 77, 99, 130, 202, 254, 309, 326, 342, 385, 400.) There was general
agreement on the need to conduct written as well as practical testing
during the training.
One commenter (Ex. 11-10), in response to the question about
written and performance testing, stated:
API [American Petroleum Institute] feels that the current
proposed language in paragraph (5)(i) of the general industry
standard adequately addresses any concerns of testing during initial
training. Specific requirements for how to test operators would take
away the flexibility allowed by the currently proposed language,
convert the rule to a specification standard, and greatly increase
the information collection burden without necessarily improving the
safety performance of operators.
The Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH)
recommended that OSHA establish a pass/fail requirement for written
tests. Some commenters stated that OSHA should specify a passing
percentage (such as 70 to 85 percent correct answers)(see Exs. 7-52,
11-19). On the other hand, six commenters generally supported the need
for the trainee to perform all the necessary procedures correctly
during practical tests. (See Exs. 11-8 and 11-19, Tr. pp. 78, 132, 427,
434.) Their concerns were that if the trainee cannot operate the
vehicle safely when that trainee knows that an evaluation is being
conducted, there is no guarantee that the trainee will perform the
operation correctly under less controlled circumstances. Other
commenters stated that OSHA should leave the evaluation of the
trainees' grasp of the classroom instruction to the trainer (Exs. 11-
34, 11-36).
OSHA has concluded, as proposed, that the evaluation of the
classroom part of the training should be left to the trainer. There are
many ways to evaluate whether material has been learned, and this
evaluation can be accomplished in a number of ways.
Consequently, OSHA has retained a performance-oriented approach
that allows the employer to determine that the employee has
successfully completed the training, including the classroom and
practical training/demonstration elements. The employer may demonstrate
this for the classroom element based on evidence that the employee has
successfully completed a written or oral test, or by other appropriate
means, such as an evaluation by the instructor. OSHA agrees with these
comments that successful completion of the practical training requires
the trainee to perform all required operations safely.
OSHA concurs with those commenters who recognize the need for both
more formal and practical testing and evaluation. If training is
conducted without the means to evaluate its effectiveness, there is no
way to ensure that the material was adequately presented, that the
trainee understood the material, and that the trainee will use the
training when operating the vehicle.
OSHA does not believe, however, that it is possible, given the
variety of powered industrial trucks, workplace conditions, employee
backgrounds, and types of effective training, to specify standardized
tests or methods, or to specify passing grades. Although ACCSH did
recommend that OSHA specify passing grades, OSHA believes that, by
listing topics and requiring demonstrations of proficiency and
triennial evaluations, the rule will achieve the goal envisioned by
ACCSH for effective training.
3. Are some of the training areas listed not needed?
In developing this final rule, OSHA took its lead from the national
consensus standard, ASME B56.1-1993, which contains a listing of those
subject areas that the consensus committee felt were important for the
trainee to know to successfully operate a powered industrial truck.
These subjects were written in general terms so that the training
program could be tailored to fit the employer's particular
circumstances. The OSHA rule relies on ASME B56.1 and covers
essentially the same subject areas.
There were 43 comments (Exs. 7-14, 7-16, 7-21, 7-22, 7-25, 7-28, 7-
34, 7-39, 7-40, 7-47, 7-51, 7-53, 7-63, 7-64, 11-3, 11-5, 11-10, 11-11,
11-13, 11-15, 11-19, 11-25, 11-28, 11-29, 11-32, 11-33, 11-34, 11-36,
11-37, 11-38, 11-39, 11-43, 11-45, 11-46, 28, 29, 31, Tr. pp. 27, 40,
43, 79, 198, 255, 400) on the various subjects that were proposed and
some additional subjects recommended by some commenters. These
commenters, for the most part, supported the topics contained in OSHA's
proposal.
For example, one commenter (Ex. 7-28) stated:
NAWGA/IFDA appreciates the concerns that have led OSHA to
propose this rule, and believes that benefits can flow to companies
and their workers through the dissemination of guidance on
appropriate training for employees who operate powered industrial
trucks. While we have comments and suggestions regarding certain
aspects of the proposal's requirements, our organization believes
that many of the training elements noted in the rule are appropriate
topics to be covered in the instruction provided to powered
industrial truck operators.
There were several suggestions for improving the language of the
listed items. ACCSH suggested that most of the topics OSHA included
were appropriate but urged OSHA to improve the wording that addresses
the similarities to and differences from the automobile. In the final
rule, OSHA has done so. (See discussion below.) OSHA has reviewed each
comment and suggested change and has used those changes to improve the
final rule, as discussed below.
4. Should an employee receive refresher or remedial training only
if operating a vehicle unsafely or if involved in an accident? Is a
one-year interval too frequent for retraining or recertification?
In the proposals that OSHA published in the Federal Register on
March 14, 1995 and January 30, 1996, the Agency proposed that the
employer conduct an evaluation of each powered industrial truck
operator's performance at least annually to ensure the operator's
continued safe operation of the vehicle(s) in the workplace. However,
OSHA did not specify a fixed period for refresher training and
evaluation but instead proposed that refresher training be provided
when there is reason to believe that there has been unsafe operation,
when an accident or near miss occurs, when an evaluation indicates that
the operator is not capable of performing the assigned duties, or when
a new type of truck has been introduced into the workplace.
Some commenters opposed the requirement for refresher training and
evaluation unless there was documented evidence of employee misconduct
or the training/evaluation was provided at a set interval. (See Exs. 7-
13, 7-16, 7-20, 7-45, and 7-58.) Other commenters suggested that OSHA
require refresher training on a regular basis, for example at three
year intervals. For example, one commenter (Ex. 7-16) stated:
Refresher training should have an established time frame to
ensure operators will be given up-to-date information on safe
powered industrial truck operation. This supports the goal of OSHA
to prevent the first accident and not serve as the source of
[[Page 66254]]
consolation for the first victim. Refresher training should be
required at least every three years, and sooner if there is just
cause, as set forth by the proposed revision.
ACCSH commented that yearly retraining and evaluation are not as
useful in the construction industry as other industries because
relatively few employees remain with the same employer for an entire
year. This also is the case for the longshoring industry.
OSHA has structured the final rule to address these commenters'
concerns. First, the rule stipulates no fixed period for refresher
training and evaluation; instead, such training is triggered when the
triennial evaluation or an incident or workplace change indicates that
it is necessary. OSHA concludes that this performance approach will
ensure that the necessary refresher training occurs but does so in a
way that is not overly burdensome.
Second, by requiring formal evaluations of operators' proficiency
only at three year intervals, OSHA is addressing ACCSH's concerns and
the concerns of employers in other industries with high turnover rates.
If an employee stays less than three years with the same employer, no
periodic evaluation is required (although the evaluation associated
with initial training and any refresher training would be required). In
addition, when an employee changes jobs, the final rule allows the
employer to evaluate the employee's previous training adequacy and
appropriateness to determine that the employee can do the job safely.
As discussed below, duplicative training would not be required in this
situation.
VIII. Summary and Explanation of the Final Standard
A. General
In this final rule, OSHA requires that operators of powered
industrial trucks be trained in the operation of such vehicles before
they are allowed to operate them independently. The training must
consist of instruction (both classroom-type and practical training) in
proper vehicle operation, the hazards of operating the vehicle in the
workplace, and the requirements of the OSHA standard for powered
industrial trucks. Operators who have completed training must then be
evaluated while they operate the vehicle in the workplace. Operators
must also be periodically evaluated (at least once every three years)
to ensure that their skills remain at a high level and must receive
refresher training whenever there is a demonstrated need for it. The
new standard replaces very general training provisions that have had
only a modest impact in reducing truck-related accidents, injuries, and
fatalities.
To accomplish the goal of improved powered industrial truck
operator training, OSHA is revising its existing general industry
standard at Sec. 1910.178(l), and is adding for shipyards a new
Sec. 1915.120 with a cross reference to Sec. 1910.178 (l). For
construction, a new Sec. 1926.602(d), with a cross reference to
1910.178(l), has been added. The new Sec. 1926.602(d) supplements the
current cross-reference to the 1969 ANSI standard, to the extent that
the ANSI standard specifies that only trained operators be permitted to
operate powered industrial trucks (the same language as was contained
at Sec. 1910.178(l)). The standards in parts 1917 and 1918 provide
safety and health coverage for longshoring and marine terminal
employment. The specific standards in these parts are supplemented by a
limited number of general industry standards to provide a comprehensive
package of standards for each industry. These general industry
standards are listed in Secs. 1910.16, 1917.1, and 1918.1. To assure
that new paragraph (1) of Sec. 1910.178 covers longshoring and marine
terminal employees, OSHA is adding it to the list of applicable general
industry standards.
In developing this final standard, OSHA has relied on the training
requirements in the latest national consensus standard for powered
industrial trucks, ASME B56.1-1993, as well as the training
requirements from other standards (both industry and government). In
this final rule, the language of these standards has been modified, as
appropriate, where the consensus standard uses non-enforceable language
(such as in paragraphs 4.19.1 and 4.19.2 of the ASME standard), or for
other reasons, as discussed below.
B. Scope
The scope of OSHA's existing training provisions for operators of
powered industrial trucks for general industry, construction and
shipyards is set forth at 29 CFR 1910.178(a)(1). That paragraph states:
This section contains safety requirements relating to fire
protection, design, maintenance, and use of fork trucks, tractors,
platform lift trucks, motorized hand trucks, and other specialized
industrial trucks powered by electric motor or internal combustion
engines. This section does not apply to compressed air or
nonflammable compressed gas-operated industrial trucks, nor to farm
vehicles, nor to vehicles intended primarily for earth moving or
over-the-road hauling.
Because Sec. 1910.178 adopted the ANSI B56.1-1969 provisions under
section 6(a) of the Act, the scope of that standard covering both
general industry and shipyards employment is the same as the scope of
the ANSI B56.1-1969 standard. The construction standard for powered
industrial trucks incorporates ANSI B56.1-1969 by reference and,
therefore, also has the same scope as the ANSI standard. The
requirement for powered industrial truck use in the marine terminal
industry is at Sec. 1917.43. Paragraph (a) states:
This section applies to every type of powered industrial truck
used for material or equipment handling within a marine terminal. It
does not apply to over-the-road vehicles.
The standard that applies to powered industrial truck training in
the longshoring industry is codified at Sec. 1918.97. That standard
does not use the term ``powered industrial truck'' but provides that
any employee driving ``any power operated vehicle'' shall be competent
by reason of training and experience.
In the preamble of the powered industrial truck operator training
proposal published on March 14, 1995, OSHA did not propose to revise
the scope of the existing rules. However, OSHA solicited comment on
whether the scope of the training requirements should be expanded to
cover operators of a broader classification of vehicles than is covered
by 29 CFR 1910.178(a).
There were eight commenters who generally discussed the scope of
these final rules. (See Exs. 7-43, 11-7, 11-9, 11-17, 11-20, 11-31, 11-
42, 11-44, Tr. pp. 99, 240.) Most of these commenters suggested
limiting the scope to those vehicles covered by the ASME B56.1-1993
standard, which has a narrower scope than the ANSI B56.1-1969 standard
because it does not cover certain types of vehicles that have their own
specialized ASME volumes. These commenters believed that operators of
specialized types of vehicles needed more specialized training.
Additionally, commenters from the marine terminals and longshoring
industries pointed out that they have specialized equipment and/or use
different names for some of the types of vehicles that are used in
other industries. Some vehicles that are unique to the marine cargo
handling industry, or are differently named, are: container top
handlers; container reach stackers; straddle carriers; semi-tractors/
utility vehicles; sidehandlers; combination vacuum lifts; and yard
tractors.
[[Page 66255]]
OSHA has considered the comments received on the issue of scope and
has decided not to change the scope provisions of Sec. 1910.178(a).
This means that the final rule's training requirements in paragraph (l)
will apply to any truck covered by the specific industry standard.
Thus, these training requirements would apply, e.g., to container top
handlers in longshoring and marine terminals.
OSHA concludes that the new standard will improve operator training
and reduce fatalities and injuries among those vehicle operators
covered by Sec. 1910.178(a)(1). The accident statistics discussed above
indicate that there is a high incidence of job-related deaths and
injury for operators of all vehicle types. Therefore, narrowing the
scope of the final rule would decrease employee protections and
increase the risk confronting operators, and would thus be contrary to
the goals of the OSH Act. In response to the commenters who recommended
a narrower scope, OSHA notes that the new standard is flexible enough
to allow training to be tailored to the special characteristics of the
workplace and the vehicles used.
Accordingly, the scope of the final standard is broader than that
of the ASME B56.1-1993 standard, which covers only some types of
powered industrial trucks. The final OSHA standard covers all the types
of powered industrial trucks specified at Sec. 1910.178(a)(1), which is
equivalent to the broader scope of the ANSI B56.1-1969 standard.
Therefore, this final rule applies to the vehicles covered by the
following volumes of the consensus standard: Low Lift and High Lift
Trucks, ASME B56.1; Guided Industrial Vehicles, ASME B56.5; Rough
Terrain Forklift Trucks, ASME B56.6; Industrial Crane Trucks, ASME
B56.7; as well as other vehicles that fall within the definition of a
powered industrial truck in Sec. 1910.178(a).
As discussed above, OSHA's existing operator training requirements
for the marine terminal and longshoring industries essentially cover
all powered industrial trucks used in those sectors no matter what
specialized name they are given. OSHA concludes that it is important to
retain this coverage in these sectors, for the same reasons stated
above. There are high accident rates for operators of powered
industrial trucks in these sectors, and the new training provisions are
flexible enough to tailor the training to address the needs of the
operators of specialized vehicles.
Therefore, the final rule applies to all powered industrial trucks
defined as such in ASME B56.1-1969, as well as to other specialized
equipment found in marine cargo handling operations, including but not
limited to straddle carriers, hustlers, toploaders, container reach
stackers, and other vehicles that carry, push, pull, lift, or tier
loads. Training requirements for other material handling equipment,
such as container gantry cranes or derricks, will continue to be
covered by Secs. 1917.27 and 1918.98.
The final rule does not, however, apply to earth moving equipment
or vehicles used for over-the-road hauling. Three commenters suggested
that OSHA clarify the scope of these training requirements (Exs. 7-25,
7-37, and 11-2). These commenters stated that the discussion of the
scope issue in the proposal's preamble could mislead employers into
thinking that earth moving equipment and over-the-road vehicles were
included in the scope because these vehicles can lift and move
material. OSHA agrees that these vehicles are not powered industrial
trucks for the purposes of this rule. Therefore, equipment that was
designed to move earth but has been modified to accept forks is not
covered by this final rule.
C. Paragraph (l)(1)--Safe Operation
At paragraph (l)(1), OSHA requires the employer to ensure that each
powered industrial truck operator is competent to operate such trucks
safely, as demonstrated by the completion of the training and
evaluation required by the final rule. The language of this paragraph
has been changed from that proposed to emphasize the desired result,
i.e., the operator's ability to operate a truck safely.
Twenty one commenters (Exs. 7-3, 7-12, 7-14, 7-25, 7-26, 7-29, 7-
34, 7-39, 7-47, 7-58, 7-59, 7-64, 7-65, 7-69, 11-4, 11-9, 11-15, 11-32,
11-35, 11-38, Tr. p. 153) discussed this proposed requirement. Their
principal concern was that, although all employees can be considered
``potential'' truck operators, this paragraph should apply only to
those employees who actually are, or are being trained to be, powered
industrial truck operators. For example, one commenter (Ex. 7-25)
stated:
Section 1910.178(1)(i)--We recommend the statements * * *
``ensure that each potential operator'' * * * be changed to * * *
``ensure that each candidate for operator qualification'' * * * This
will avoid any confusion about who needs to be evaluated. Every
employee can be considered a potential operator, but only select
employees will be candidates for certification as qualified and
authorized operators by the employer.
OSHA agrees with these commenters and has revised the language of
the final rule to make clear that only powered industrial truck
operators and trainees, and not all ``potential'' operators, as
proposed, are covered. However, an employee who has other duties, but
sometimes operates a powered industrial truck, is covered by this
paragraph.
Paragraph (l)(1)(ii) requires the employer to ensure that before an
employee is permitted to operate a powered industrial truck, except for
training purposes, the employee has successfully completed the required
training, including an evaluation of the efficacy of that training,
except as permitted by paragraph (l)(5) of this section. The language
of this paragraph has been changed from that of the corresponding
proposed paragraph. The requirement that the operator ``successfully
complete'' the training and evaluation required by the new standard has
been retained, and the paragraph has been simplified for clarity.
Proposed paragraph (l)(1)(ii) had three elements; however, the
final rule focuses only on one major point because the other two are
addressed elsewhere in the final rule. In the proposal, the employer
was required to have each operator trained, evaluated by a designated
person, and determined by that person to be ``performing the required
duties safely.'' As now written, the employer must ensure that each
operator has successfully completed the required training and
evaluation except as permitted by paragraph (l)(5). There are a number
of ways the employer can do this. Outside qualified training
organizations can provide evidence that the employee has successfully
completed the relevant training topics, both classroom and practical.
The employer may also have an employee perform the training, which
would allow the employer to certify that the employee has successfully
completed the training. In the final rule, paragraph (l)(1)(ii) does
not stipulate that a designated person conduct the training and
evaluation of each operator and make a determination that the operator
is performing safely. This is because paragraph (l)(2)(iii)
specifically sets out the capabilities of persons performing the
training, and paragraph (l)(2)(ii) stipulates that the training is to
include both a demonstration and evaluation component (``Training shall
consist of a combination of formal instruction * * *, practical
training (demonstrations * * * by the trainee), and evaluation of the
operator's performance in the workplace.''). There
[[Page 66256]]
is no reason to identify a person with the required capabilities as a
``designated'' person, as proposed.
During this rulemaking, there was some comment about training
resources available to the employer. (See Exs. 7-15, 7-16, 7-27, 7-51,
7-60, 11-1, 11-8, 11-41, 11-46, 28, Tr. pp. 37, 49, 76, 94.) For
example, one commenter (Ex. 11-1) stated:
As North America's largest Powered Industrial Truck training
organization (established in 1981), we welcome the opportunity to
provide input into these long overdue regulations. To date, our
organization's mobile equipment training programs have trained over
125,000 operators and 3500 trainers.
It is clear to OSHA from the comments and testimony of training
organizations that there are adequate resources if employers choose to
hire outside training providers. Additionally, truck manufacturers and
dealers can provide information and assistance in developing a training
program.
OSHA concludes that an evaluation component must be an integral
part of the training process if accidents, injuries, and deaths
resulting from unsafe powered industrial truck operation are to be
reduced. As discussed above (see especially the discussion of the
Jensen and Cohen studies in section IV of this preamble), the training
and reinforcement that will be done in part through the formal
training, demonstration, and evaluation process is a highly effective
way of reducing unsafe practices. The practical exercises,
demonstrations, and evaluations required as part of each operator's
training also will determine whether the employee can competently
perform an operator's duties safely.
Finally, paragraph (l)(1)(ii) does not permit an employee to
operate a powered industrial truck without supervision until the
required training has been completed (see the exception discussed below
in connection with paragraph (l)(2)(i)). This requirement is included
in the final rule to minimize driving by untrained operators.
D. Training Program Implementation--Paragraph (l)(2)
Paragraph (l)(2) permits trainees to receive practical training in
truck operation only in areas where it is safe to do so, sets forth the
types of training that are to be given to all powered industrial truck
operators, and establishes the qualifications of trainers and
evaluators. This paragraph has been revised slightly from the
corresponding provisions in the proposal.
Paragraph (l)(2)(i) allows trainees to operate powered industrial
trucks provided that the operation is under the direct supervision of a
person with the requisite knowledge, training, or experience and the
training is conducted in areas where there is minimum danger to the
trainee and other employees. This is a change from the proposal, which
included the further restriction that no other employee be present
while practical training is being conducted. OSHA has revised this
requirement based on comments that stated that the proposed restriction
might not be possible at some businesses. For example, one commenter
(Ex. 7-34) stated:
Paragraph (l)(2)(i) requires that trainees, under the
supervision of the designated person, be allowed to operate a
powered industrial truck ``provided the operation of the vehicle is
conducted in an area where other employees are not near and the
operation of the truck is under controlled conditions.'' Dow
believes that this provision needs to be modified. The requirement
that other employees may not be near the training area implies that
a segregated area must be established. Not only would this add a
significant cost to training (especially for low frequency training
and space-limited work areas), but also ignores the fact that
without great expense to recreate the work environment, the training
then would not reflect real work scenarios. The trainee must learn
how to maneuver appropriately around the facility including around
obstacles such as other employees, etc. It is more appropriate that
those working in or around the training area be made aware of the
training activities. Instead of segregating the area, the area
should be controlled. The presence of the ``designated person''
conducting the training can assist in this regard. As a result, Dow
recommends that this provision be modified to read,
Trainees under the direct supervision of the designated person
may be allowed to operate a vehicle in a controlled area. Employees
in the surrounding area should be alerted to the training activities
which are occurring in their area.
The above language allows the employer the flexibility to
determine how best to comply with this requirement. It allows those
employers who have the resources and the inclination to create a
segregated area to do so while preserving the flexibility of other
employers to select another adequate method.
Another commenter (Ex. 7-71) stated:
While the flexibility provided by allowing trainees to operate a
powered industrial truck under direct supervision is appropriate and
necessary, the restriction that operation be conducted ``in an area
where other employees are not near and the operation of the truck is
under controlled conditions'' [1910.178(l)(2)(i)(sic)] is vague and
[potentially] impractical or unreasonable. Because of space
limitations and training program requirements, training may need to
be conducted in work areas. Since it is stipulated that training be
under the direct supervision of a qualified trainer, we believe that
additional restriction is unnecessary and perhaps redundant.
OSHA agrees with these commenters, and is making the final
provision more flexible than the proposed requirement. The final rule
allows practical (hands-on) training in truck operation even if other
employees are present, providing that the training is done in a safe
manner.
Proposed paragraph (l)(2)(i) included provisions that were
duplicative of other proposed provisions. OSHA has removed the
duplicative provisions from the final rule. The proposed language
stating that employers must ``implement training'' has been dropped, to
eliminate the implication that the employer could not contract out the
training to an outside trainer or training organization. However, the
employer's responsibility for training remains clearly stated at
paragraph (l)(1)(ii) to ensure that employees successfully complete the
required training and evaluation, no matter who provides it.
OSHA requires at paragraph (l)(2)(ii) that the training consist of
a combination of classroom type instruction, demonstrations by the
trainer, practical training, and evaluation of the operator's ability
to apply the training in the workplace. The Agency believes that only a
combination of training methods will ensure effective employee
training. Classroom type training is necessary to teach some of the
principles of vehicle operation and provide the basis for practical
training. Hands-on (practical) training provides the trainee with the
necessary physical skills and enhances the employee's ability to
operate a powered industrial truck safely. Demonstrations by the
trainer will impart important information to the trainee. In addition,
evaluation of the trainee's ability to operate the truck safely in the
workplace will ensure that the trainee has successfully transferred the
skills learned to the work environment.
No commenters opposed the need for practical training. There was
some comment about the need for classroom training, however.
One commenter (Tr. p. 212), in response to a question about whether
classroom or practical training was preferable, responded:
We think both are necessary. Number one, we need the
reinforcement of the hands-on plus the classroom training, however.
The other issue, there are several issues that need to be
covered in a classrooom for them to be understood when they're on
the truck. Let me give you one example.
[[Page 66257]]
Lift trucks, as you know, are three point suspension. You can
have an operator sitting on a lift truck and you try to explain
that. But unless he's seen it, he or she has seen it and unless it
has been explained to them and illustrated to them, it's very
difficult for them to grasp the concept of three point suspension on
a four wheel truck. That can be explained in a classroom and then,
hopefully, it won't have to be demonstrated because demonstrated
would mean a tipped over truck.
But there are certain things that cannot be demonstrated as
adequately as they can be shown in graphs, slides and explained and
tested in the book and there are certain things that cannot be
covered in the operation. But those things that can, it simply
reinforced them.
I think most of us, in our education, understand that any
reinforcement we can get all the way from demonstration to
illustration, in print and in slides or videos is just reinforcement
and helps the learning process to take effect much more deeply.
Another commenter (Ex. 7-31) stated:
The proposal requires that training consist of a combination of
classroom instruction and practical training. In small workplaces
with few employees classroom instruction, per se, may not be
practicable. Training needs to include a combination of methods and
be flexible enough to work in different work environments and
applications. Classroom instruction is but one way that preliminary
instruction can be provided as a prelude to practical training
exercises. The method of providing face-to-face instruction should
be at the instructor's discretion.
We suggest that subparagraph (ii) be modified to read: Training
shall consist of a combination of instruction (classroom, lecture,
audiovisual aids, and/or conference) and practical training
(demonstrations and practical exercises by the trainee).
Several commenters (Exs. 7-31, 7-35, 7-36, 7-47, 7-49, 11-15, Tr.
pp. 24, 153) suggested that classroom training was impractical,
particularly when a small business employer has one trainee being
trained by a supervisor. Both the proposed and final standard make
clear that the ``classroom'' part of the training need not take place
in a classroom, but can consist of other methods such as discussions,
review of printed material, or viewing of video tapes. Discussions can
consist of the trainer talking to the trainee and explaining the
training material, either in the workplace or in another location. The
Agency's intent was not to limit the flexibility of the employer by
requiring that any phase of the training be conducted in a classroom.
Rather, the rule requires that the training include an explanatory
element as well as a practical element. To make this clearer, the word
``classroom'' has been changed to the word ``formal,'' and examples of
different kinds of formal training have been listed in parentheses.
Some of the topics that OSHA lists at paragraph (l)(3) lend
themselves to being taught in a formal way. For example, teaching a
trainee about vehicle stability by having the trainee tip over a
powered industrial truck does not make sense and is not an effective
way to learn about that principle. Stability is best learned initially
by having the trainer explain the concept of stability, the causes of
instability, and the ways to avoid instability. Practical training then
may reinforce how to avoid creating an unsafe condition. On the other
hand, telling someone what it is like to drive a powered industrial
truck with front wheel drive and rear wheel steering is not sufficient
to teach the trainee how to operate the vehicle safely, and
considerable practical training is also necessary to teach the
necessary skills.
The training also includes an evaluation of the operator's
performance in the workplace. This is necessary to determine that the
operator can effectively utilize all the training to drive safely in
the workplace. This is similar to the requirement that was part of
paragraph (l)(2)(ii) of the proposal. There was no opposition to the
requirement.
OSHA concludes that powered industrial truck operators need to be
trained using a combination of classroom type and practical training.
Some elements are better taught using one or the other type of
training, and often both methods of training are needed. As one hearing
participant (Tr. p. 35) stated:
The first point that I would like to comment on is I believe
that initial certification training should include both classroom
and operational training. This belief is based on the fact that in
many cases what I have seen is without giving the correct
instruction prior to individuals getting onto equipment, is they
tend to develop some very bad habits quickly. I believe giving them
the appropriate information initially and then reinforcing that
while on the truck is the most effective way to train that. I also
believe that with the initial certification, both evaluation of the
classroom and the operational performance should be required. Again,
this is to identify that they do have the correct knowledge of the
equipment and that they have the skills to operate the equipment
effectively.
At paragraph (l)(2)(iii), OSHA requires that all training and
evaluation required by this standard be conducted by persons with the
requisite knowledge, training, or experience to train operators. As
discussed elsewhere in this preamble, the employer may have the
necessary prerequisites to qualify as a trainer and evaluator, or he or
she may assign the responsibility for training and evaluation to one or
more employees or an outside trainer and evaluator having those
prerequisites. There were several comments on this provision.
One commenter (Ex. 7-34) stated:
Paragraph (l)(2)(iii) provides that training and evaluations
must be conducted by a ``designated person.'' Dow is concerned as to
what OSHA means by the term ``designated person.'' Hopefully, OSHA
does not envision that one person must be hired to specifically
conduct the training and evaluations. Dow recommends that the term
``designated person'' be broadly defined to include employees who
have been through the training (or possibly an instructor from the
training course) and have demonstrated sufficient knowledge and
skill to fulfill this role.
Moreover, Dow believes paragraph (l)(2)(iii) must be modified to
reflect that training may be handled by a variety of instructors,
not merely one ``designated person.'' For large facilities with
multiple departments it may be more appropriate that there be
multiple trainers with each focusing on specific elements of the
training program. For example, one person would discuss the
technical characteristics of the vehicle while another person would
discuss the specific loading types for their particular department.
Therefore, Dow recommends OSHA modify this section to allow
facilities the flexibility to have multiple ``designated persons.''
OSHA has concluded that the final rule should adopt a performance-
oriented approach to the qualifications of trainers and evaluators. As
discussed above under issue 1, OSHA does not have the resources to
evaluate and certify trainers and does not consider it necessary to do
so. Trainers and evaluators with different backgrounds can achieve the
level of ability necessary to teach and evaluate trainees. To meet
these commenters' concerns, OSHA has eliminated the term ``designated
person'' from the final rule and has instead described the knowledge,
skills, or experience any trainer or evaluator must have under the
standard.
The Agency finds that this approach will eliminate problems,
especially in the construction industry, where terms such as
``designated person,'' ``authorized person,'' ``competent person,''
``qualified person,'' and others, have distinct meanings and
definitions. As written in the final rule, an employee with the
requisite knowledge, training, and experience could himself or herself
conduct the required training (both initial and refresher) and
evaluations. An employer could also employ one or more such persons, or
could contract with an outside training organization to conduct the
required training and evaluation activities.
This change responds to comments (see, e.g., Exs. 11-10A, 11-29,
11-5, 11-
[[Page 66258]]
6A) submitted to the record. For example, a comment submitted by
Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLC, on behalf of a client, the Miller
Brewing Company, explains that, in today's environment, which is
characterized by ``declining levels of supervision and increasing
employee participation and empowerment,'' the person conducting the
training and evaluation would in all likelihood be an employee (Ex. 11-
29). Another comment from the American Society of Safety Engineers
(ASSE) urged OSHA to use language in the final rule that would clearly
recognize training given by ``qualified third parties when a company
does not have a qualified staff instructor'' (Ex. 11-5). The Mobil Oil
Company (Ex. 11-6A) expressed the view that a designated person was not
needed succinctly: ``the requirement for operator certification by a
``designated person'' is not practical and would hinder the quality and
timeliness of operator training.''
E. Training Program Content--Paragraph (l)(3)
To ensure that the training provided to powered industrial truck
operators contains the appropriate information for the operator, the
final rule includes a list of subjects that must be mastered in order
to operate a truck safely. Paragraph (l)(3) states that all of the
topics must be covered in operator training unless the employer can
demonstrate that one or more of these topics is not necessary for safe
operation in a particular workplace. It is the employer's
responsibility to ensure that operators successfully complete all
needed training and that the appropriate subjects are taught, including
those that are pertinent to the type(s) of truck the operator will be
allowed to operate and the work environment in which the vehicle(s)
will be operated. Paragraph (l)(3) permits the employer to exclude
those topics that are not relevant to safe operation at the employee's
work location. However, the employer has the responsibility of
demonstrating that these topics are not needed.
For example, if the operator will be operating an order picker,
that employee must be trained in, e.g., the location and function of
the controls; the location and operation of the engine or motor;
steering and maneuvering; visibility; inspection and maintenance that
the operator will be expected to perform; and the other general
operating functions of the vehicle listed in paragraphs (l)(3)(i)(A)
through (M) as well as the workplace-related topics covered in
paragraph (l)(3)(ii)(A) through (I). The employee also must be taught
and understand, for example, that he or she must be restrained from
falling when the platform of the truck is in an elevated position and
that he/she must never drive the truck when the platform is elevated
(except as specified in the operator's manual). Under paragraph (l)(3),
it is the employer's responsibility to ensure that the necessary
elements of the training for the type(s) of vehicle to be used and the
workplace in which that vehicle(s) will be operated are included in the
training.
Some of the elements may be omitted if the employer can demonstrate
that they are not relevant to safe powered industrial truck operation
in the employer's workplace. In such cases, the employer must be able
to demonstrate that a particular topic on the list is not relevant to
the training program because that element does not apply to the type of
vehicle(s) in use, or because the workplace condition addressed by the
element does not exist. For example, if a powered industrial truck is
not used in a hazardous environment (gases, vapors, combustibles--see
paragraph 1910.178(c)), no training in this element is needed.
Similarly, if the truck will be operated on smooth concrete floors, no
training needs to be given on operating on rough terrain.
There were several comments (Exs. 7-7, 7-12, 7-13, 7-14, 7-16, 7-
34, 7-36, 7-39, 7-65, 7-67, 7-69, 7-70, 11-5, 11-10, 11-11, 11-12, 11-
14, 11-15, 11-18, 11-24, 11-29, 11-30, 11-31, 11-32, 11-37, 11-44, 11-
45, 29, Tr. pp. 49, 54, 71, 336) that discussed one or more of the
topics included in the training program. Some commenters and ACCSH
(Exs. 11-5, 7-13, 11-18) suggested that describing the similarities of
powered industrial trucks and automobiles could lead a trainee to
believe that being able to drive a car automatically means being able
to safely operate a powered industrial truck. On the other hand,
according to these commenters, emphasizing the differences between
driving a car and operating a powered industrial truck would help to
clarify important differences, e.g., in steering, stability, and other
characteristics.
For example one commenter (Ex. 7-13) stated:
In section (3)(i)(B), delete * * * ``Similarities to and
differences from the automobile * * *'' What does this have to do
with operating industrial trucks and why does it have to be included
in training? It should be noted that experience with automobiles on
the country's highways is far worse than the experience of industry
with the use of industrial trucks. Section (3)(iii) should be
deleted or reworded. As stated, an employer could be cited for
violations if they have not covered the OSHA Standard as a mandatory
part of training. However, it is not agreed that this would
significantly improve the overall safety of industrial truck
operations.
Another commenter (Ex. 11-5) disagreed:
ASSE believes it is appropriate to differentiate between
operating a powered industrial truck and a car. The different
steering techniques and the hazards unique to industrial truck
operations, we believe, makes such training necessary.
The language of paragraph (l)(3) has been changed slightly in the final
rule to emphasize the need to explain the differences between
industrial trucks and automobiles.
There also was comment about whether operators must learn all about
servicing and maintaining a powered industrial truck if they will not
have to perform that servicing and maintenance. For example, one
commenter (Ex. 7-39) stated:
Subparagraph (i)(D) should be deleted in its entirety. The
phrase ``and maintenance'' should be deleted from subparagraph
(i)(J).
These topics have no bearing on the operator's ability to
operate a forklift in a safe manner. The operator does not require
knowledge in how an internal combustion power plant or an electrical
battery works or is maintained in order to safely operate a
forklift. Unless the operator is going to perform this specialized
work, there is no need to train the operator in such topics.
OSHA agrees with these commenters' contentions and has changed the
final rule accordingly. Paragraph (l)(3)(i)(J) is now written to
clarify that if an operator has no servicing responsibilities, that
operator need not be trained in how to conduct that servicing activity.
On the other hand, if the operator is required to perform any servicing
or maintenance on a vehicle, that operator should know how to perform
that servicing or maintenance.
The training topics included in this final rule were developed from
those contained in the ASME B56.1-1993 standard. Much professional
expertise has gone into their development. Many commenters (see, e.g.,
Exs. 11-10A, 11-18, 11-19, 11-25) generally supported the topics
listed. For example, one hearing participant (Tr. p. 54) stated:
In my opinion, there are a vast number of industries, many
largely diversified within themselves, using a multitude of various
classifications of lift trucks. Within these classifications there
may be multiple attachment applications. Thus, I support the
position of OSHA giving the employer the option to eliminate a topic
from the list of required subjects provided the employer can
demonstrate that the topic is unrelated to the work environment.
There are certain topics which are necessary for operators to
thoroughly understand and appreciate.
[[Page 66259]]
Another commenter (Ex. 11-18) stated:
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters feels that the
current list of topics is comprehensive and should not be
substantially altered.
OSHA concludes that the topics proposed, as modified in the final
rule based on public input, are appropriate as the basis of effective
powered industrial truck operator training programs.
In developing training programs for different types of vehicles,
there are certain elements that are common to each program. When
training operators of different types of vehicles, employers can take
advantage of these similarities by only training employees once on
these common subjects. This principle reflects the Agency's desire to
allow employers to conduct the training as efficiently and
inexpensively as possible while ensuring that the training is adequate.
F. Refresher Training and Evaluation--Paragraph (l)(4)
Paragraph (l)(4)(i) requires employers to provide refresher
training as required by paragraph (l)(4)(ii) to ensure that the
operator continues to have the knowledge and skills to operate the
powered industrial truck safely. Refresher training, which is triggered
by the occurrence of the events listed in paragraph (l)(4)(ii),
complements the initial training required by paragraph (l)(3) and
serves to reinforce that initial training. The refresher training also
includes an informal evaluation component that might involve, for
example, observing the operator to ensure that he or she has mastered
the skills necessary to address any performance deficiency or has
developed the skills to operate a new type of truck safely.
An instance of unsafe operation, or an accident, or a near-miss
incident, triggers refresher training as specified in paragraph
(l)(4)(ii). Such refresher training also is needed if evaluation
reveals that an operator is not operating the truck safely, or if an
operator is assigned to drive another type of powered industrial truck
or to work in substantially different or changed conditions. The type
and amount of training needed in the refresher training depend on
several factors, including: the different characteristics of the new
type of truck or terrain; the practice or practices that the evaluation
indicated needed improvement; the nature of the unsafe act; and the
potential for an accident to occur. OSHA's decision not to specify the
frequency of refresher training but to require it to be provided on an
as-needed basis is discussed elsewhere in this preamble. The final rule
provides a performance-oriented and cost-effective approach to
refresher training. It also requires, at paragraph (l)(4)(i),
evaluation of the effectiveness of the refresher training, to ensure
that safe practices have been reinforced. This evaluation can be brief
and informal. Many comments addressed this provision (Exs. 7-13, 7-16,
7-20, 7-21, 7-23, 7-25, 7-26, 7-28, 7-29, 7-31, 7-34, 7-35, 7-38, 7-39,
7-43, 7-44, 7-45, 7-46, 7-47, 7-48, 7-49, 7-52, 7-56, 7-58, 7-59, 7-61,
7-65, 7-67, 7-69, 7-70, 113, 11-4, 11-5, 11-10, 11-12, 11-15, 11-19,
11-20, 11-27, 11-29, 11-31, 11-32, 11-36, 11-38, 11-44, 28, 29, Tr. pp.
27, 36-39, 55, 63-65, 78, 82, 101, 179, 210, 319, 345, 395, 421-422).
Some commenters supported the proposed rule's approach of relying on
certain events, operator practices or workplace conditions to trigger
refresher training. For example, one commenter (Ex. 11-3) stated:
Bell Atlantic believes unsafe operation, accidents or near-
misses are important criteria for determining if refresher/remedial
training is required; however, it is also appropriate for employers
to evaluate employees to ensure the employee retains and uses the
skills, knowledge, and ability needed to operate the powered
industrial truck safely. This evaluation can be accomplished by the
employer conducting periodic work observations of the employee's
operation of the vehicle to identify areas where remedial training
may be needed. The timing of these evaluations should be left to the
discretion of the employer.
Another commenter (Ex. 7-46) stated:
The NAM agrees that employees should be retrained when they are
shown to have operated equipment in an unsafe manner * * *
The final rule, at paragraph (l)(4)(ii), contains the triggers for
refresher training that were proposed, but adds two others: when a
different type of truck or different conditions are introduced or occur
in the workplace. This could include a different type of paving,
reconfiguration of storage racks, new construction leading to narrower
aisles or restricted visibility, etc. These triggers have been added to
the final rule because they are specified in the current ASME standard
(B56.1-1993, section 4.19.5) and because some commenters (see e.g., Ex.
11-5) recommended that OSHA ``follow the requirements of * * * [that
standard] as a guide for refresher/remedial training.''
Some commenters (see, e.g., Exs. 11-3, 11-4, 11-5, 11-10, 11-14,
11-15, 11-25, 11-27, 11-32, 7-13, 7-25, 7-36, 7-45, 7-58) recommended
that periodic evaluations be conducted at less frequent intervals,
rather than annually, as proposed. These commenters suggested that more
frequent evaluations were unnecessary, would interrupt the production
process, and would be burdensome for employers.
OSHA believes that the triennial evaluations required by the final
rule need not take excessive time, be unduly burdensome, or interrupt
the production process. In most cases, the person conducting the
evaluation would do two things: first, observe the powered industrial
truck operator during normal operations to determine if the operator is
performing safely, and second, ask pertinent questions to ensure that
the operator has the knowledge or experience needed to operate a truck
safely. In some cases, because of the danger or complexity of the
operation, the extent of the change in conditions, or the operator's
need for additional skills, the evaluation will need to be lengthier
and more detailed.
The proposed rule would have required employers to evaluate the
driving performance of powered industrial truck operators on an annual
basis. Commenters from general industry, construction, and the maritime
industries (shipyards, marine terminals, and longshoring operations)
objected to the frequency of the proposed evaluations (see e.g., Exs.
7-13, 7-25, 7-28, 7-34, 7-36, 7-45, 7-58, 7-59, 7-69, 7-70, 11-5, 11-
10, 11-14, 11-15, 11-25, 11-27, 11-29, 11-32, 11-36, 11-46). For
example, the American Petroleum Institute (API)(Ex. 11-10) stated:
API * * * emphasizes our position that * * * it would be
unnecessary to evaluate operators annually. Rather, API suggests
that operators be evaluated every three years. This would
substantially reduce the information collection burden, while still
attending to those operators who may require additional training or
who are operating in an unsafe manner.
Arguing along similar lines, the National Association of Home Builders
(NAHB) (Ex. 11-14), stated:
NAHB finds it an unreasonable burden on small employers for OSHA
to require an annual evaluation of each operator * * * This will
just be an unnecessary requirement and expense to small employers
with no clear benefit.
The West Gulf Maritime Association (Ex. 7-66) held the same view,
stating:
Refresher and/or evaluation training shall be provided [only]
when determined necessary by performance.
The Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA)
also questioned the need for annual
[[Page 66260]]
evaluations. Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, stated (Ex. 7-
41):
* * * I question whether * * * it is necessary to perform
official evaluations annually. Particularly in a small workplace,
evaluations--albeit informal--may be ongoing. Furthermore, coupled
with the need for written certification and the requirement for
maintaining records, I am concerned about the paper trail that this
provision would generate as well.
A few commenters (Exs. 7-29, 7-52) favored a biennial evaluation period
rather than the proposed annual interval, but did not present data to
support biennial, rather than triennial, evaluation.
In response to these concerns, the final rule requires that
periodic evaluations of operator performance be conducted only once
every three years. OSHA has revised this provision of the proposal
because the Agency concludes that the final rule's comprehensive
training requirements--initial training and evaluation for all powered
industrial truck operators needing such training; refresher training
and evaluation for any operator observed to be operating unsafely,
involved in an accident or near-miss, determined by evaluation to need
retraining, or called upon to operate a different kind of truck or to
operate under changed workplace conditions; and triennial evaluation to
ensure that the necessary knowledge and skills have been retained--
provide a complete and systematic approach to powered industrial truck
operator training. Given this three-tiered approach to training--
initial training and evaluation, refresher training and evaluation as
needed, and periodic evaluations--annual evaluations are unnecessary.
The final rule, at paragraph (l)(4), reflects this finding.
Paragraph (l)(4)(iii) requires employers to conduct an evaluation
of each powered industrial truck operator's performance once every
three years to ensure that the employee has retained and continues to
use the knowledge and skills necessary for safe operation of the
vehicle. The required evaluation does not have to be a formal,
structured exercise. For example, an evaluation could be as simple as
having a person with the requisite skills, knowledge, and experience
observe the operator performing several typical operations to ensure
that the powered industrial truck is being operated safely and asking
the operator a few questions related to the safe operation of the
vehicle.
G. Avoidance of Duplicative Training--Paragraph (l)(5)
In paragraph (l)(5), the final rule allows employers to forego
those portions of the required training that operators have previously
received. OSHA proposed two similar provisions, one pertaining to new
hires and one to current operators. The final rule combines these two
provisions into one paragraph. The provision at paragraph (l)(5) is
intended to prevent unnecessary or duplicative training both for newly
hired operators and those already on the payroll. For example, if an
operator is already trained in certain aspects of powered industrial
truck operation, knows the necessary information, has been evaluated,
and has proven to be competent to perform the duties of an operator,
there is no reason to require an employer to repeat that operator's
training.
There was a general consensus of opinion supporting the utility of
this provision. (See Exs. 7-25, 7-31, 7-34, 7-39, 7-67, 7-68, 7-69, 11-
12, 11-15, 11-17, 11-18, 11-20, 11-27, 11-28, 11-29, 11-30, 11-37, 11-
42, Tr. pp. 283.) These commenters pointed out that unnecessary and
repetitive training does not use the employer's or the operator's time
productively. If an operator already knows how to operate a powered
industrial truck safely and can demonstrate that ability, there is no
need to further train that operator. OSHA agrees with these commenters,
and the final rule reflects this conclusion.
Paragraph (l)(5) of the final rule provides that an employer need
not provide further training to any operator (whether currently on the
payroll or a new hire) in any training topic in which the operator has
previously received training, if the operator, after evaluation, is
found to be competent to perform the operator's duties safely. The
operator would need additional training in any element(s) for which the
evaluation indicates the need for further training, and for any new
type of equipment or changes in workplace conditions.
In evaluating the applicability and adequacy of an operator's prior
training, the employer may wish to consider these factors: the type of
equipment the operator has operated; how much experience the operator
has had on that equipment; how recently this experience was gained; and
the type of environment in which the operator worked. The employer may,
but is not required to, use written documentation of the earlier
training to determine whether an operator has been properly trained.
The operator's competency may also simply be evaluated by the employer
or another person with the requisite knowledge, skills, and experience
to perform evaluations. The employer can determine from this
information whether the experience is recent and thorough enough, and
whether the operator has demonstrated sufficient competence in
operating the powered industrial truck to forego any or some of the
initial training. Some training on the site-specific factors of the new
operator's workplace is likely always to be necessary.
H. Certification--Paragraph (l)(6)
OSHA proposed to require that employers certify that the required
training and evaluation had been conducted and that the operator was
competent to perform the duties of an operator safely by keeping a
record with the name of the trainee, the dates of the training, and the
signature of the person performing the training or evaluation. OSHA
also proposed that the employer retain the training materials and
course outline and, if the training was conducted by an outside
trainer, the name and address of the trainer.
OSHA has, in this final standard, switched the order of the
paragraphs on Certification and Avoidance of Duplicative Training. It
is more logical to complete all elements of the training program before
reaching the requirement to certify that training has been provided.
Accordingly, the Certification paragraph in the final rule is in
paragraph (l)(6) and the Avoidance of Duplicative Training is at
paragraph (l)(5).
There was considerable comment on the proposed certification
requirements. (See Exs. 7-13, 7-14, 7-16, 7-19, 7-21, 7-25, 7-26, 7-27,
7-34, 7-39, 7-40, 7-44, 7-47, 7-57, 7-58, 7-59, 7-62, 7-67, 7-69, 7-71,
11-3, 11-5, 11-6, 11-10, 11-12, 11-14, 11-15, 11-18, 11-24, 11-27, 11-
28, 11-29, 11-30, 11-31, 11-32, 11-36, 11-37, 11-44, 28, 29, Tr. pp.
25, 51, 56, 102, 122, 155, 178, 203, 308, 321, 335, 341-344, 385, 408,
423.)
Some commenters pointed out that maintaining written certification
records, particularly of training, provides a good means of measuring
compliance with a standard. They pointed out that many conscientious
employers already maintain records of employee training. For example,
one commenter (Ex. 7-39) stated:
Subparagraph (l)(5) requires employers to certify that each
operator has been trained or evaluated. Since training for
training's sake should never be the focus of a training standard,
and since keeping such documentation will not make some a safer
driver, CMA believes that OSHA should require the employer to
document the verification of the knowledge and skill of the forklift
operator. Consistent with the above, CMA recommends that the
documentation include: (1) the authorized operator's name and
personal identifier; (2) the date of
[[Page 66261]]
verification; (3) a reference to the verification method; and (4)
the name of the verifier and personal identifier. The verifier
should not be required to be signed because this prevents the use of
electronic filing.
A second commenter (Ex. 11-3) stated:
In addition, OSHA requested specific comments on the collection
of information requirement proposed in 1910.178(l)(5) which requires
employers to prepare and maintain a record to certify that employees
have been trained and evaluated as required by the proposed
standard. Bell Atlantic provides a four (4) hour training program to
approximately 300 employees who operate powered industrial trucks,
at a cost of $224 per trainee, total training costs = $67,200. This
training is documented on the employee's training record and
maintained in their personnel file. Bell Atlantic fully supports the
use of electronic collection and submission of information wherever
possible.
One hearing participant (Tr. p. 423) stated:
Training records are an important tool for industries. It has
been proven time and time again that analyzing prior training
records before conducting refresher training will enable companies
to identify employee conceptions of existing safety rules and
standard operating procedures.
Some commenters agreed with the need to maintain records, but
suggested that the requirement for a signature be deleted so it would
be easier to computerize the records. (See Exs. 7-13, 7-21, 7-26, 7-27,
7-39, 7-40, 7-47, 7-59, 7-69.) OSHA agrees with these commenters and,
accordingly, has changed the wording of this provision of the final
rule to indicate that the identity of the person performing the
training and evaluation is sufficient; a signature is not required. In
addition, the final rule has substantially streamlined the proposed
certification requirements, reducing the number of items needing to be
certified, and eliminating the requirement to maintain training
materials, course outlines, and other information when outside trainers
are relied on.
Some commenters questioned the need for the employer to retain
written records of the training on the grounds that the purpose of
training is to prepare the trainee to operate a powered industrial
truck in a safe manner and that observing that the operator is driving
safely should be sufficient. For example, one commenter (Ex. 11-14)
said:
These requirements will be a tremendous burden to builders,
especially small builders, who are already overwhelmed by onerous
existing recordkeeping requirements. This new request for
information from the employer seems inappropriate considering the
recent inquiries by OSHA about ways to reduce the paperwork burden
on employers. Why mandate these requests for information now when
they will most likely be identified at a later date as a source of
unnecessary paperwork?
OSHA has been responsive to this comment. The Agency believes that
the final rule's certification requirements will provide the assurance
necessary that the operator has been trained and evaluated, as required
by the standard. However, in response to those who felt that some of
the recordkeeping was unnecessary, OSHA has eliminated the requirement
for employers to maintain training materials and information from
outside trainers. OSHA believes that the certification required by the
final rule is sufficient written evidence that the training and
evaluation required by the standard has occurred.
I. Dates--Paragraph (l)(7)
The proposal did not include start-up dates. There are
approximately 1.5 million powered industrial truck operators, and there
is substantial turnover among these operators. Consequently, employers
will need a reasonable period of time to implement the training and
evaluation required by this final rule. There were a few comments on
start-up dates ranging from immediately to three years. The period OSHA
has chosen is based on its experience in implementing other safety
standards.
The table in the final rule sets out the operator's employment
status, and when the initial training and evaluation of operators must
be completed. OSHA finds that the use of a table, rather than several
written requirements, increases clarity and avoids confusion.
J. Appendix
OSHA has included a non-mandatory appendix in the final rule.
Appendix A provides guidance to employers and employees on
understanding the basic principles of truck stability. The information
contained in this appendix is not intended to provide an exhaustive
explanation; rather, it is intended to introduce basic concepts that
the employer may use in developing and implementing a training program.
The material in the appendix does not add to or reduce any of the
mandatory requirements of these standards.
OSHA proposed a non-mandatory Appendix A that contained lists of
training topics and other guidance and was primarily based on the
current consensus standard, ASME B56.1-1993. Because most of the
information in proposed Appendix A is included in the final rule itself
at paragraph (l)(3), OSHA has not included proposed Appendix A in the
final rule.
The appendix proposed as Appendix B is retained, and has been
designated Appendix A in the final rule.
K. Statement of Reasons for Publishing This Standard in Lieu of the
National Consensus Standard
In accordance with section 6(b)(8) of the OSH Act, the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement (NTTAA) and OMB circular A-119,
which implements the NTTAA, OSHA has reviewed the voluntary consensus
standard, Safety Standard for Low Lift and High Lift Trucks (ASME
B56.1-1993), and has made extensive use of it in developing its final
rule. Where there are differences between OSHA's standard and the
consensus standard, they are based on several considerations. First,
the Agency bases its standards on the rulemaking record. Second,
voluntary consensus standards are not always written with enforcement
in mind. Third, the consensus standard contains more detail than is
necessary in an OSHA standard. OSHA has developed a final rule that is
flexible and protective, as well as performance-based. For these
reasons, the Agency finds that the final rule better effectuates the
purposes of the Act than the consensus standard.
IX. Statutory Considerations
Section 2(b)(3) of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act
authorizes ``the Secretary of Labor to set mandatory occupational
safety and health standards applicable to businesses affecting
interstate commerce,'' and section 5(a)(2) provides that ``each
employer shall comply with occupational safety and health standards
promulgated under this Act'' (emphasis added). Section 3(8) of the OSH
Act (29 U.S.C. 652(8)) provides that ``the term `occupational safety
and health standard' means a standard which requires conditions, or the
adoption or use of one or more practices, means, methods, operations,
or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or
healthful employment and places of employment.''
OSHA considers a standard to be ``reasonably necessary or
appropriate'' within the meaning of section 3(8) if it meets the
following criteria: (1) The standard will substantially reduce a
significant risk of material harm; (2) compliance is technologically
feasible in the sense that the protective measures being required
already exist, can be brought into existence with available technology,
or can be created with
[[Page 66262]]
technology that can reasonably be developed; (3) compliance is
economically feasible in the sense that industry can absorb or pass on
the costs without major dislocation or threat of instability; and (4)
the standard is cost effective in that it employs the least expensive
of equally protective measures capable of reducing or eliminating
significant risk.
Additionally, safety standards that differ from national consensus
standards must better effectuate the Act's protective purpose than the
corresponding national consensus standards, must be compatible with
prior agency action, must be responsive to significant comment in the
record, and, to the extent allowed by statute, must be consistent with
applicable Executive Orders. OSHA believes that applying these criteria
results in standards that provide a high degree of worker protection
without imposing an undue burden on employers. (See the discussion of
60 FR 13796-13799, March 14, 1995, for a detailed analysis of the case
law.)
As discussed in various places in this preamble, OSHA has
determined that the operation of powered industrial trucks by untrained
or inadequately trained operators poses significant risks to employees.
There have been, on average, 101 fatalities and 94,570 injuries
annually due to unsafe powered industrial truck operation. OSHA
estimates that compliance with these revised training requirements for
powered industrial truck operators will prevent approximately 11
fatalities and 9,422 injuries annually. This constitutes a substantial
reduction in the significant risk of material harm currently posed to
these employees.
There are no technological obstacles to compliance with the final
rule. There are currently training requirements for powered industrial
truck operators in general industry (Sec. 1910.178(1)), in construction
(Sec. 1926.602(c)(1) (vi))(adopted by reference), and in the marine
cargo handling industries (Secs. 1917.27(a) and 1918.98(a)
(requirements for all vehicle operators)). Shipyard employment is
covered by the general industry standard. The final rule merely
specifies in more detail what is to be taught to powered industrial
truck operators and requires the employer to retrain operators when
workplace conditions, other changes, or accidents or near-misses
indicate that such retraining is necessary, and to institute effective
evaluation measures to ensure continued safe vehicle operation. In many
companies, the vehicle operator's training and periodic evaluations
required by the standard have already been implemented.
OSHA also concludes that compliance is economically feasible
because, as documented in the Final Economic Analysis, all regulated
sectors can readily absorb or pass on compliance costs. OSHA estimates
total annualized costs of $16.9 million, a cost that imposes only a
negligible impact of 0.0002 percent of sales and less than 0.01 percent
of pretax profits on firms in the regulated industries.
No industry segment or subsegment will experience substantial
economic impact. The largest impact for any two-digit SIC is 0.0014
percent of sales or 0.021 percent of pretax profits and for the small
business component of affected SICs, the largest impact is 0.001
percent of sales or 0.024 percent of pretax profits. Because of the
large amount of data supplied by the Industrial Truck Association, OSHA
has been able to prepare an analysis at the three-digit SIC level. No
significant impacts were found at any level. Consequently, the new
standard is determined to be economically feasible for firms in
affected industries.
The standard's costs and compliance requirements are reasonable,
amounting to approximately $16.9 million per year. An estimated 11
fatalities and 9422 injuries will be averted per year by compliance
with the standard.
As discussed above, many of the provisions of the final standard
are based on the training provisions of the current ASME consensus
standard (ASME B56.1-1993). Pursuant to section 6(b)(8) of the OSH Act,
OSHA has explained why the provisions of the final rule that differ
from the ASME standard better effectuate the purpose of the Act.
Conclusion
This final powered industrial truck standard, like other safety
standards, is subject to the constraints of section 3(8) of the OSH
Act, and must be ``reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe
or healthful employment and places of employment.''
The Agency concludes that allowing an untrained or poorly trained
employee to use a powered industrial truck poses significant risks,
both to the operator and to other workers in the vicinity of the truck.
To protect employees from those risks, it is necessary to require that
only properly trained employees operate these vehicles. OSHA has
determined that compliance with this operator training standard is
technologically feasible because many companies currently offer the
type of training that this standard requires. OSHA also concludes that
compliance is economically feasible, because, as documented by the
Final Economic Analysis (Ex. 38), all regulated sectors can readily
absorb or pass on initial compliance costs while realizing substantial
benefits. In addition to reducing fatalities and injuries, the Agency
believes that compliance with the powered industrial truck training
requirements will result in substantial cost savings and productivity
gains at facilities that use powered industrial trucks, as discussed
below.
As detailed in OSHA's March 14, 1995 notice (60 FR 13799), in the
January 30, 1996 notice (61 FR 3092 and 3094), in this preamble, and in
the Final Economic Analysis, the standard's costs, benefits, and
compliance requirements are consistent with those of other OSHA safety
standards.
X. Summary of the Final Economic Analysis, including the Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis
Introduction
The OSH Act requires OSHA to demonstrate the technical and economic
feasibility of its rules. Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory
Flexibility Act require Federal agencies to analyze the costs,
benefits, and other consequences and impacts, including small business
impacts, of their rules. Consistent with these requirements, OSHA has
prepared a Final Economic Analysis (FEA) to accompany the final
standard being published today. The final powered industrial truck
operator training requirements will supplement and expand on the
minimal training requirements previously found in OSHA's general
industry standard (29 CFR 1910.178(l)) and will also apply to powered
industrial truck operators in the marine cargo handling and
construction industries.
It has been determined that this is an economically significant
regulatory action under E.O. 12866, and a major rule under the
Congressional Review provisions of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act. Accordingly, OSHA has provided OIRA with an
assessment of the costs, benefits and alternatives, as required by
section 6(a)(3)(C) of E.O. 12866, which is summarized below.
This economic analysis includes a description of the industries
affected by the standard, an assessment of the benefits attributable to
adoption of the final standard, a determination of the technological
feasibility of the standard's provisions, an estimate of the costs of
compliance, a determination of the economic feasibility of compliance
[[Page 66263]]
with the final provisions, and an analysis of the economic and other
impacts of the final rule on establishments, including small
establishments, in the affected industries. For a full discussion of
the data, analysis, and results presented in this summary, see the
Final Economic Analysis in this rulemaking docket [Ex. 38].
Affected Industries
Using powered industrial truck sales data provided by the
Industrial Truck Association (ITA), OSHA estimates that there are
998,671 industrial trucks in use in industries covered by the final
standard. These industries include the agricultural services segment
(SIC 07) of the agricultural industry, the oil and gas extraction
segment of the mining industry (which are covered by OSHA's general
industry standards), the construction sector (SICs 15-17),
manufacturing (SICs 20-39), the transportation and utilities sectors
(SICs 41-49), the wholesale and retail sectors (SICs 50-59), the
finance, insurance, and real estate sectors (SICs 60-67), and the
services sectors (SICs 70-89). Industries with the largest number of
powered industrial trucks include wholesale trade-non-durable goods
(SIC 51), with an estimated 127,259 powered industrial trucks, and food
and kindred products (SIC 20), with an estimated 82,144 such trucks.
The construction and marine cargo handling (SIC 4491) sectors are
estimated to have about 46,456 and 3,243 powered industrial trucks,
respectively.
This final OSHA standard covers workers who operate powered
industrial trucks. This includes operators using these vehicles in the
general industry, construction, and maritime sectors (including
shipyards, marine terminals, and longshoring operations). The
population-at-risk in powered industrial truck accidents consists
primarily of the operators of these trucks. Operators of powered
industrial trucks include workers employed as designated truck
operators as well as those who might operate powered industrial trucks
as part of another job. These alternate users of powered industrial
trucks include shipping and receiving clerks, order pickers,
maintenance personnel, and general temporary workers. Non-driving
workers such as warehouse personnel, material handlers, laborers, and
pedestrians who work on or are present in the vicinity of powered
industrial trucks are also injured and killed in powered industrial
truck accidents.
OSHA estimates that approximately 1.5 million workers are employed
as industrial truck operators in the industries covered by this rule.
Industries with the largest number of operators include wholesale trade
(SIC 51), with 190,889 operators, and food and kindred products (SIC
20), with 123,215 operators. OSHA estimates that there are 69,684 and
12,973 powered industrial truck operators in the construction and
marine cargo handling sectors, respectively.
Technological Feasibility
OSHA could not identify any requirement in the final standard that
raises technological feasibility problems for establishments that use
industrial trucks. On the contrary, there is substantial evidence that
establishments can achieve compliance with all of the final rule's
requirements using existing methods and equipment. In addition, the
standard introduces no technological requirements of any type.
Therefore, OSHA has concluded that the standard is technologically
feasible for firms in all affected sectors.
Costs of Compliance
This final industrial truck operator training standard expands the
training of truck operators already required by OSHA's existing
standards (29 CFR 1910.178(l), 1917.27(a), 1918.98(a), and 1926.602(c))
to include information on operating trucks safely and on warnings
appropriate to the type of truck used, the specific hazards found in
the workplace where the truck will be operated, and the requirements of
this standard. Additionally, the final standard requires employers to
monitor the performance of industrial truck operators through a
triennial evaluation and to provide refresher training when this
evaluation, or other events, suggest that such training is needed.
OSHA estimates the annual cost of compliance with the final
standard to be about $16.9 million for all affected establishments in
all covered industries. Table 11 outlines the annual costs by each
sector affected by the final standard. Industry sectors with the
highest estimated annualized compliance costs are manufacturing, with
annual costs of $8.3 million, and wholesale and retail trade, with
annual costs of $4.5 million. The annual costs of compliance for the
construction and marine cargo handling sectors are estimated to be $1.0
and $0.2 million, respectively. Existing industry practice was taken
into consideration when calculating costs, i.e., where employers have
already voluntarily implemented practices that would be required by the
final standard, no cost for these practices is attributed to the
standard.
These estimates of the costs of compliance are lower than was the
case for the proposed standard. The lower costs principally result from
a change to the final rule that permits evaluations of operators to be
performed once every three years rather than once every year, as
proposed. Other minor changes to the standard also will result in lower
costs and improved compliance, such as simplified certification, and
these are discussed above in this Preamble as well as in the full FEA.
Table 11.--Estimated Annualized Compliance Costs for the Final Industrial Truck Operator Training Standard, by
Provision and Industry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Triennial Refresher Total annual
Industry sector training evaluation training cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture..................................... $13,023 $3,788 $940 $17,751
Mining--Oil and Gas Extraction (SIC 13)......... 21,667 6,302 1,564 29,533
Construction.................................... 706,888 205,607 51,031 963,527
Manufacturing................................... 6,061,548 1,763,078 437,594 8,262,220
Transportation and Utilities except SIC 4491.... 1,454,997 423,204 105,039 1,983,241
Longshoring and Marine Terminals (SIC 4491)..... 157,261 58,810 11,353 227,424
Wholesale and Retail Trade...................... 3,282,343 954,711 236,958 4,474,012
Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate............... 47,594 13,843 3,436 64,873
Services........................................ 626,186 182,134 45,205 853,525
Total....................................... 12,371,506 3,611,478 893,121 16,876,105
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: US Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, 1997.
Costs are annualized over 10 years at a 7 percent discount rate (annualization factor 0.1424).
[[Page 66264]]
Note: totals may not add due to rounding.
Many commenters (see, e.g., Exs. 11-3, 11-21, 7-60) to the record
stated that the Agency had underestimated the costs of the standard. In
most cases, these commenters failed to note that about 75 percent of
affected establishments currently provide training that is equivalent,
or nearly equivalent, to that required by the final standard. The
Agency's estimate of 5.5 hours for initial training was within ranges
provided by several commenters (4 hours, Bell Atlantic, Ex. 11-3; 8
hours, Tennessee Valley Authority, Ex. 11-21 and Monaco Group, Inc.,
Ex. 7-60).
Many commenters also questioned the utility of the annual
evaluations proposed by OSHA, and several suggested that triennial
evaluations of operator competence would be sufficient (see, e.g.,
American Society of Safety Engineers, Ex. 11-5; U.S. Small Business
Administration, Ex. 7-41; and International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Ex. 11-18). The Agency has required triennial evaluations in the final
standard. Similarly, many commenters stated that the proposed
certification requirements were unduly burdensome (see, e.g., National
Association for Home Builders, Ex. 11-14; Storax, Ex. 7-9; and Air
Transport Association, Ex. 7-40). Several commenters objected to the
requirement for a signature on the certification, noting that requiring
a signature would mean that the form could not be handled
electronically (Union Electric, Ex. 11-18; Edison Electric Institute,
Ex. 7-44, for example). In response to these comments, the final
standard does not require a signature for training certification and
contains a much simpler certification than the one proposed, including
only the operator's name, date of evaluation or training, and name of
trainer.
Benefits
An estimated 101 fatalities and 94,570 injuries are caused annually
by industrial truck-related accidents. As presented in Table 12, OSHA
estimates that compliance with the final standard by establishments in
all covered industries will avert 11 of these fatalities and 9,422
injuries per year. These fatalities and injuries are in addition to the
lives saved and injuries prevented by OSHA's existing powered
industrial truck operator training requirements, i.e., they represent
only the incremental benefits of the new requirements. Estimates of
benefits from the Final Economic Analysis are based on both general
industry (including shipyards) and construction data, which were
analyzed separately in the respective published proposals. In addition,
the data sources for the Final Economic Analysis were expanded to
include far more data than were available for the preliminary
regulatory analysis published with the proposed standard. For example,
estimates of the injuries potentially avoided as a result of the final
rule are based on a national source (Bureau of Labor Statistics'
``Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses'') rather than on data
from only one state (California).
Table 12.--Number of Fatalities and Injuries Judged to Be Potentially Averted Annually by Compliance With the
Final Powered Industrial Truck Training Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Estimated
number of number of
Total number fatalities Total number injuries
of powered potentially of powered potentially
Sector industrial averted by industrial averted by
truck compliance truck injuries compliance
fatalities with the final with the final
standard standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture--Agricultural Services.............. 0 0 47 5
Mining--Oil and Gas Extraction.................. 1 0 0 0
Construction.................................... 16 2 2,380 237
Manufacturing................................... 35 4 44,976 4,481
Transportation, Communications, and Utilities
except Longshoring and Marine Terminals........ 16 2 10,698 1,066
Longshoring and Marine Terminals................ 3 0 275 27
Wholesale and Retail Trade...................... 23 2 31,649 3,153
Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate............. 0 0 79 8
Services........................................ 7 1 4,466 445
All Covered Industries.......................... 101 11 94,570 9,422
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, 1997.
OSHA has also adopted a more conservative methodology for
estimating the number of fatalities and injuries that could be
prevented by the final standard. This approach explains why the
estimates of lives saved and injuries averted are lower than those
projected in the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis. Based on
published reports, the Agency had estimated in the proposal that 44 to
77 percent of accidents could be avoided by compliance with the
Agency's proposed rule. OSHA has since decided that a more conservative
estimate of 25 percent of accidents more accurately reflects the
percentage of accidents that will be averted by compliance with the
final standard. This 25 percent reduction in fatalities applies to the
Agency's estimated 42 fatalities each year that are potentially
preventable, which results in an estimated 11 fatalities avoided each
year under the final standard.
The Agency has also included estimates of the direct cost savings,
or economic benefits, that occur when accidents are avoided. These
economic benefits include the savings in medical costs, value of lost
output, savings in administrative costs of workers' compensation
claims, and indirect costs to employers associated with injuries to
employees. OSHA estimates that the value of the direct cost savings
associated with these final rules is $83 million per year. This
estimate of cost savings considers only those powered industrial truck-
related injuries that involve lost workdays, and thus is a substantial
underestimate of the standard's true benefits.
[[Page 66265]]
The final standard will also reduce accident-related property
damage and litigation costs. OSHA finds that the improved training
required by the final standard will reduce property damage by an
estimated $52 million annually.
No economic benefits or savings are calculated either for avoiding
loss of life or for the pain and suffering of injured workers. This
means that the benefits presented here substantially underestimate the
benefits of this rule.
Economic Impacts and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
OSHA has assessed the potential economic impacts of compliance with
the final standard and has determined that the standard is economically
feasible for firms in all covered industry groups. On average, the
annualized compliance costs of the standard amount only to 0.0001
percent of the sales and less than 0.01 percent of estimated pre-tax
income for affected firms (Table 13).
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
[[Page 66266]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE98.000
BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
[[Page 66267]]
These figures suggest that even under the worst-case assumption of
no cost pass-through, prices would be little affected by the standard.
The two-digit industry sectors with the highest costs of compliance,
trucking and warehousing (SIC 42) and water transportation (SIC 44),
have costs of compliance that are 0.0013 and 0.0012 percent of revenues
respectively. The industry with the greatest reduction in profits,
nondurable goods (SIC 51), has a reduction in profits of 0.02 percent.
Clearly, such potential small increases in prices and reductions in
profits are economically feasible, and the Agency therefore concludes
that the final standard is economically feasible for all affected
industries.
These potential economic impacts overestimate the likely economic
impact of the standard because they do not include any consideration of
the economic benefits of the standard that may accrue to employers,
such as reduced worker compensation costs and reduced property damage.
OSHA estimates that reduced property damage alone would be sufficient
to more than offset the total costs of the standard. In the Preliminary
Regulatory Impact Analysis developed in support of OSHA's 1995 proposal
[Ex. 2], the Agency examined the impact of the proposed standard on
different sizes of establishments. Based on that analysis, the Agency
certified that the proposed standard would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Upon review
of comments and other data submitted to the record of this rulemaking,
the Agency has analyzed the final rule's impact on small entities, as
defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) and in accordance
with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. In addition, in order to ensure
that the smallest entities are not significantly impacted, the Agency
also performed an analysis of impacts on the smallest establishments,
i.e., those with fewer than 20 employees.
The impacts of the standard on sales and profits did not exceed 1
percent for small firms in any covered industry, whether the analysis
used the SBA's definitions or the fewer-than-20-employee size class
definition. In fact, the largest reduction in profit in any sector was
0.024% for small businesses in trucking and warehouses (SIC 42).
Because the incremental costs of the final rule are primarily related
to the number of powered industrial truck operators per establishment,
the standard does not have a differential impact on small entities. If
the costs of compliance were influenced by economies of scale, such
effects would have been demonstrated by OSHA's analysis of the smallest
firms, i.e., those with fewer than 20 employees. However, no such
effects were seen, even among firms in this smallest size-class.
Therefore, the Agency has no reason to conclude that establishments or
firms in intermediate size groupings, i.e., those in the range between
20 employees and the employment size cutoff for the applicable SIC-
specific SBA definition, would experience larger impacts.
Based on this finding, the Agency certifies that the final Powered
Industrial Truck Operator Training standard will not have a significant
adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
results of OSHA's analysis of small business impacts on firms within
the SBA's size classifications are shown in Table 14.
Unfunded Mandates
The final Powered Industrial Truck Operator Training standard has
been reviewed in accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (UMRA) (U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) and Executive Order 12875. For
purposes of the UMRA as well as the Executive Order, the Agency
certifies that the final standard does not include any Federal mandate
that may result in increased expenditures by State, local, or tribal
governments, or increased expenditures by the private sector of more
than $100 million in any year.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
[[Page 66268]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE98.001
BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
[[Page 66269]]
OSHA standards do not apply to State and local governments, except
in States that have voluntarily elected to adopt an OSHA State Plan.
Consequently, the Powered Industrial Truck Operators Training rule does
not meet the definition of a ``Federal intergovernmental mandate''
(Section 421(5) of the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5)). In addition, the Agency
has concluded, based on review of the rulemaking record, that few, if
any, of the affected employers are State, local, and tribal
governments.
XI. Environmental Impact
The final rule has been reviewed in accordance with the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321, et seq.), the regulations of the Council on Environmental
Quality (40 CFR Part 1500 through 1517), and the Department of Labor's
NEPA procedures (29 CFR part 11). As a result of this review, OSHA has
determined that the final standard will have no significant
environmental impact.
XII. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule contains collection of information requirements.
Under paragraph (l)(6), employers are required to prepare a
certification record whenever an operator has received training or has
been evaluated. The certification record includes the name of the
operator, the date of the training or evaluation, and the identity of
the person(s) who performed the training or evaluation. Paragraph
(l)(3) requires initial training and evaluation; paragraph (l)(4)
establishes conditions requiring refresher training and evaluation and
periodic evaluations (once every three years); and paragraph (l)(5)
requires the employer to evaluate the adequacy of previous training. A
certification record must be prepared whenever one of these activities
occurs.
OMB submitted comments on the proposed collections of information
(paperwork) (Exs. L-39, L-40) for powered industrial truck operator
training. OMB's concerns focused on the burden associated with some
elements of operator training, the need for annual evaluations, and the
need for comprehensive certification requirements contained in the
proposed rules. The final rule addresses OMB's concerns and greatly
reduces information collection burdens, as discussed below.
OSHA received 109 written comments on the proposed rule, along with
testimony from 22 participants at the public hearings. There was
significant opposition to the paperwork burdens associated with the
proposed standard. Some indicated that the proposed requirements were
too extensive. Others believed that they were a necessary tool to make
the training program effective. Based on its review of this
information, OSHA has made several changes that substantially reduce
both the amount and the frequency of information collection, but retain
the minimum necessary for an effective training program. First, OSHA
has determined that the proposed annual evaluation of operators should
be changed to triennial evaluation. Second, the Agency has eliminated
the initial evaluation of employees to determine their training needs,
and added an evaluation of the employee's performance after receiving
training. Third, OSHA has removed the proposed requirement for
employers to sign training and evaluation records. Finally, OSHA has
eliminated the proposed requirement for the employer to retain training
materials. Section VIII of this Preamble discusses at length the record
evidence on these provisions and other issues relating to information
collection.
In summary, OSHA estimates that there are 1,540,315 operators of
powered industrial trucks in the industries covered by this final rule.
A total of 759,571 hours will be needed for employers to comply with
the information collection requirements for training and evaluation of
these employees in the first year, and 543,860 hours in each subsequent
year. These estimates are based on information in OSHA's Final Economic
Analysis for the final rule.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501-3520), OSHA requested OMB approval of the collection of
information requirement described above. On November 18, 1998, the
Office of Management and Budget granted approval of the information
requirements under Office of Management and Budget Control Number 1218-
0242.
XIII. State Plan Standards
The 25 States with their own OSHA-approved occupational safety and
health plans must adopt comparable standards within six months of the
publication date of this final standard. These States are: Alaska,
Arizona, California, Connecticut (for State and local government
employees only), Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan,
Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York (for State and local government
employees only), North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Virgin Islands, Washington, and
Wyoming. Until such time as a State standard is promulgated, Federal
OSHA will provide interim enforcement assistance, as appropriate, in
those States.
XIV. Federalism and Children's Executive Order
These regulations have been reviewed in accordance with Executive
Order 12875 (52 FR 58093, Oct. 28, 1993) regarding Federalism. The
orders require that agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from
limiting state policy options, consult with states prior to taking any
actions which would restrict state policy options, and take such
actions only when there is clear constitutional authority and the
presence of a problem of national scope. The Order provides for
preemption of state law only if there is a clear Congressional intent
for the Agency to do so. Any such preemption is to be limited to the
extent possible.
In accordance with Executive Order 13045, OSHA has evaluated the
environmental safety and health effects of the rule on children. The
Agency has determined that the final rule will have no effect on
children.
Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act)
expresses Congress' intent to preempt State laws relating to issues on
which Federal OSHA has promulgated occupational safety and health
standards. Under the OSH Act, a State can avoid preemption on issues
covered by Federal standards only if it submits, and obtains Federal
approval of, a plan for the development of such standards and their
enforcement. Occupational safety and health standards developed by such
Plan States must, among other things, be at least as effective in
providing safe and healthful employment and places of employment as the
Federal standards. When such standards are applicable to products
distributed or used in interstate commerce, they may not unduly burden
commerce and must be justified by compelling local conditions.
The Federal standard on powered industrial truck operator training
addresses hazards that are not unique to any one State or region of the
country. Nonetheless, States with occupational safety and health plans
approved under section 18 of the OSH Act will be able to develop their
own State standards to deal with any special problems that might be
encountered in a particular State. Moreover, because this standard is
written in general, performance-oriented terms, there is considerable
flexibility for State Plans to require, and
[[Page 66270]]
for affected employers to use, methods of compliance that are
appropriate to the working conditions covered by these standards.
In brief, these rules address a clear national problem related to
occupational safety and health in general industry, construction,
shipyard, and the marine cargo-handling industries. Those states that
have elected to participate under section 18 of the OSH Act are not
preempted by these standards, and will be able to address any special
conditions within the framework of the Federal Act while ensuring that
the State standards are at least as effective as the Federal standard.
XV. List of Subjects
29 CFR part 1910
Motor vehicle safety, Occupational safety and health,
Transportation.
29 CFR part 1915
Shipyards industry, Motor vehicle safety, Occupational safety and
health, Transportation.
29 CFR part 1917
Marine terminals, Motor vehicle safety, Occupational safety and
health, Vessels.
29 CFR part 1918
Longshoring, Motor vehicle safety, Occupational safety and health,
Vessels.
29 CFR part 1926
Construction industry, Motor vehicle safety, Occupational safety
and health, Transportation.
XVI. Authority
This document was prepared under the direction of Charles N.
Jeffress, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and
Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210.
Accordingly, pursuant to sections 4, 6(b), 8(c), and 8(g) of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657),
section 107 of the Construction Work Hours and Safety Act (Construction
Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 333), section 41 of the Longshore and Harbor
Workers Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941), Secretary of Labor's Order 6-
96 (62 FR 111), and 29 CFR part 1911, 29 CFR parts 1910, 1915, 1917,
1918, and 1926 are amended as set forth below.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 17th day of November, 1998.
Charles N. Jeffress,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
PART 1910--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS [AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for subpart B of part 1910 continues to
read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act, 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Walsh-Healey Act, 41 U.S.C. 35
et seq.; Service Contract Act of 1965, 41 U.S.C. 351 et seq.; Sec.
107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (Construction
Safety Act), 40 U.S.C. 333; Sec. 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers'
Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. 941; National Foundation of Arts and
Humanities Act, 20 U.S.C. 951 et seq.; Secretary of Labor's Order
No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90
(55 FR 9033), or 6-96 (62 FR 111), as applicable; and 29 CFR Part
1911.
2. Section 1910.16 is amended by adding new paragraphs (a)(2)(x)
and (b)(2)(xiv), by removing the word ``and'' from the end of paragraph
(b)(2)(xii) and by removing the period at the end of paragraph
(b)(2)(xiii)(D) and adding in its place a semicolon and the word
``and'' as follows:
Sec. 1910.16 Longshoring and marine terminals.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(x) Powered industrial truck operator training, Subpart N,
Sec. 1910.178(l).
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(xiv) Powered industrial truck operator training, Subpart N,
Sec. 1910.178(l).
* * * * *
3. The authority citation for subpart N of part 1910 is revised to
read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71
(36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR
9033) or 6-96 (62 FR 111), as applicable.
Sections 1910.176, 1910.177, 1910.178, 1910.179, 1910.180,
1910.181, and 1910.184 also issued under 29 CFR part 1911.
4. Section 1910.178 is amended by revising paragraph (l) and by
adding Appendix A at the end of the section to read as follows:
Sec. 1910.178 Powered industrial trucks.
* * * * *
(l) Operator training.
(1) Safe operation. (i) The employer shall ensure that each powered
industrial truck operator is competent to operate a powered industrial
truck safely, as demonstrated by the successful completion of the
training and evaluation specified in this paragraph (l).
(ii) Prior to permitting an employee to operate a powered
industrial truck (except for training purposes), the employer shall
ensure that each operator has successfully completed the training
required by this paragraph (l), except as permitted by paragraph
(l)(5).
(2) Training program implementation. (i) Trainees may operate a
powered industrial truck only:
(A) Under the direct supervision of persons who have the knowledge,
training, and experience to train operators and evaluate their
competence; and
(B) Where such operation does not endanger the trainee or other
employees.
(ii) Training shall consist of a combination of formal instruction
(e.g., lecture, discussion, interactive computer learning, video tape,
written material), practical training (demonstrations performed by the
trainer and practical exercises performed by the trainee), and
evaluation of the operator's performance in the workplace.
(iii) All operator training and evaluation shall be conducted by
persons who have the knowledge, training, and experience to train
powered industrial truck operators and evaluate their competence.
(3) Training program content. Powered industrial truck operators
shall receive initial training in the following topics, except in
topics which the employer can demonstrate are not applicable to safe
operation of the truck in the employer's workplace.
(i) Truck-related topics:
(A) Operating instructions, warnings, and precautions for the types
of truck the operator will be authorized to operate;
(B) Differences between the truck and the automobile;
(C) Truck controls and instrumentation: where they are located,
what they do, and how they work;
(D) Engine or motor operation;
(E) Steering and maneuvering;
(F) Visibility (including restrictions due to loading);
(G) Fork and attachment adaptation, operation, and use limitations;
(H) Vehicle capacity;
(I) Vehicle stability;
(J) Any vehicle inspection and maintenance that the operator will
be required to perform;
(K) Refueling and/or charging and recharging of batteries;
[[Page 66271]]
(L) Operating limitations;
(M) Any other operating instructions, warnings, or precautions
listed in the operator's manual for the types of vehicle that the
employee is being trained to operate.
(ii) Workplace-related topics:
(A) Surface conditions where the vehicle will be operated;
(B) Composition of loads to be carried and load stability;
(C) Load manipulation, stacking, and unstacking;
(D) Pedestrian traffic in areas where the vehicle will be operated;
(E) Narrow aisles and other restricted places where the vehicle
will be operated;
(F) Hazardous (classified) locations where the vehicle will be
operated;
(G) Ramps and other sloped surfaces that could affect the vehicle's
stability;
(H) Closed environments and other areas where insufficient
ventilation or poor vehicle maintenance could cause a buildup of carbon
monoxide or diesel exhaust;
(I) Other unique or potentially hazardous environmental conditions
in the workplace that could affect safe operation.
(iii) The requirements of this section.
(4) Refresher training and evaluation. (i) Refresher training,
including an evaluation of the effectiveness of that training, shall be
conducted as required by paragraph (l)(4)(ii) to ensure that the
operator has the knowledge and skills needed to operate the powered
industrial truck safely.
(ii) Refresher training in relevant topics shall be provided to the
operator when:
(A) The operator has been observed to operate the vehicle in an
unsafe manner;
(B) The operator has been involved in an accident or near-miss
incident;
(C) The operator has received an evaluation that reveals that the
operator is not operating the truck safely;
(D) The operator is assigned to drive a different type of truck; or
(E) A condition in the workplace changes in a manner that could
affect safe operation of the truck.
(iii) An evaluation of each powered industrial truck operator's
performance shall be conducted at least once every three years.
(5) Avoidance of duplicative training. If an operator has
previously received training in a topic specified in paragraph (l)(3)
of this section, and such training is appropriate to the truck and
working conditions encountered, additional training in that topic is
not required if the operator has been evaluated and found competent to
operate the truck safely.
(6) Certification. The employer shall certify that each operator
has been trained and evaluated as required by this paragraph (l). The
certification shall include the name of the operator, the date of the
training, the date of the evaluation, and the identity of the person(s)
performing the training or evaluation.
(7) Dates. The employer shall ensure that operators of powered
industrial trucks are trained, as appropriate, by the dates shown in
the following table.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The initial training and
If the employee was hired: evaluation of that employee
must be completed:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before December 1, 1999................ By December 1, 1999.
After December 1, 1999................. Before the employee is assigned
to operate a powered
industrial truck.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(8) Appendix A to this section provides non-mandatory guidance to
assist employers in implementing this paragraph (l). This appendix does
not add to, alter, or reduce the requirements of this section.
* * * * *
Appendix A--Stability of Powered Industrial Trucks (Non-mandatory
Appendix to Paragraph (l) of This Section)
A-1. Definitions.
The following definitions help to explain the principle of
stability:
Center of gravity is the point on an object at which all of the
object's weight is concentrated. For symmetrical loads, the center
of gravity is at the middle of the load.
Counterweight is the weight that is built into the truck's basic
structure and is used to offset the load's weight and to maximize
the vehicle's resistance to tipping over.
Fulcrum is the truck's axis of rotation when it tips over.
Grade is the slope of a surface, which is usually measured as
the number of feet of rise or fall over a hundred foot horizontal
distance (the slope is expressed as a percent).
Lateral stability is a truck's resistance to overturning
sideways.
Line of action is an imaginary vertical line through an object's
center of gravity.
Load center is the horizontal distance from the load's edge (or
the fork's or other attachment's vertical face) to the line of
action through the load's center of gravity.
Longitudinal stability is the truck's resistance to overturning
forward or rearward.
Moment is the product of the object's weight times the distance
from a fixed point (usually the fulcrum). In the case of a powered
industrial truck, the distance is measured from the point at which
the truck will tip over to the object's line of action. The distance
is always measured perpendicular to the line of action.
Track is the distance between the wheels on the same axle of the
truck.
Wheelbase is the distance between the centerline of the
vehicle's front and rear wheels.
A-2. General.
A-2.1. Determining the stability of a powered industrial truck
is simple once a few basic principles are understood. There are many
factors that contribute to a vehicle's stability: the vehicle's
wheelbase, track, and height; the load's weight distribution; and
the vehicle's counterweight location (if the vehicle is so
equipped).
A-2.2. The ``stability triangle,'' used in most stability
discussions, demonstrates stability simply.
A-3. Basic Principles.
A-3.1. Whether an object is stable depends on the object's
moment at one end of a system being greater than, equal to, or
smaller than the object's moment at the system's other end. This
principle can be seen in the way a see-saw or teeter-totter works:
that is, if the product of the load and distance from the fulcrum
(moment) is equal to the moment at the device's other end, the
device is balanced and it will not move. However, if there is a
greater moment at one end of the device, the device will try to move
downward at the end with the greater moment.
A-3.2. The longitudinal stability of a counterbalanced powered
industrial truck depends on the vehicle's moment and the load's
moment. In other words, if the mathematic product of the load moment
(the distance from the front wheels, the approximate point at which
the vehicle would tip forward) to the load's center of gravity times
the load's weight is less than the vehicle's moment, the system is
balanced and will not tip forward. However, if the load's moment is
greater than the vehicle's moment, the greater load-moment will
force the truck to tip forward.
A-4. The Stability Triangle.
A-4.1. Almost all counterbalanced powered industrial trucks have
a three-point suspension system, that is, the vehicle is supported
at three points. This is true even if the vehicle has four wheels.
The truck's steer axle is attached to the truck by a pivot pin in
the axle's center. When the points are connected with imaginary
lines, this three-point support forms a triangle called the
stability triangle. Figure 1 depicts the stability triangle.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
[[Page 66272]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE98.002
A-4.2. When the vehicle's line of action, or load center, falls
within the stability triangle, the vehicle is stable and will not
tip over. However, when the vehicle's line of action or the vehicle/
load combination falls outside the stability triangle, the vehicle
is unstable and may tip over. (See Figure 2.)
[[Page 66273]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE98.003
BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
A-5. Longitudinal Stability.
A-5.1. The axis of rotation when a truck tips forward is the
front wheels' points of contact with the pavement. When a powered
industrial truck tips forward, the truck will rotate about this
line. When a truck is stable, the vehicle-moment must exceed the
load-moment. As long as the vehicle-moment is equal to or exceeds
the load-moment, the vehicle will not tip over. On the other hand,
if the load moment slightly exceeds the vehicle-moment, the truck
will begin to tip forward, thereby causing the rear to lose contact
with the floor or ground and resulting in loss of steering control.
If the load-moment greatly exceeds the vehicle moment, the truck
will tip forward.
A-5.2. To determine the maximum safe load-moment, the truck
manufacturer normally rates the truck at a maximum load at a given
distance from the front face of the forks. The specified distance
from the front face of the forks to the line of action of the load
is commonly called the load center. Because larger trucks normally
handle loads that are physically larger, these vehicles have greater
load centers. Trucks with a capacity of 30,000 pounds or less are
normally rated at a given load weight at a 24-inch load center.
Trucks with a capacity greater than 30,000 pounds are normally rated
at a given load weight at a 36- or 48-inch load center. To safely
operate the vehicle, the operator should always check the data plate
to determine the maximum allowable weight at the rated load center.
A-5.3. Although the true load-moment distance is measured from
the front wheels, this distance is greater than the distance from
the front face of the forks. Calculating the maximum allowable load-
moment using the load-center distance always provides a lower load-
moment than the truck was designed to handle. When handling unusual
loads, such as those that are larger than 48 inches long (the center
of gravity is greater than 24 inches) or that have an offset center
of gravity, etc., a maximum allowable load-moment should be
calculated and used to determine whether a load can be safely
handled. For example, if an operator is operating a 3000 pound
capacity truck (with a 24-inch load center), the maximum allowable
load-moment is 72,000 inch-pounds (3,000 times 24). If a load is 60
inches long (30-inch load center), then the maximum that this load
can weigh is 2,400 pounds (72,000 divided by 30).
A-6. Lateral Stability.
A-6.1. The vehicle's lateral stability is determined by the line
of action's position (a vertical line that passes through the
combined vehicle's and load's center of gravity) relative to the
stability triangle. When the vehicle is not loaded, the truck's
center of gravity location is the only factor to be considered in
determining the truck's stability. As long as the line of action of
the combined vehicle's and load's center of gravity falls within the
stability triangle, the truck is stable and will not tip over.
However, if the line of action falls outside the stability triangle,
the truck is not stable and may tip over. Refer to Figure 2.
A-6.2. Factors that affect the vehicle's lateral stability
include the load's placement on the truck, the height of the load
above the surface on which the vehicle is operating, and the
vehicle's degree of lean.
A-7. Dynamic Stability.
A-7.1. Up to this point, the stability of a powered industrial
truck has been discussed without considering the dynamic forces that
result when the vehicle and load are put into motion. The weight's
transfer and the resultant shift in the center of gravity due to the
dynamic forces created when the machine is moving, braking,
cornering, lifting, tilting, and lowering loads, etc., are important
stability considerations.
A-7.2. When determining whether a load can be safely handled,
the operator should exercise extra caution when handling loads that
cause the vehicle to approach its maximum design characteristics.
For example, if an operator must handle a maximum load, the load
should be carried at the lowest position possible, the truck should
be accelerated slowly and evenly, and the forks should be tilted
forward cautiously. However, no precise rules can be formulated to
cover all of these eventualities.
[[Page 66274]]
PART 1915--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS FOR SHIPYARD
EMPLOYMENT [AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 1915 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Section 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers'
Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941); secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of
Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48
FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), or 6-96 (62 FR 111), as applicable.
Sections 1915.120 and 1915.152 also issued under 29 CFR 1911.
2. A new Sec. 1915.120 is added to subpart G to read as follows:
Sec. 1915.120 Powered Industrial Truck Operator Training
Note: The requirements applicable to shipyard employment under
this section are identical to those set forth at Sec. 1910.178(l) of
this chapter.
PART 1917--MARINE TERMINALS [AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 1917 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Section 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers'
Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941); Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of
Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48
FR 35736), or 6-96 (62 FR 111), as applicable; and 29 CFR Part 1911.
Section 1917.28 also issued under 5 USC 553.
Subpart A--Scope and Definitions
2. Section 1917.1 is amended by adding a new paragraph (a)(2)(xiv),
by removing the word ``and'' from the end of paragraph (a)(2)(xii) and
by removing the period at the end of paragraph (a)(2)(xiii)(D), and
adding in its place a semicolon and the word ``and'' as follows:
Sec. 1917.1 Scope and applicability.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(xiv) Powered industrial truck operator training, Subpart N,
Sec. 1910.178(l).
* * * * *
PART 1918--SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS FOR LONGSHORING [AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 1918 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Section 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Walsh-Healey Act, 41
U.S.C. 35 et seq.; Service Contract Act of 1965, 41 U.S.C. 351 et
seq.; Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act
(Construction Safety Act), 40 U.S.C. 333; Sec. 41 of the Longshore
and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. 941; National
Foundation of Arts and Humanities Act, 20 U.S.C. 951 et seq.;
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 6-96 (62 FR 111); and 29 CFR part
1911.
Subpart A--Scope and Definitions
2. Section 1918.1 is amended by adding a new paragraph (b)(10), by
removing the word ``and'' from the end of paragraph (b)(8) and by
removing the period from the end of paragraph (b)(9)(iv) and adding in
its place a semicolon and the word ``and'' as follows:
Sec. 1918.1 Scope and application
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(10) Powered industrial truck operator training, Subpart N,
Sec. 1910.178(l).
PART 1926--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS FOR
CONSTRUCTION [AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for subpart O of part 1926 is revised to
read as follows:
Authority: Section 107, Construction Work Hours and Safety
Standards Act (Construction Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 333); Secs. 4, 6,
8, Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,
657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR
25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), or 6-96 (62 FR 111),
as applicable. Section 1926.602 also issued under 29 CFR part 1911.
2. Section 1926.602 is amended by adding a new paragraph (d) to
read as follows:
Sec. 1926.602 Material Handling Equipment [Amended]
* * * * *
(d) Powered industrial truck operator training.
Note: The requirements applicable to construction work under
this paragraph are identical to those set forth at Sec. 1910.178(l)
of this chapter.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 98-31283 Filed 11-30-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P