Powered Industrial Truck Operator Training

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is

proposing to revise the general industry safety standard for training

powered industrial truck operators and to add equivalent training

requirements for the maritime industries. The existing standard in part

1910 requires that only trained operators who are authorized to do so

can operate powered industrial trucks and that methods of training be

devised. The proposed training requirements 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 the skills and abilities that are necessary to safely

operate the truck. A periodic evaluation of each operator's performance

would be required. Refresher or remedial training also would be

required, based primarily on unsafe operation, an accident or near

miss, or deficiencies found in a periodic evaluation of the operator.

DATES: Written comments and requests for a hearing on this proposed

rule must be postmarked by July 12, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments, information, and hearing requests should be sent

in quadruplicate to: Docket Office, Docket No. S-008; Room N2624; U.S.

Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration; 200

Constitution Avenue NW; Washington, DC 20210 (202-219-7894).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard P. Liblong, Office of

Information and Consumer Affairs, U.S. Department of Labor,

Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3641; 200

Constitution Avenue NW; Washington, DC 20210 (202-219-8148).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

a. The General Industry Standard

On May 29, 1971 (36 FR 10466), OSHA adopted some of the existing

Federal standards and national consensus standards as OSHA standards

under the procedures described in 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, without rulemaking, within 2 years of the

effective date of the Act, any established Federal standard or national

consensus standard.

One of the consensus standards that was adopted under the 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 standard was the operator training

requirement codified at 29 CFR 1910.178(l), which states:

Only trained and authorized operators shall be permitted to

operate a powered industrial truck. Methods of training shall be

devised to train operators in the safe operation of powered

industrial trucks.

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. One truck may be known by several different

names. Included are vehicles that are commonly referred to as high lift

trucks, counterbalanced trucks, cantilever trucks, rider trucks,

forklift trucks; high lift 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. Excluded from the scope of the OSHA standard are vehicles used

for earth moving or over-the-road haulage.

b. The Maritime Safety Standards

In 1958, Congress amended the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers'

Compensation Act (LHWCA) (44 Stat. 1424; 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 Labor Standards Bureau (LSB)

issued the first set of safety and health regulations for longshoring

activities as 29 CFR part 9 (25 FR 1565, February 20, 1960). These

regulations only covered longshoring activities taking place aboard

vessels.

Passage of the OSH Act (84 Stat. 1590; 29 U.S.C. 650 et seq.)

authorized the Secretary of Labor to adopt established Federal

standards issued under other statutes, including the LHWCA, as

occupational safety and health standards under the OSH Act.

Accordingly, the Secretary adopted the existing shipyard employment and

longshoring regulations and recodified these rules as 29 CFR parts 1915

and 1918 (39 FR 22074, June 19, 1974). Since the OSH Act

comprehensively covered all private employment, the longshoring

standards also applied to shoreside cargo-handling operations. (See 29

CFR 1910.16.) The requirements for the use of mechanically powered

vehicles used aboard vessels were codified at Sec. 1918.73. These

provisions did not include a requirement for the training of vehicle

operators.

In addition, in accordance with established policy codified at 29

CFR 1910.5(c)(2), OSHA has applied its general industry regulations to

shoreside activities not covered by its older longshoring rules.

Citations also have been issued under section 5(a)(1) (the General Duty

Clause) of the OSH Act (84 Stat. 1593; 29 U.S.C. 654), since some

serious hazards are not addressed by the requirements of part 1910,

1915, or 1918.

On July 5, 1983 (48 FR 30886), OSHA published its final standard

for Marine Terminals. These rules were intended to address the

shoreside segment of marine cargo handling. Section 1917.27 Personnel

required that:

(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.

(2) No employee known to have defective uncorrected eyesight or

hearing, or to be suffering from heart disease, epilepsy, or other

ailments which may suddenly incapacitate him shall be permitted to

operate a crane, winch or other power-operated cargo handling

apparatus or a power-operated vehicle.

The Marine Terminal Standards also had requirements for powered

industrial [[Page 13783]] trucks at Sec. 1917.43 Powered industrial

trucks. However, these requirements were for the operation, maintenance

and outfitting of those vehicles and did not expand upon the training

requirements found at Sec. 1917.27.

On June 2, 1994, OSHA published in the Federal Register (59 FR

28594) a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the revision of the

longshoring and marine terminals standards.

That NPRM did not propose to amend significantly the aforementioned

training requirements of Sec. 1917.27 or to incorporate a training

requirement for longshoring (on-board vessel) operations.

c. Updated Consensus Standard

Since promulgation of the OSHA standards, the consensus standard

(ANSI B56.1) has undergone four complete revisions (dated 1975, 1983,

1988 and 1993). The current consensus standard (Ex. 3-1) states:

4.18 Operator qualifications.

Only trained and authorized persons shall be permitted to

operate a powered industrial truck. Operators of powered industrial

trucks shall be qualified as to visual, auditory, physical, and

mental ability to operate the equipment safely according to 4.19 and

all other applicable parts of Section 4.

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 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 address

operating safety rules and practices;

(2) provisions of this Standard in Section 5.5 address 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.

(For an explanation of why OSHA decided to propose a somewhat different

standard, see section entitled Summary and Explanation of the Proposed

Standard, below.)

Since 1971, the consensus committee has adopted other volumes for

additional types of vehicles that fall within the broad definition of a

powered industrial truck. Specifically, requirements have been 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. This rulemaking would adopt training requirements

for all types of powered industrial trucks regardless of their usage

and the industry in which they are operating.

d. Petitions and Requests

On March 15, 1988, the Industrial Truck Association (ITA)

petitioned OSHA to revise its standard requiring the training of

powered industrial truck operators (Ex. 3-2). The petition contained

suggested language for a proposed requirement along with a model

operator training program by which compliance with the recommended

requirement could be met. OSHA responded to the petition on April 8,

1988, stating that work on the [[Page 13784]] revision of the OSHA

powered industrial truck operator training requirement would begin as

soon as other priority projects were completed.

In addition to the petition, other interested persons have

frequently asked questions about training operators of powered

industrial trucks, such as:

What constitutes the necessary and sufficient training of

forklift operators?

How can one ensure that all forklift operators have been

trained?

What testing, if any, should be conducted as part of the

training?

Should the prior experience of a newly hired employee be

considered as fulfilling part or all of the training requirement or

totally fulfilling the employer's obligation to train that employee?

Some interested persons have suggested that OSHA develop a

standardized training course or at least review and comment on or

endorse various training courses, programs, agenda, or outlines. Others

have suggested that OSHA license or certify all powered industrial

truck operators to attest to their ability to properly operate powered

industrial trucks. These concerns also were considered in the

development of the proposed rulemaking. OSHA is proposing to amend the

current powered industrial truck operator training requirements for

general industry and to adopt the same requirement for the maritime

industries.

e. Reasons for the Proposal

As discussed in the benefits discussed below and in the Regulatory

Impact Analysis, powered industrial truck accidents cause approximately

85 fatalities and 34,900 serious injuries each year. It is estimated

that approximately 20 to 25 percent are at least in part caused by

inadequate training.

As just discussed, the ITA and others have requested that OSHA

improve its training requirement for powered industrial truck

operators. ANSI has substantially upgraded its recommended training

requirements. OSHA preliminarily concludes that upgrading the training

requirements for powered industrial truck operators will substantially

reduce a significant risk of death and injury from untrained operators

driving powered industrial trucks.

II. The Powered Industrial Truck

The term powered industrial truck is defined in the American

Society of Mechanical Engineers, 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.''

There are presently approximately 822,830 powered industrial trucks

in use in American industry. This number was generated using the

available information on truck shipments of powered industrial trucks

and the percentage of market that ITA members control. This information

was provided OSHA by the Industrial Truck Association.

The Industrial Truck Association stated in conversations with OSHA

representatives that it considers the average useful life of a powered

industrial truck to be 8 years. The 8-year life cycle has been used

throughout the preparation of this proposed rule and in the formulation

of the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis. The vehicle

manufacturers also estimate that there are, on average, 1.5 operators

for each industrial truck. A search of the available literature

indicates that this number has not been disputed. OSHA believes that

this number is a fair assessment of the number of powered industrial

operators since many employers (particularly small employers) have one

operator per truck and the vehicle is used only during one shift per

day whereas other vehicles are used by multiple operators during

multiple shifts.

Powered industrial trucks are classified by the manufacturers

according to their individual characters.

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 Tire).

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 Fork Lift Trucks (Pneumatic Tires).

Each of these different types of powered industrial trucks has its

own unique characteristics, and inherent hazards. To maximize the

effectiveness of the training, it must be somewhat unique for each type

vehicle. For example, an operator of a high lift rider truck must have

an understanding of the basics of the vehicle's stability (including

those factors which affect that stability), the need to not overload

the vehicle, and the need to operate the vehicle according to

established rules (such as not using the vehicle to elevate employees

who are standing on its forks). On the other hand, order picker trucks

elevate the operator along with a platform that is used to hold

material destined for storage or retrieval from storage in high

stacking racks or bins. The platforms on these trucks are not

completely enclosed by railings, toe boards, or other similar fall

protection devices to prevent an operator from falling off an elevated

platform. To be protected, the operator must wear a body harness or

belt with a lanyard affixed to the mast of the vehicle or the overhead

guard. Therefore, training for employees who use order picker trucks

must emphasize that the use of the body belt or harness and lanyard is

essential whenever the operator is aloft.

Powered industrial trucks may be powered by gasoline, propane,

diesel or liquified petroleum gas engines or by electric motors. Each

of the basic powerplants (except propane) and their associated

components (such as mufflers on internal combustion engines and

switches and wiring on electric trucks) may be upgraded and the entire

truck may be approved by a nationally recognized testing laboratory for

operation in certain classified hazardous areas. These classified

hazardous areas are those parts of a plant, factory or other workplace

where there exists or may exist concentrations of flammable gases or

vapors, combustible dust, or easily ignitible flyings or fibers so that

the risk of fire or explosion is increased. The current OSHA general

industry standard for powered industrial trucks contains basic

descriptions of the types of approved powered industrial trucks and the

various classes, divisions, and groups of classified hazardous areas

and some of the materials whose presence would cause classification of

those areas. However, the number of substances whose presence causes

the hazards of fire and/or explosion have increased greatly since

promulgation of the OSHA standards. (For additional information on the

properties and classifications of materials, see the National Fire

Protection Association (NFPA) 505-1992 Fire Safety Standard for Powered

Industrial Trucks Including Type Designation, Areas of Use,

Maintenance, and Operation.) (Ex. 3-3).

In addition to the general requirements for truck operation, such

as vehicle stability and load carrying capability, training must be

provided for unusual situations, such as training operators to handle

asymmetrical loads when their work includes this activity. The only way

that unusual loads may be moved safely with some powered

[[Page 13785]] industrial trucks is for the operator to understand and

apply the principles of moments and stability of the vehicle. (These

principles are explained in more detail in the part of this preamble

entitled ``Powered Industrial Truck Hazards.'') With many powered

industrial trucks, the capacity is given as some weight at some load

center [usually 24'' (61 cm)]. If the operator does not understand that

the load center is the distance from the vertical face of the forks to

the center of gravity of the load and that loads are usually

symmetrical, then the operator may pick up a load incorrectly. If the

operator understands that the capacity of the vehicle decreases as the

load center increases, then some asymmetrical or off-center loads may

be safely picked up and moved using a high lift truck. Other type

trucks, such as low lift platform trucks, can handle asymmetrical or

off-center loads with minimum danger to an employee because the load is

not raised far above the ground. However, because these type trucks are

unable to raise loads far above the ground, they are of little or no

use when working in a workplace that has high stacking racks or bins

where powered industrial trucks must be able to deposit and retrieve

loads from considerable distances above the ground or floor.

Powered industrial trucks also are used to move large items or many

smaller items about the workplace without the restrictions that

generally exist with other mechanical material handling equipment.

Other material handling equipment, like overhead cranes or conveyors,

are restricted to moving material along a particular, predetermined

pathway. A powered industrial truck, on the other hand, may operate

along any aisleway or passageway provided it is wide enough to

accommodate the vehicle and can support the vehicle and its load. Once

one of these trucks has left an area, there is no remaining obstruction

to the flow of employee or vehicular traffic, as would normally occur

when fixed equipment is used.

Powered industrial trucks may be operated in and among employees

with little or no inconvenience to the employees. Although it may be

convenient to operate a powered industrial truck around employees, this

can be dangerous, particularly when the employees may be hidden from

view (for example, when they are working behind stored material.)

These trucks may operate on almost any type surface, from smooth

and level floors to rocky, uneven ground, provided they were

manufactured to operate on that type floor or ground and the surface

does not have an excessive slope. Different type trucks are designed

and manufactured to operate in various work environments. Not only may

powered industrial trucks be used for moving material about the

workplace, high lift trucks are used to raise loads up to 30 or 40 feet

above the floor and deposit the material on a rack, mezzanine or other

elevated location and then retrieve and lower the material. Many trucks

were designed specifically to operate in restricted areas such as

narrow aisles and passageways.

Because powered industrial trucks are intended to accomplish

specific tasks in a particular manner, their use is restricted. For

example, a powered industrial truck that was designed to operate in a

restricted space (such as in a narrow aisle or passageway) must be

manufactured with a narrow track (the distance between the two wheels

on the same axle or at the same end of the vehicle). In many cases, the

maximum width of a truck must be significantly less than the minimum

width of the area in which it is operated since the vehicle will

normally have to make turns so that loads may be deposited in and

retrieved from racks or bins which are adjacent to the aisle or

passageway. Narrow aisle trucks cannot be safely operated on a floor or

the ground that is not smooth.

Another design criterion, the maximum lateral dimension of the

vehicle, usually dictates where the various components of the vehicle,

such as the engine or motor, the transmission and the seat for the

operator, will be placed. The placement of these components may be

higher or lower than their most desirable locations. The placement of

the various components at a higher point of the vehicle than is

desirable, which is the usual case, raises the center of gravity of the

entire vehicle, thereby making the vehicle less stable. The greater the

distance that the center of gravity of the vehicle and its load is

above the ground, the less stable the vehicle (if all other factors

remain constant). A more stable design of a powered industrial truck

would require a wider track. This would allow installing the engine,

transmission, and other components at a lower level of the truck,

thereby lowering the center of gravity of the vehicle.

Because the powered industrial truck is a motor vehicle, its

operation is similar to the automobile and some of its hazards are the

same as those experienced during operation of the automobile. Like the

automobile, the internal combustion engine powered industrial truck

will move when the gas pedal depressed, and stop when the brake is

applied. Some internal combustion engine and electric powered

industrial trucks have both the accelerator and brake functions

combined in one pedal or other controller providing restriction to

movement of the vehicle when no pressure is applied to the pedal (or

when the controller is in the neutral position). As pressure is applied

to the pedal or other controller, the brake is gradually released,

until at a given point of controller travel, the brake is completely

disengaged. At this point, the vehicle can coast without restriction

from the brake. Finally, as the pedal or other controller is actuated

further, the motor or engine is engaged and the vehicle moves under the

power supplied by the engine or motor. The vehicle then moves

progressively faster as the pedal or controller is further actuated.

Clearly good training is needed when design characteristics may reduce

stability, limit vision or cause non-uniform methods of control.

Powered industrial trucks also may come equipped with, or can be

modified to accept, attachments that allow movement of odd shaped

materials or permit the truck to carry out tasks that may not have been

envisioned when the truck was designed and manufactured. Many of these

attachments may be added to or installed on the vehicle by the dealer

or by the employer. For example, there are powered industrial truck

attachments for grasping barrels or drums of material. Some of these

attachments will not only grasp a barrel or drum but allow the vehicle

operator to rotate the barrel or drum to empty the vessel or lay it on

its side. Another attachment that looks like a long spike may be

positioned within rolled material, such as carpeting. This attachment

allows the movement of material without causing damage to the material

being handled. All of these attachments may adversely effect the

ability of a powered industrial truck to perform its primary function

or may cause the vehicle to be used safely only under limited operating

conditions, such as under reduced speed or load-carrying capacity. 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:

(4) Modifications and additions which affect capacity and safe

operation shall not be performed by the customer or user without the

manufacturer's prior written approval. Capacity, operation, and

maintenance instruction plates, tags, or decals shall be changed

accordingly.

[[Page 13786]] When the use of specialized attachments restricts

the use of the powered industrial truck or when the truck is used to

lift people, it is essential that operator training must include

instruction on the safe use of the vehicle so that the operator knows

and understands the restrictions or limitations that are imposed upon

the operation of the vehicle by the utilization of those attachments.

Another type of attachment that alters the basic use of the vehicle

and presents unique hazards is an overhead hoist attachment. It is made

up of a rail (like an I-beam) that is attached to the truck and

supports an overhead hoist. It is very easy for an operator to pick up

a load with an overhead hoist attachment while the load is close to the

vehicle and, without realizing it, exceed the moment of the vehicle by

moving the load further from the body of the vehicle. In order to

operate this type attachment successfully, the operator must have

specific training in the use of this attachment, including training in

calculating the maximum load at different points in front of the

vehicle and instruction in the causes of longitudinal vehicle tipover

and its prevention.

In an attempt to improve the load carrying capability of the

vehicle, some people add extra counterweights to powered industrial

trucks. Although this will increase the ability of the vehicle to

resist longitudinal tipover when the vehicle is overloaded, additional

weight imposes extra stresses on the vehicle and its components. The

added stresses also can cause changes in the driving characteristics of

the vehicle and premature failure of the truck and its components,

sometimes with catastrophic effects. Training is needed so that

operators avoid creating those hazards.

III. Powered Industrial Truck Hazards

Powered industrial trucks are used in all industries. Their

principle utility lies in the fact that either a large number of

objects confined in a large box, crate or other container or large

objects may be moved about the workplace with relative ease. Since

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 that are commonly associated with powered industrial

trucks may not exist or be as pronounced for every type, make or model

vehicle. For example, the hazard of tipping over the vehicle due to

unstable operation does not exist (except in the most extraordinary

circumstance) with the low lift platform truck, the motorized hand

truck or the motorized hand/rider truck because each of these trucks

does not allow the raising of the load to a point that will cause the

vehicle to become unstable. On the other hand, the counterbalanced

rider truck and the order picker truck allow the load to be raised very

high, causing the vehicle to become less stable as the load is raised.

Each type truck has different hazards associated with its

operation. For example, the chance of a falling load accident occurring

when the truck is a sitdown, counterbalanced rider truck is much

greater than when the vehicle is a motorized hand truck because the

height that the load can be raised on the sitdown rider truck is much

greater than the hand truck.

Correspondingly, the method or means to prevent the accident or to

protect the employee from injury may be different with different type

trucks. When a rider truck is involved in a tipover accident, the

operator has the opportunity to remain in the operator's position on

the vehicle during the tipover, thereby minimizing the potential for

injury. In most cases, the operator of a rider truck is injured in a

tipover accident when he or she attempts to jump clear of the vehicle

when it begins to tip over. Because the natural tendency of the

operator is to jump downward, he or she lands on the floor or ground

and is then crushed by the overhead guard of the vehicle. Consequently,

the operator should be trained to stay with the vehicle during a

lateral tipover. On the other hand, when an order picker tips over with

the platform in a raised position, generally the operator should

attempt to jump clear of the vehicle, and should be trained

accordingly.

Because the powered industrial truck is a motor vehicle, its

operation is similar to the automobile and some of its hazards are the

same as those experienced during operation of the automobile. Both the

automobile and the powered industrial truck are subject to some of the

same hazards such as contacting both fixed and movable objects

(including employees) and tipping over.

Additionally, there are hazards associated with operating the

vehicle at an excessive rate of speed and the hazard of skidding on a

wet or otherwise slippery ground or floor. Driving a powered industrial

truck at an excessive rate of speed may result in the loss of control

of the vehicle, causing the vehicle to skid, tipover, or fall off a

loading dock or other elevated walking or working surface. Failure to

maintain control of the vehicle also may cause the vehicle to strike an

employee or some stored material, causing the material to topple and

possibly injure another employee. In these cases, training which

reinforces driver training is necessary so that the operator will react

properly to minimize the hazard to him or herself and to other

employees.

Although there are many similarities between the automobile and the

powered industrial truck, there are also many differences. Here greater

training is required so that operators are aware of the differences.

Some of the characteristics of a powered industrial truck that have a

pronounced effect upon its operation and safety that are outside their

auto driving experience are its ability to change its dynamic

stability, to raise, lower and tilt loads, and to steer with the rear

wheels while powered by the front wheels. The capability to move loads

upwards, downwards, forwards and backwards causes a shift of the center

of gravity of the vehicle and can adversely affect the overall

stability. When a load is raised or moved away from the vehicle, the

vehicle's longitudinal stability is decreased. When the load is lowered

or moved closer to the vehicle, its longitudinal stability is

increased.

To mitigate the hazards of stability caused by the movement of the

material being handled, OSHA has seven provisions that address proper

operation of a powered industrial truck. These provisions are

Sec. 1910.178 (n)(15), (o)(1), (o)(2), (o)(3), (o)(4), (o)(5), and

(o)(6). These provisions specify:

(15) 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.

(O) Loading. (1) Only stable or safely arranged loads shall be

handled. Caution shall be exercised when handling off-center loads

which cannot be centered.

(2) Only loads within the rated capacity of the truck shall be

handled.

(3) The long or high (including multiple-tiered) loads which may

affect capacity shall be adjusted.

(4) Trucks equipped with attachments shall be operated as

partially loaded trucks when not handling a load.

(5) 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.

(6) 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 prohibited except to pick up a

load. An elevated load shall not be tilted forward except when the

[[Page 13787]] 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.

Knowledge of, and adherence to these principles, as well as the other

requirements of the OSHA standard, are essential for safe load handling

and vehicle operation. Training is needed in these requirements.

Each powered industrial truck has a different ``feel'' that makes

its operation slightly different from the operation of other trucks.

The workplaces where these trucks are being used also present

particular hazards. For these reasons, a uniform or consistent set of

hazards for all industrial trucks and their operation cannot be

delineated. The hazards addressed in this section relating to the use

of powered industrial trucks have been generalized rather than being

make or model specific. For this reason, development of a single

``generic'' training program which fits all powered industrial trucks

and their operation is impractical. In developing an effective training

program, there are three major areas of concern regarding the hazards

of the operation of powered industrial trucks. The three major groups

of hazards of powered industrial trucks and their operation are hazards

associated with the particular make and model truck, hazards of the

workplace, and general hazards that apply to the operation of all or

most powered industrial trucks.

There are other hazards caused by improper operation of a powered

industrial truck. Among these hazards are: Falling loads caused by

overloading or improperly loading powered industrial trucks (including

carrying unbalanced or unstable loads); the vehicle falling from

platforms, curbs, trailers or other surfaces on which the vehicle is

operating; driving the vehicle while the operator has obstructed view

in the direction of travel or the operator not paying full attention to

the operation of the powered industrial truck; and the vehicle being

operated at an excessive rate of speed. OSHA has identified several

accidents that have occurred when an employee other than the operator

is ``given a ride'' on a powered industrial truck. Most trucks were

designed and are intended to allow only the operator to ride on the

vehicle. The carrying of other persons may result in an accident when

that other person either falls from the vehicle or contacts some

obstruction when the vehicle is driven in proximity to that

obstruction. Finally, powered industrial truck accidents have occurred

because the vehicle was not maintained (most commonly, employees being

overcome by excessive carbon monoxide exposure) or when the powered

industrial truck was not being maintained properly.

Each of these hazards may be more or less consequential based upon

the method of operation of the powered industrial truck, the loads

being carried, and the workplace where the vehicle is being operated.

Truck operators must be trained to recognize unsafe conditions and how

to react to them when they occur.

Several features of a powered industrial truck contribute either

directly or indirectly to the existence or severity of the hazards of

the vehicle. Some of the factors, that would either create or enhance

the hazards of the particular truck, are the placement of the critical

components of the vehicle, the age of the vehicle, and the manner in

which the vehicle is operated and maintained.

There are other hazards related to the use of powered industrial

trucks that are caused or enhanced by the characteristics of the

workplace. Those hazards include the following: operating powered

industrial trucks on rough, uneven or unlevel surfaces; operating

powered industrial trucks with unusual loads; operations in hazardous

(classified) areas; operation in areas where there are narrow aisles;

where there is pedestrian traffic; or where employees are working in or

adjacent to the path of travel of the powered industrial truck.

The operation of a powered industrial truck presents hazards not

only to the operator, but also endangers other employees working with

or around the vehicle. As explained in the section entitled ``Accident,

injury and other data'', below, employees other than operators have

been injured or killed in accidents involving powered industrial

trucks. Proper training can reduce accidents resulting from the above

causes.

IV. Accident, Injury and Other Data

This section of the preamble contains a discussion of 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.

A. 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. The CFOI uses death

certificates, workers compensation reports and other Federal and State

records to gather pertinent information. Work relationships are

verified by using at least two source documents.

The program collects information on the workers and the

circumstances surrounding each fatality. The data are compiled on an

annual basis.

In April, 1994, BLS published a booklet entitled, Fatal Workplace

Injuries in 1992: A Collection of Data and Analysis (Ex. 3-4). In this

booklet, there was an article written by Gary A. Helmer entitled,

Fatalities Involving Forklifts and Other Powered Industrial Carriers,

1991-1992. This report contains information contained in the CFOI on

170 fatal powered industrial truck accidents. Table 1 lists the

classifications of those powered industrial truck accidents.

Table 1.--Classification of Forklift Fatalities, CFOI, 1991-1992

------------------------------------------------------------------------

How accident occurred No. 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.

B. Measuring the Effectiveness of an Industrial Lift Truck Safety

Training Program.

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, pps. 125-135) entitled, Measuring the

Effectiveness of an Industrial Lift Truck Safety Training Program (Ex.

3-5). The article contained an analysis of two studies that were

undertaken to measure objectively the effects of safety training of

powered industrial truck operators.

This article detailed the results of an experiment that was

conducted to evaluate the value of training powered industrial truck

operators using a behavioral (work) sampling procedure to obtain

objective data about work practices that correlate with injury risk.

There were two separate studies conducted in this experiment, one at

each of two similar warehouses. The [[Page 13788]] studies that

comprised the experiment were conducted to assess the value of training

and the influence of post training actions on the safety performance of

workers.

There were 14 criteria used in measuring the performance of the

trainees. Each of the criterion was selected because it was (a)

measurable, (b) frequently observable, (c) capable of being reliably

observed, (d) related to accident occurrence, and (e) amenable to

corrective action through training. The fourteen criteria observed

were: Warns other operators, yields to trucks, warns co-workers, yields

to co-workers, sounds horn at blind intersection, slows down at blind

intersection, looks at blind intersection, looks in direction of

travel, maintains moderate speed, avoids quick starts/changes of

direction, keeps all body parts within truck, maintains forks in proper

position, maintains balanced load, and drives properly in reverse. Each

observation of the operation of the powered industrial trucks resulted

in all criteria being evaluated (either correctly performed,

incorrectly performed, or not observed). An error rate for each

criterion was calculated by dividing the number of incorrect behaviors

observed by the total behaviors observed.

Each of the groups of employees were subdivided into smaller

groups. These groups were then given training at different times during

the study and, in some cases, additional feedback following the

training.

The first study was conducted in four phases. The pretraining phase

was conducted with none of the operators having received special

training. During the second phase, the control group remained

untrained, the treatment group received training, and the treatment-

plus-feedback group received training and also received performance

feedback. In the third phase, the control group received training so

that all three groups had received training but only the training-plus-

feedback group received performance feedback. The retention phase

started three months after the end of the third phase of the study and

the performance of all operators was evaluated without regard to their

previous categorization.

The error rates of the various groups during the different phases

of the study are given in Table 2.

Table 2.--Summary of Mean Error Rates1

[Warehouse 1]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post-training Post-training

Group Pre-training 1 2 Retention

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Control......................................... .34 .32 .23

Training........................................ .33 .27 .26

Training + Feedback............................. .35 .27 .25

All operators................................... .34 .27 .25 .19

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The mean error rate is defined in the study as the number of incorrect behaviors observed divided by the total

behaviors observed.

Note: The mean error rate for all operators began at .34, that is, in 34 percent of the observed criteria, 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 (from .33 to .27, an 18

percent decrease) and the control group (from .34 to .32, a 6 percent

decrease). The reduction in the error rate of the control group from

the pre-training to the post-training 1 phase of the study was

attributed to a peer modeling influence, i.e., the control group

operators were copying the behavior of their previously 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 of 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 improved

in performance, particularly the original control group. This group's

performance improved by 28 percent (from a mean error rate of .32 to

.23). Additional evidence of the effect of peer modeling may be deduced

from the fact that the performance of the other two groups (the

training and the training and feedback groups) continued to improve

although there was no additional instruction given to those groups.

The retention phase of the study was conducted three months

following the completion of the post-training 2 phase of the study. It

was intended to determine the longer term effects of the training. The

results of this phase of the study indicate an additional improvement

in the performance of the operators with the mean error rate decreasing

from .25 to .19, a 24 percent improvement in their 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). The data indicate that there were significantly fewer errors at

each successive phase of the study.

The second study was conducted in order to verify and extend the

findings of the first study. Consequently, 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. The mean error rates during the three phases of the

study are given in Table 3.

Table 3.--Summary of Mean Error Rates Study 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.

Following the training of the vehicle operators, there was a 61

percent [[Page 13789]] improvement in performance scores (from an error

rate of .23 to .09). Observation in the retention phase of this study

showed an additional reduction of 22 percent in mean error rates (from

.09 to .07 mean error rate). This corresponds closely to the 24 percent

gain experienced in Study 1. The overall improvement in mean error

rates between the pre-training error rate (.23) to that achieved during

the retention phase (.07) was a reduction of 70 percent.

C. 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. 3-6). This article analyzed 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, therefore, the original intent was to gather

data about accidents involving commercial products rather than

industrial injuries. The hospital emergency rooms were not necessarily

those located in industrial areas that would predominantly treat

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. Since 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 in the NEISS database. Moreover, chronic injuries, such as

injuries due to overexertion, are not as likely to be treated in

emergency room as are acute traumatic injuries, and, therefore are

probably underrepresented in the NEISS database. Other probable sources

of error in the calculation of accident rates include misclassification

of the sources of injury or the agent of injury. For example, if an

employee fell while elevated on the 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 which fell from a powered

industrial truck, the accident could be classified as employee struck

by falling object. In either case, the accident would have involved a

powered industrial truck, but in neither case would the accident have

been classified as one in which a powered industrial truck was

involved.

The Supplementary Data System (SDS) database is composed of

workers' compensation claims for injuries involving lost workdays.

There were 30 states that provided information to the SDS system. The

SDS system reports the occupations of injured workers and states where

the claim was filed. SDS includes only compensable injuries. The

definition of a compensable injury varies from state to state, with

some injuries being 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 represent the same

injuries because injuries treated in emergency rooms do not always

result in lost workdays. At the same time, compensable injuries

included in 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

which result in compensable injuries.

In 1983, the SDS system identified 13,417 workers' compensation

claims for lost-workday injuries involving powered industrial trucks

that occurred in 30 states. Assuming that these 30 states represent an

average of the whole population, then the number of accidents which

occurred nationally would be five-thirds of the 13,417 accidents, or

approximately 22,400 compensation claims for lost-workday injuries

involving powered industrial trucks filed nationally. 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

figures were used to determine that about 34,000 powered industrial

truck related accidents were treated in emergency rooms. This is an

increase of about 39% over a three-year period of time.

This 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 the accidents is listed in Table 4.

Table 4.--Percentage Distribution of Powered Industrial Truck Injuries

by Occupation of Injured Employee

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Occupation Percent

------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 oper- atives......................... (20.8)

Powered industrial truck operators.......................... 12.3

Truck drivers............................................... 5.5

Motormen.................................................... 1.7

Deliverymen................................................. 1.2

Other transportation equipment operators.................... 0.1

Laborers (except farm)........................................ (37.3)

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

Occupations 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.

D. Industrial Forklift Truck Fatalities--A Summary.

The Office of Data Analysis (ODA) of OSHA's Directorate of Policy

conducted an examination of 53 investigative case files involving

powered industrial truck fatalities that occurred between 1980 and 1986

(Ex. 3-7). The results of their analysis is summarized below.

Table 5.--Office of Data Analysis Type Accidents--53 Powered Industrial

Truck Fatalities

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Type accident No. Percent

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Crushed by tipping vehicle.......................... 22 42

Crushed between vehicle and a surface............... 13 25

[[Page 13790]]

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, Directorate of Policy, OSHA, dated June 1990.

The single largest cause of the accidents was vehicle tipovers.

These tipovers were attributed to the following: (1) The vehicle being

out of control (speeding, elevated loads, mechanical problems, etc.; 7

instances--13 percent); (2) the vehicle being run off/over the edge of

the surface (4 instances--8 percent); (3) attempting to make too sharp

a turn (excessive speed, unbalanced load, etc.; 4 instances--8

percent); (4) employee jumped from overturning vehicle being pulled by

another vehicle (2 instances--4 percent); vehicle skidded or slipped on

slippery surface (2 instances--4 percent); (5) wheels on one side of

vehicle ran over raised surface or object (2 instances--4 percent); and

(6) vehicle tipped over when struck by another vehicle (1 instance--2

percent).

The second highest number of fatalities reported in the ODA study

was caused by an employee being crushed between a vehicle and a

surface. The accidents were attributed to: (1) The operator getting off

the vehicle while it was running (7 instances--13 percent); (2) worker

on platform being crushed between platform and overhead surface (2

instances--4 percent); (3) employees leg being caught when vehicle

sideswiped metal surface (1 instance--2 percent); (4) employee

attempting to prevent vehicle tipover by holding up overhead guard (1

instance--2 percent); (5) employee changing tire and vehicle fell from

jack (1 instance--2 percent) and (6) empty 55 gallon drum used for

support vehicle during maintenance collapsed (1 instance--2 percent).

The six accidents that were attributed to employees being crushed

between two vehicles were caused by contact between two moving powered

industrial trucks (4 cases) and between a powered industrial truck and

a stationary vehicle in the other two instances.

Of the five accidents which were identified as an employee being

struck or run over by vehicle, four were accidents where employees

other than the vehicle operator were struck by the vehicle. The

remaining one was an operator trying unsuccessfully to board a free

rolling vehicle.

E. The OSHA Fatality/Catastrophe Reports. OSHA records a summary of

the results of investigations of all accidents resulting in fatalities,

catastrophes, amputations and hospitalizations of two or more days, and

those accidents that have received significant publicity or property

damage. These summaries are recorded on an OSHA Form 170 and include an

abstract describing the activities taking place at the time of the

accident and the causes of the accident. These reports are stored in a

computerized database system.

OSHA queried the computer for all reports that contained the

keyword ``industrial truck''. There were 4268 total reports 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). The use of the keyword ``industrial

truck'' produced a printout of 208 accidents (Ex. 3-8). 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 by the number of accidents, it was

determined that 1.4 injuries of some nature occurred per accident. OSHA

also determined the percent of each of the three classes of accidents

that involved powered industrial trucks. Those percentages are 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.

OSHA looked at the OSHA 170s to determine the causes of the

accidents that were attributable to the use of powered industrial

trucks in general industry. Table 6 presents a compilation of the

causes of those accidents.

Table 6.--Causes of Accidents\1\--OSHA Investigation Summaries (OSHA

170s)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. 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 employee............................................. 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. 3-8.)

\2\ Of the 19 instances when the report contained the indication that a

lack of training was one of the causal factors of the accident, there

were 6 serious violations issued, 2 other (nonserious) violations and

11 instances where no citation was issued.

Source: Office of Electrical, Electronic and Mechanical Engineering

Safety Standards, Directorate of Safety Standards Programs, OSHA.

Using the OSHA Form 170 data, OSHA also compiled a listing of the

industries in which accidents occurred. Table 7 presents a tabulation

of the SIC codes, the description of the industry, and the number of

times that accidents were identified as having occurred in those

industries. For a complete listing of the individual industries, see

Ex. 3-9.

Table 7.--Industries Where Accidents Occurred--OSHA Investigative

Summary (OSHA Form 170) Reports

------------------------------------------------------------------------

SICP Times

division Description cited

------------------------------------------------------------------------

B........... Mining.......................................... 4

C........... Construction.................................... 25

D........... Manufacturing................................... 95

E........... Transportation, communication and utilities..... 22

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

since establishments of 10 or less employees in this industry are

exempt from OSHA jurisdiction.

[[Page 13791]]

Source: Office of Electrical, Electronic and Mechanical Engineering

Safety Standards, Directorate of Safety Standards Programs, OSHA.

F. The OSHA Emergency Communications System Reports.

OSHA has another internal system for collecting information about

serious accidents. This is a telephone system which requires that

serious and/or significant accidents be telephoned into the National

Office.

The telephone call 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) to the National

Office. The information contained in these reports is disseminated to

the responsible officials in OSHA and to the directorates of the

Agency. These reports are broken down within the various offices and

distributed to the appropriate personnel. There are approximately 1200

reports received by the National Office yearly. See Ex. 3-10.

None of the reports are screened before the OSHA National Office

receives them to eliminate those from a certain industry, occupation or

because of other factors. Although these reports may not be considered

statistically significant by themselves in attempting to determine the

number of accidents that have occurred, the lack of prior screening

indicates that they represent a reasonable sampling of the most serious

type 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 and

identified 247 that involved powered industrial trucks. These accidents

occurred between 1980 and the present. OSHA looked at the number of

accidents reported through its telephonic system and determined the

percentage of those accidents that involved powered industrial trucks.

Table 8 contains a listing of the number of First Reports of Serious

Accident reports which were received from 1980 to present, the number

of those accidents which involved powered industrial trucks, and the

corresponding percentage.

Table 8.--Yearly Summary of First Report of Serious Accidents

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Pit

Year reports accidents Percent

------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

---------------------------------------

Totals2................... 6,424 247 3.6

------------------------------------------------------------------------

1These are the number of total reports received between the first of the

year until March 31.

2The total number of reports, the number of accidents involving powered

industrial trucks and the percentage were calculated using the figures

from 1985-1990. The number of accidents reported during the years 1980-

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 these reports were examined to determine the causes of the

accidents. In some instances, multiple causes were identified. Table 9

lists the causes of the accidents and the number of accidents which

were attributable to that cause.

Table 9.--Causes of Accidents (Powered Industrial Trucks) First Reports

of Serious Accident

------------------------------------------------------------------------

No.

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

Employees 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.

G. The OSHA General Duty Clause Citation Analysis.

The Office of Mechanical Engineering Safety Standards of OSHA,

conducted an analysis of the citations which were issued between 1979

and 1984 for violations of the general duty clause (section 5(a)(1)) of

the Occupational Safety and Health Act. During that period, there were

a total of 3637 inspections in which at least one 5(a)(1) citation was

issued. See Ex. 3-11.

Sixty-five general duty clause citations involved powered

industrial truck operations. Each was examined to determine the nature

of the violation. Table 10 lists the violation that was alleged to have

occurred.

Table 10.--Summary of General Duty Clause (5(a)(1)) Citations

------------------------------------------------------------------------

No.

Violation instances

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Employee elevated on forks................................... 44

Improper operation of vehicle................................ 13

Improper maintenance on vehicle.............................. 5

No vehicle operator training................................. 2

[[Page 13792]]

Order picker without fall protection......................... 1

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: Office of Electrical, Electronic and Mechanical Engineering

Safety Standards, Directorate of Safety Standards Programs, OSHA.

V. Basis for Agency Action

OSHA believes that, as the above discussion indicates, that there

is a sufficient body of data and information on which to base a

revision of the existing standard for powered industrial truck operator

training and the promulgation of the same requirement for powered

industrial truck operator training in the construction, maritime and

agriculture industries. These requirements would reduce the number of

fatalities and injuries resulting from accidents involving powered

industrial trucks operated by untrained or insufficiently trained

employees.

According to OSHA's data and information, powered industrial truck

accidents account for approximately 4.8 percent of the fatalities, 3.5

percent of the serious injuries and 2.4 percent of the non-serious

injuries that occur in general industry each year. These accidents

resulted in an average of 107 fatalities, 33,800 serious injuries, and

61,800 non-serious injuries per year from 1981 through 1990.

In analyzing its accident data, OSHA has derived two separate

estimates of the number of fatalities and serious injuries that occur

to employees due to powered industrial truck accidents. Because the two

set of numbers are in the same range, the Agency has presented both. It

should be noted that the number of fatalities is virtually identical

using either method of derivation. However, slightly different

definitions are used for estimating injuries. The other set of

estimates are presented in the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis,

below.

There are approximately 68,400 accidents involving powered

industrial trucks in general industry per year. This figure was arrived

at by totaling the fatalities, serious, and non-serious injuries and

dividing this result by 1.4 (the number of injuries per accident

determined from the OSHA Fatality/Catastrophe Reports). According to

the Industrial Truck Association (ITA), there are currently

approximately 855,900 powered industrial trucks in the United States,

therefore approximately 8 percent of the powered industrial trucks will

be involved in an accident this year (this assumes a truck is involved

in only one accident this year). Since the ITA has stated that the

useful life of a powered industrial truck is 8 years, that means that

at some point during its useful life, almost two-thirds of the powered

industrial trucks will be involved in some type accident (again,

assuming there is only one accident per truck).

OSHA also looked at the type accidents that were described in the

section of this preamble entitled ``Accident, injury and other data.''

The three reports that contained that information were the ``Industrial

Forklift Truck Fatalities--A Summary'' (ODA Study); ``The OSHA

Fatality/Catastrophe Reports'' (Fat/Cat Study); and the ``OSHA

Emergency Communications System Reports, First Reports.'' The number of

different types of accidents are given in Table 12, below. Since the

Industrial Forklift Truck Fatalities report was the only one that used

a single causation methodology for categorizing the accidents, this is

the only study for which percentages of the accidents were calculated.

These percentages appear in parentheses following the numbers.

Table 11.--Causes of Powered Industrial Truck Accidents

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Study

-------------------------------

Cause First

ODA study Fat/cats reports

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tipovers................................ 22 (42%) 53 58

Struck by vehicle....................... 24 (46%) ........ 43

Struck by falling material.............. 4 (8%) 90 143

Elevated employees...................... 2 (4%) 26 28

Control activation...................... 1 (2%) 26 ........

Improper equipment or usage............. .......... 10 \3\13

Vehicle overloaded...................... .......... 15 ........

Obstructed view......................... .......... 10 ........

Maintenance acc......................... .......... 14 14

Speeding................................ .......... 5 ........

Fell from platform...................... .......... ........ 423

Lost control............................ .......... ........ 10

Overcome by CO.......................... .......... ........ 10

Employee fell from vehicle.............. .......... ........ 7

Electrocution........................... .......... ........ 2

------------------------------------------------------------------------

1This number represents the accidents due to material that was in the

powered industrial truck (a portion of the load) falling on an

employee-33 cases, and stacked material falling on an employee when

struck by a powered industrial truck-10 cases.

2This number represents the accidents due to the operator leaving the

vehicle in gear, dismounting the vehicle and being struck when the

vehicle moved.

3This number represents the number of accidents when either the vehicle

was used improperly (6 instances) or the vehicle was defective (7

instances).

4This number represents the number of accidents when the operator drove

the vehicle off an elevated dock (16 instances) or fell against the

face of the dock when an unchocked trailer rolled away from the dock

when being loaded or unloaded.

Sources: ``The Forklift Truck Fatalities--A Summary Report'' (ODA

Study); ``The OSHA Fatality/Catastrophe Reports'' (Fat/Cats); and

``The OSHA Emergency Communications System Reports (First Reports)''.

In 9 percent of the accident investigations in which an OSHA 170

was prepared (19 of 208), lack of training was identified as a causal

factor. In more than half of these accident investigations (11 of 19),

lack of training was not cited by OSHA compliance officers. However,

OSHA's standard specifies that only trained and authorized operators

are allowed to operate powered industrial trucks. Absence of a citation

when lack of training was identified as a causal factor in the accident

can only be attributed to the fact that many compliance officers

believe that the powered industrial truck training requirement (29 CFR

1910.178(l)) is vague and unenforceable in its present form.

In addition, most of the accidents where lack of training was not

mentioned, clearly could have been avoided through better training.

When OSHA completes this rulemaking, in light of the large number of

industrial truck accidents, based on priorities and resources, it will

consider whether to revise the entire powered industrial truck

standard. Persons also may wish to comment on whether OSHA should

revise the entire standard in the future. [[Page 13793]]

VI. The Need for Training

Training is generally defined as making a person proficient through

the use of specialized instruction and practice. Training is the means

by which an employer ensures that employees have the knowledge, skills,

and abilities that are necessary for the employees to do their jobs

correctly.

Once an employee acquires the basic knowledge, skills, and

abilities, refresher or remedial training may be used to reinforce or

improve those attributes, to provide new material, to provide material

that was previously discussed in a new manner, or to simply maintain an

awareness of the material that had previously been taught. Refresher or

remedial training is normally conducted on a predetermined periodic

basis, that is, on a monthly, semi-annual, or annual basis.

Training may be as simple and informal as a supervisor pointing out

either an error in the manner in which an employee is doing a job

(making an on-the-spot correction) or showing an employee how to do a

particular task (demonstrating the proper method to do the job). On the

other end of the spectrum is the detailed, structured instruction that

uses the classical methods of training (lectures, conferences, formal

demonstrations, practical exercises, examinations, etc.). Formal

training is usually used to impart a greater amount of, more

complicated, or more detailed information to a trainee.

For the most part, employees do not start out with the innate

knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform many of the complicated or

difficult practices and procedures that occur commonly in the

workplace. For example, many states require potential car drivers to

pass either driver training and/or driver education programs to qualify

for a drivers license. Even with this training, young drivers are

involved in a disproportionate number of accidents. It is only after

the drivers have more experience that the number of accidents

decreases. Although many employees who are selected or assigned to

drive powered industrial trucks are licensed to drive automobiles,

there are enough dissimilarities between these two types of vehicles

and their operation to require additional knowledge, skills, and

abilities to operate a powered industrial trucks safely. Operational

characteristics of powered industrial trucks, such as using vehicles

equipped with rear-wheel steering and front-wheel drive and the

hoisting--moving--lowering of loads, require operator training and

practice to master the different driving skills that must be used when

an employee operates powered industrial trucks.

Many of these accidents either can be prevented, or the seriousness

of the injury to the employee can be mitigated by training employees.

Effective training and supervision also can prevent the occurrence of

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. Another example in which training can prevent or lessen

the severity of an accident of this kind is directly related to the

stability of powered industrial trucks when traveling with an elevated

load. Effective operator training should include the admonition that

the vehicle can only be moved when the load is at its lowest point.

Even if this admonition is ignored and the vehicle tips over, the

injury to the operator is usually minimal if the he or she stays with

the vehicle. As previously discussed, the usual injury in a powered

industrial truck tipover occurs when the operator attempts to jump off

the vehicle when it is tipping over. 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 the usual injury is a crushing

injury of the head, neck or back when the overhead guard contacts the

employee. Training an employee to stay with the vehicle will reduce the

severity of some of these injuries.

In 1990, the Office of Technology Assessment of the U.S. Congress

published a book at the request of the Senate Labor and Human Resources

Committee, the House Education and Labor Committee, and the Senate

Finance Committee. This book is entitled, Worker Training: Competing in

the New International Economy, OTA-ITE-457 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, September 1990; Ex. 3-12) Although this

book addresses the need for training so that American industry can

remain competitive in the world marketplace, there were many salient

facts presented, both about the state of training in the workplace and

the need for additional training.

To be effective, training must impart appropriate skills, must not

include irrelevant information and must accommodate varying employee

backgrounds and learning styles. Training is most effective when it is

quickly reinforced on the job. Poor timing of training, lack of

reinforcement at work, and other factors prevent effective transfer of

knowledge to the job.

The book also pointed out that small business access to new

employees with good skills is limited. Employees hired by companies

reflect the labor pool available and is dependent upon the size of the

company. Small companies must draw their employees from the locally

available talent pool whereas larger companies can attract prospective

employees from a much larger geographical area. In order to make up for

the limitations of the limited talent pool, small employers usually

must provide additional training and education to achieve comparable

employee performance.

The OTA book pointed out that inadequate training costs firms and

employers not only in health and safety risks, but also downtime,

defective parts and equipment, wasted material, late deliveries,

inferior quality products and poor customer service. To maximize its

effectiveness, training must be focused on workplace problems because

simply providing more generalized, non-directed training will not

promote industrial competitiveness. If the work is not organized to tap

employee skills, the training investment will be wasted.

Finally, the book emphasized that employers historically have not

trained their workers for several reasons. First, high labor turnover

has mistakenly led employers to believe that skilled workers will leave

so their companies will not recoup their training investment. Second,

many employers believe that an increase in productivity will not offset

the cost of training employees. As the book points out, that is not the

case.

The studies conducted by Cohen and Jensen, discussed under

Accident, injury and other data earlier in this preamble, found a

reduction in operator error rate of up to 70 percent. Although a 70

percent error rate reduction can not be directly equated to a

corresponding reduction in the number of accidents that this or any

other group of operators will experience, improper or unsafe operation

of a powered industrial truck is the major cause of the accidents and

their resultant fatalities and injuries. Therefore, a reduction in the

unsafe operation of a powered industrial truck will reduce the number

of accidents, and the resultant fatalities and injuries.

Many standards promulgated by OSHA explicitly require the employer

to train employees in the safety and health aspects of their jobs.

These requirements reflect OSHA's belief that training is an essential

part of an effective employer's program for protecting workers from

accidents and illnesses. (See Ex. 3-13 [[Page 13794]] for a complete

list of the OSHA standards that require training.)

Although not all powered industrial truck accident reports spell

out the lack of training as a causal factor of the accidents, each

accident can, in part, be attributed to either being caused or worsened

by the actions or inactions of the operator. For example, when a

powered industrial truck tips over, the accident is caused by one or

more of several factors, including speeding, traveling with the load in

an elevated position, or improperly negotiating a turn. Training can

minimize the times that these events occur.

Proper training of an employee must take into account the fact

that 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) can adversely affect vehicle

operation. Operator training must emphasize two points regarding any

potential accident scenario. These two factors are: (1) The employee

should not engage in activities that may cause an accident, and (2) the

employee should minimize the potential for injury (either to himself or

herself or to other employees) by taking appropriate actions.

OSHA is not proposing a program of licensing or certification of

powered industrial truck operators either by itself or as an adjunct to

operator training. OSHA does not have the resources to conduct such a

program since there are close to 1.5 million employees who operate

powered industrial trucks.

VII. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Rule

OSHA is proposing to revise the training requirement for powered

industrial truck operators, 29 CFR 1910.178(l), contained in the

general industry standards, and to add equivalent training requirements

for the maritime industries. This proposal is intended to enhance the

safe operation of powered industrial trucks in the workplace.

On February 27, 1995, OSHA submitted to the Advisory Committee on

Construction Safety and Health (AC) a draft of this document. The

ACCOSH recommended to OSHA that the Agency not proceed with rulemaking

for that industry until the Advisory Committee had sufficient time to

completely study the document and provide further recommendations.

Consequently, this rulemaking is limited to general industry and the

maritime industries. The Agency intends to propose to adopt for the

construction industry similar requirements for training the operators

of powered industrial trucks after receiving and taking into account

the recommendations of the ACCOSH.

In developing this proposal, OSHA looked at the training

requirements of the existing national consensus standard for powered

industrial trucks, ANSI B56.1-1993, as well as training requirements

from other standards (both industry and government). The non-training

related requirements of those standards are beyond the scope of this

proposal.

OSHA has not included suggestive language contained at paragraph

4.19.2 of the consensus standard because other enforceable language in

the proposed standard covers the issue. This paragraph states, ``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.''

The Agency has not adopted the language contained in 4.19.3(a) of

the consensus standard because the responsibility for providing a safe

workplace (including the use of a powered industrial truck) is vested

with the employer under the OSH Act. This paragraph specifies, ``The

primary responsibility of the operator is to use the powered industrial

truck safely following the instructions given in the training

program.''

The consensus standard, at 4.19.4(e) and 4.19.5 specifies the type

of training and the testing that should be conducted, whereas the OSHA

standard leaves the methods of training up to the employer. As

explained elsewhere in this preamble, the employer is responsible for

selecting the methods that are employed to train the operators. In some

circumstances, the employee may be able to gain valuable information

from reading the operators manual for the vehicle. In other

circumstances, the employee may not be able to read and comprehend the

contents of the manual and may have to be shown how to operate the

truck safely.

Many of the other OSHA standards and the consensus standards

specify that some means be used to verify that training was conducted.

Examples of such verification include: (1) Requiring documentation of

the training, (2) the production and retention of lesson plans, (3)

attendance rosters, and (4) the issuance of training certificates. When

refresher or remedial training is specified, these other rules usually

require that a set amount of training be conducted at a regular

interval (for example, a certain number of hours of refresher training

be conducted annually). OSHA is including evaluation by a designated

person and certification that the employee has taken the training and

can competently operate the truck. Course materials also must be kept.

OSHA believes that this is the appropriate method of verification. As

operators vary greatly in the experience and backgrounds and they will

be required to operate different types of vehicles, different types and

amounts of training are necessary and OSHA does not believe it can

specify a rigid curriculum.

This proposed revision of the training requirement found in

Sec. 1910.178(l) for operators of powered industrial trucks and the

imposition of the same requirement for operators of powered industrial

trucks in other industries (construction and maritime) specifies that

the employer develop a complete training program. This program consists

of an evaluation of each potential truck operator and the training of

the potential operator in those subject matters relating to the

operation of the truck, the work environment in which the truck will be

operated and the requirements of the OSHA standard. This training

program also must include a periodic evaluation of the performance of

the operator and refresher or remedial training as necessary. To

maximize the effectiveness of the training, OSHA is proposing to allow

the employer to avoid having to conduct training that is duplicative of

other training the employee has previously received. Finally, the

training provisions would require that the employer certify that the

training and evaluations have been conducted.

At paragraph (1)(i), OSHA specifies that each potential operator of

a powered industrial truck must be capable of performing the duties

that are required of the job after training and appropriate

accommodation. This would include being able to climb onto and off of a

truck, to sit on the vehicle for extended periods of time, and to turn

his or her body to be able to look in the direction of travel when

driving in reverse. Elements of this evaluation may include the

employee having the physical and mental abilities to perform the job.

Information obtained during the initial employee evaluation can be used

to, among other things, determine how best to train the employee. For

example, if the employee cannot read and comprehend the operator's

manuals for the type trucks that the employee will operate, then this

information would have to taught by means other than

[[Page 13795]] having the employee try to read the truck manuals. The

initial evaluation can be useful for the avoidance of duplicative

training.

Paragraph (1)(ii) provides that the employer shall assure that the

employee has received required training, that the employee has been

evaluated and that the potential operator can perform the job

competently. The evaluation must be carried out after the training by a

designated person so that the employer can assure that the potential

operator can perform the duties required of an operator in a competent

manner. The conduct of this evaluation during the training is known as

a practical exercise or a performance test. OSHA believes that only

through evaluation by a knowledgeable person after training can an

employer know that the employee has been adequately trained and can

safely perform the job.

The designated person may be the employer if qualified. A small

business person who has employees may send the employees to an outside

training organization. Alternately, the employer may take or have

training so that the employer is qualified as a designated person.

At paragraph (2), OSHA is proposing to require that the employer

implement a training program for all powered industrial truck

operators. This program would ensure that only trained drivers who have

successfully completed the training program would be allowed to operate

these vehicles. An exception to the rule would allow trainees to

operate powered industrial trucks provided the operation is under the

direct supervision of a designated person and the operation is

conducted where is minimum danger to the trainee or other employees.

OSHA is proposing at paragraph (2)(ii) that the training consist of

a combination of classroom instruction and practical training. The

Agency believes that only by the use of a combination of training

methods will the employee be adequately trained. Although classroom

training is invaluable for the teaching of the principles of vehicle

operation, it is the hands-on training and the evaluation of the

operation of the vehicle that finally proves the adequacy of the

training and the ability of the employee to use that training to

successfully operate a powered industrial truck.

At paragraph (2)(iii), OSHA is proposing to require that all

training be conducted by a designated person. OSHA defines a designated

person as one who has the requisite knowledge, training and experience

to train powered industrial truck operators. As discussed elsewhere in

this preamble, the employer may have the necessary prerequisites to

qualify as a designated person or he or she may assign the training

responsibility to another person (either a knowledgeable employee or an

trainer from outside the company).

To ensure that the training contains the appropriate information

for the operator, OSHA has provided a list of subjects at paragraph

(3). Under this rule, it is the responsibility of the employer to

select the particular items that are pertinent to the type trucks that

the employee will be allowed to operate and the work environment in

which the vehicle will be operated. For example, if the employee will

be allowed to operate an order picker, it is essential that he or she

understand the location and function of the controls, the location and

operation of the powerplant, steering and maneuvering, visibility,

inspection and maintenance and other general operating functions of the

vehicle. Additionally, it is essential that the employee know and

understand that he or she must be restrained from falling when the

platform of the truck is in an elevated position and that the truck

must never be driven when the platform is elevated. Under this proposed

requirement, it is the responsibility of the employer to select those

elements of the training that are necessary for the type vehicle to be

used and the workplace in which that vehicle will be operated. The

employer may leave out elements if the employer can demonstrate that

they are not relevant to safe operation in the employer's workplace.

An additional component of the training program is a continuing

evaluation of the operator. At paragraph (4), OSHA specifies that this

evaluation be conducted on a periodic basis so that the employee

retains and uses the knowledge, skills and abilities that are necessary

for the safe operation of the vehicle. This evaluation need not be

conducted continuously, however, the employer should conduct these

evaluations at intervals that will ensure that the operators have not

forgotten or chosen to disregard their training. This evaluation does

not have to be formalized but must consist of a designated person

observing the operation to ensure that the use of the powered

industrial truck is being conducted safely. OSHA requires that this

evaluation be carried out at least annually.

OSHA is requiring at paragraph (5) that the employer certify that

the required training and evaluations have been conducted. To minimize

the paperwork burden on the employer, OSHA is specifying that the

certification consist of the name of the employee, the date of the

training or evaluation and the signature of the person conducting the

training or evaluation.

Under this paragraph, OSHA also specifies that all the current

training materials used in the conduct of training or the name and

address of the outside trainer, if one is used, be maintained.

At paragraph (6), OSHA is proposing to allow the employer to forgo

that portion of the training that an employee has previously received.

The intent of these provisions is to allow the employer to not have to

train an employee in those phases of the operation of a powered

industrial truck if the employee knows the necessary information and

has been evaluated and has proven to be competent to perform those

duties.

As previously discussed, there are three major areas of

consideration that must be emphasized when conducting a powered

industrial truck training program. These three areas are: (1) The

characteristics, operation and limitations of the vehicles that the

trainee will be authorized to operate, (2) the hazards due to the

characteristics of the workplace in which these vehicles will operate,

and (3) the general safety rules that apply to these vehicles and their

operation.

This proposed rule has been drafted in performance language to

allow reasonable flexibility to the employer for developing the

training program and conducting the training. OSHA recognizes the

inherent differences in the capabilities and limitations of employees,

both to assimilate the training and then to utilize the knowledge that

has been gained. Therefore, the proposed regulation does not limit the

employer by specifying the manner in which the training must be

conducted. Similarly, the specific content of the training course has

not been stated because there are different topics which must be taught

due to variances in the operation of the many makes and models of

vehicles and because there are different hazards in each workplace.

However, OSHA has proposed the various subject matters that should be

covered unless the employer determines they are not relevant to the

employer's vehicle and workplace. Although some areas of concern may

not be pertinent to any one workplace and vehicle, other areas are

pertinent to all vehicles and workplaces.

OSHA believes that a training program needs to be conducted before

the employee begins to operate a vehicle. To this end, OSHA has

required initial training of employees so that they [[Page 13796]] will

acquire the knowledge and skills are necessary for the safe operation

of the powered industrial truck before being allowed to operate the

vehicle without close supervision.

OSHA has left the particulars of the type of training (lecture,

conference, demonstration, practical exercise, test or examination,

etc.) to the employer. The length of the training and other variables

must be based on the employee's experience and other qualifications and

the nature of the work environment. The training must be based upon the

type of vehicles the employee will be allowed to operate, the

conditions that exist in the workplace, the general safety rules from

this OSHA standard, the ability of the trainer to teach, and the

ability of the trainee to learn. The ability of the employee to

assimilate the information presented in the training must be used as

the primary criterion for the length, type and other details of the

training. Since each employee is different in his or her ability to

comprehend, assimilate and use the information received in the

training, OSHA believes that one standardized training course will not

suffice for all employees.

The employer may choose the training provider. This could include

contracting with an outside professional training company to come into

the company and train the powered industrial truck operators or the

employer developing and conducting the training program. In either

case, the employer can choose the method or methods by which the

employees will be trained and when the training is conducted.

The standard requires not only appropriate training but evaluation

of the operators competency by a designated person with the knowledge

to make that evaluation. This is the method that will most accurately

prove that the operator has been trained and that the training has

been, and continues to be, effective. Through observation of the

operation of the vehicle, these questions can be answered.

When a new employee claims prior experience in operating a powered

industrial truck, the employer must ensure that the employee knows how

to operate the vehicle safely. This can be ascertained by questioning

the employee on various aspects of the operation of the truck and by

requiring the operator to demonstrate his or her ability to operate the

vehicle safely through the conduct of a practical exercise.

In making a determination of an employee's claim of sufficient

prior experience, the employer must consider the type of equipment that

this employee professes to have operated, how long ago this experience

was gained, and the type work environment in which the employee worked.

Written documentation of the earlier training is also necessary to

determine that proper training has been given. In addition, the

competency of the employee must be evaluated. Based on the resolution

of these issues, the employer can determine whether the experience is

recent and thorough enough, the documentation complete, and the

competency sufficient to forgo some or much of the initial training.

Some training on the specific factors of the new employees workplace is

always going to be necessary. Again, the major criterion of evaluation

of the employee is: Does the person know how to do the job and does the

vehicle operator use those knowledge, skills and abilities to do the

job safely?

OSHA also is proposing to add two non-mandatory appendices. These

appendices are intended to provide guidance to employers in

establishing a training program (Appendix A) and in understanding to

basic principles of stability (Appendix B). In neither case is the

information contained in these appendices intended to provide a

exhaustive explanation of the techniques of conducting training or of

understanding the principles of stability, but each appendix is

intended to introduce the basic concepts so that the employer can

utilize the material to provide basic training.

VIII. Statutory Considerations

A. Introduction

Section 2(b)(3) of the Occupational Safety and Health 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 ``[e]ach

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 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 protective measures capable of reducing or eliminating

significant risk. Additionally, safety standards must better effectuate

the Act's protective purpose than any applicable national consensus

standard, 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 application of these criteria results in

standards that provide a high degree of worker protection without undue

burden on employers.

OSHA has long interpreted section 3(8) of the OSH Act to require

that, before it promulgates ``a health or safety standard, it must find

that a place of employment is unsafe--in the sense that significant

risks are present and can be eliminated or lessened by a change in

practices [See Industrial Union Dep't, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum

Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 642 (1980) (plurality) (Benzene).'' When, as

frequently happens in safety rulemaking, OSHA promulgates standards

that differ from existing national consensus standards, it must explain

``why the rule as adopted will better effectuate the purposes of this

Act than the national consensus standard [29 U.S.C. 655(b)(8)].'' Thus,

national consensus standards provide the minimum level of effectiveness

for standards which OSHA may adopt (29 U.S.C. 655(a)).

As a result, OSHA is precluded from regulating insignificant safety

risks or from issuing safety standards that do not lessen risk in a

significant way.

The OSH Act also limits OSHA's discretion to issue overly

burdensome rules, as the agency also has long recognized that ``any

standard that was not economically or technologically feasible would a

fortiori not be `reasonably necessary or appropriate' under the Act.

See Industrial Union Dep't v. Hodgson, [499 F.2d 467, 478 (D.C. Cir.

1974)] (`Congress does not appear to have intended to protect

[[Page 13797]] employees by putting their employers out of business.')

[American Textile Mfrs. Inst. Inc., 452 U.S. at 513 n. 31 (a standard

is economically feasible even if it portends ``disaster for some

marginal firms,'' but it is economically infeasible if it ``threaten[s]

massive dislocation to, or imperil[s] the existence of,'' the

industry)].''

By stating the test in terms of ``threat'' and ``peril,'' the

Supreme Court made clear in ATMI that economic infeasibility begins

short of industry-wide bankruptcy. OSHA itself has placed the line

considerably below this level. (See for example, ATMI, 452 U.S. at 527

n. 50; 43 FR 27,360 (June 23, 1978). Proposed 200 g/m3 PEL for

cotton dust did not raise serious possibility of industry-wide

bankruptcy, but impact on weaving sector would be severe, possibly

requiring reconstruction of 90 percent of all weave rooms. OSHA

concluded that the 200 g/m3 level was not feasible for weaving

and that 750 g/m3 was all that could reasonably be required).

See also 54 FR 29,245-246 (July 11, 1989); American Iron & Steel

Institute, 939 F.2d at 1003. OSHA raised the engineering control level

for lead in small nonferrous foundries to avoid the possibility of

bankruptcy for about half of small foundries even though the industry

as a whole could have survived the loss of small firms.) Although the

cotton dust and lead rulemakings involved health standards, the

economic feasibility ceiling established therein applies equally to

safety standards. Indeed, because feasibility is a necessary element of

a ``reasonably necessary or appropriate'' standard, this ceiling

boundary is the same for health and safety rulemaking since it comes

from section 3(8), which governs all permanent OSHA standards.

All OSHA standards must also be cost-effective in the sense that

the protective measures being required must be the least expensive

measures capable of achieving the desired end (ATMI, at 514 n. 32;

Building and Constr. Trades Dep't AFL-CIO v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258, 1269

(D.C. Cir. 1988)). OSHA gives additional consideration to financial

impact in setting the period of time that should be allowed for

compliance allowing as much as ten years for compliance phase-in. (See

United Steelworkers of Am. v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1278 (D.C. Cir.

1980), cert. denied, 453 U.S. 913 (1981).) Additionally, OSHA's

enforcement policy takes account of financial hardship on an

individualized basis. OSHA's Field Operations Manual provides that,

based on an employer's economic situation, OSHA may extend the period

within which a violation must be corrected after issuance of a citation

(CPL. 2.45B, Chapter III, paragraph E6d(3)(a), Dec. 31, 1990).

To reach the necessary findings and conclusions that a safety

standard substantially reduces a significant risk of harm, is both

technologically and economically feasible, and is cost effective, OSHA

must conduct rulemaking in accord with the requirements of section 6 of

the OSH Act. The regulatory proceeding allows it to determine the

qualitative and, if possible, the quantitative nature of the risk with

and without regulation, the technological feasibility of compliance,

the availability of capital to the industry and the extent to which

that capital is required for other purposes, the industry's profit

history, the industry's ability to absorb costs or pass them on to the

consumer, the impact of higher costs on demand, and the impact on

competition with substitutes and imports. (See ATMI at 2501-2503;

American Iron & Steel Institute generally.)

Finally, general principles of administrative law require the

Agency to justify significant departures from prior practice. (See

International Union, UAW v. Pendergrass, 878 F.2d 389, 400 (D.C.

1989)). In the twenty years since enactment of the OSH Act, OSHA has

promulgated numerous safety standards--standards that provide

benchmarks for judging risks, benefits, and feasibility of compliance

in subsequent rulemakings. (OSHA's Hazardous Waste Operations and

Emergency Response Standard, for example, required use of existing

technology and well accepted safety practices to eliminate at least 32

deaths and 18,700 lost workday injuries at a cost of about $153 million

per year (54 FR 9311-9312; March 6, 1989). The Excavation standard also

drew on existing technology and recognized safety practices to save 74

lives and over 800 lost workday injuries annually at a cost of about

$306 million. (54 FR 45,954; Oct. 31, 1989). OSHA's Grain Handling

Facilities standard relied primarily on simple housekeeping measures to

save 18 lives and 394 injuries annually, at a total net cost of $5.9 to

$33.4 million (52 FR 49,622; Dec. 31, 1991).)

B. The proposed amendment to the standard for the training of

powered industrial truck operators and the promulgation of like

requirements for the construction and maritime industries complies with

the statutory criteria described above.

As explained in Section I, Background, Section II, The Powered

Industrial Truck, Section III, Powered Industrial Truck Hazards,

Section IV, Accident, Injury and Other Data, and Section V, Basis for

Agency Action, earlier in this preamble, and in Section IX, Summary of

the Regulatory Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and

Environmental Impact Assessment, later in this preamble, OSHA has

determined that the operation of powered industrial trucks by untrained

or inadequately trained operators pose significant risks to employees.

There have been on average 85 fatalities, 34,900 serious injuries and

61,800 non-serious injuries annually since 1981 due to unsafe powered

industrial truck operation. OSHA estimates that compliance with the

revised training requirement for powered industrial truck operator will

reduce the risk of hazards to those operators and other employees by 25

percent (preventing 17 to 22 fatalities, 10,898 to 14,118 serious

injuries and 15,450 non-serious injuries annually). This constitutes a

substantial reduction of significant risk of material harm.

The Agency believes that compliance is technologically feasible

because there exists a current rule for the training of powered

industrial truck operators and the revised regulation specifies in more

detail what is to be taught to those operators, and requires the

employer to institute effective supervisory measures to ensure

continued safe operation of those vehicles. In many companies, the

training of vehicle operators and the subsequent supervisory measures

required by the standard have already been implemented.

Additionally, OSHA believes that compliance is economically

feasible, because, as documented by the Regulatory Impact Analysis, all

regulated sectors can readily absorb or pass on compliance costs.

The standard's costs, benefits, and compliance requirements are

reasonable, amounting to approximately 34.9 million in the first year

and 19.4 million per year thereafter, preventing 17 to 22 fatalities,

10,898 to 14,118 serious injuries and 15,450 non-serious injuries per

year. As explained above, using another definition, OSHA estimates that

it will eliminate between 11,968 and 15,504 lost workday injuries in

addition to the fatalities prevented. These percentages are consistent

with those of other OSHA safety standards.

C. The requirement for the training of powered industrial truck

operators is necessary to address the significant risks of material

harm posed by the operation of those vehicles.

OSHA believes that Section I, Background, Section II, The Powered

Industrial Truck, Section III, Powered [[Page 13798]] Industrial Truck

Hazards, Section IV, Accident, Injury and Other Data, and Section V,

Basis for Agency Action, earlier in this preamble have clearly and

comprehensively set out the Agency's bases for concluding that the

operation of powered industrial trucks by untrained or inadequately

trained employees pose significant risks and that the training of those

operators is reasonably necessary to protect affected employees from

those risks. In particular, as detailed in Section IX, Preliminary

Regulatory Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and Environmental

Impact Assessment, later in this preamble, OSHA estimates that the

improper operation of powered industrial trucks causes 85 fatalities,

34,902 serious injuries, and 61,800 non-serious injuries annually, and

that revision of and compliance with the requirements of the OSHA

standard for the training of powered industrial truck operators will

reduce the risk of fatality and injury by 25 percent (preventing 17 to

22 fatalities, 10,898 to 14,118 serious injuries and 15,450 non-serious

injuries).

OSHA emphasizes that its risk assessment is based on employee

exposure to the hazards of the operation of powered industrial trucks,

hazards that exists in a large range of industries. Although Section

IX, Preliminary Regulatory Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

and Environmental Impact Assessment, later in this preamble, presents

OSHA's estimate of the costs and benefits of the revision of the

training requirement in terms of the Standard Industrial Classification

(SIC) codes for the industries regulated, OSHA does not believe that

the risk associated with these hazards vary according to what SIC code

a vehicle may be operated in. Thus, some of the industry categories

within the scope of the final rule that will have compliance costs have

had few or no documented powered industrial truck accidents or injuries

or fatalities during the period covered by the PRIA. In this case, OSHA

has considered developing a scope of the rule to cover those situations

it has determined to be hazardous. As explained more fully below, OSHA

has determined that the lack of prior documented injuries and deaths in

some SIC Codes does not indicate that the employees in those industries

are not exposed to significant risks from the unsafe operation of

powered industrial trucks. As the summary of the PRIA explains in

detail, OSHA has determined that it is appropriate to include those

industries within the scope of the standard because employees in those

industries are exposed to the same kinds of hazards as employees in

industries for which there are reported injuries and fatalities.

Even in industry sectors in which no injuries or fatalities have

been reported, the Agency believes there is sufficient information for

OSHA to determine that employees who work in areas in which powered

industrial trucks are operated or operate those vehicles face

significant risks, based on analysis of the elements of the hazards

identified and of the similarity of hazard elements between industry

sectors. Therefore, the Agency has determined that all employees who

operate those vehicles or work in areas in which those vehicles are

operated face a significant risk of material harm and that compliance

with the powered industrial truck standard is reasonably necessary to

protect affected employees from those risks, regardless of the number

of accidents and injuries reported for the SIC code to which the

employer has been assigned.

Also, because of the difficulties the Agency has experienced in

compiling a database for powered industrial truck accidents, injuries

or fatalities may have occurred in industries, including those for

which no incidents have been documented, without being recorded. In

addition, the SIC code-based organization of incident data may mask

actual or potential hazards of the operation of powered industrial

trucks because, while a business is classified for SIC purposes

according to its principal activity, the workplace may also contain

warehousing areas where materials are stored as a ``secondary''

purpose, that have necessitated the use of powered industrial trucks

with their resultant injuries or fatalities. For example, a new car

dealer would be classified under the new car dealer SIC, even though

the dealer may store a large number of auto accessories, such as tires

and batteries. In many instances, large quantities of items like

batteries are palletized for ease of handling. When these pallets of

material are delivered to the dealer, the items are either removed from

the pallet and handling manually, or the pallet and the material are

moved with some type of powered industrial truck, such as a pallet

jack. Although the workplace is a new car dealer, a powered industrial

truck is in use and an accident would have nothing to do with selling

new cars. Therefore, OSHA believes, based on the limitations of the

accident data and the circumstantial nature of many vehicle accidents,

that it is appropriate to require that employers protect affected

employees from the hazards of vehicle operations in all workplaces

where powered industrial trucks are used, rather than to characterize

workplaces according to the injury or fatality experience of the SIC

codes in which they have been classified.

The Agency also notes that many accidents that occur as a result of

powered industrial truck operations are not classified as an accident

involving a truck. For example, if a powered industrial truck is used

to lift an employee who is standing on the forks of the vehicle and the

employee falls from those forks while aloft, the accident could be

classified as a fall from height or a fall from an elevated platform.

In both instances, the fact that the employee was unsafely taken aloft

on the forks of a powered industrial truck and fell from those forks is

not transferred to the accident report because the accident was

attributed to other causes.

Finally, it is well established in the OSH Act enforcement context

that the lack of injuries or deaths to a particular employer's

employees does not establish that the employees are not exposed to a

hazard. In a frequently quoted passage, the Fifth Circuit long ago

observed that ``the goal of the Act is to prevent the first accident,

not to serve as a source of consolation for the first victim or his

survivors'' (Mineral Industries & Heavy Construction Group v. OSHRC,

639 F.2d 1289, 1294 (5th Cir. 1981)). This principle applies to

regulatory actions as well. Once the agency determines that exposure to

a particular condition constitutes a significant risk, it need not

repeat that analysis for every situation or type of workplace in which

the condition is found.

In addition, those segments with fewer trucks and, consequently

fewer accidents, will have lower costs for training and evaluation.

However, the risk to each individual operator for each year of

operation is approximately the same as in industries with more trucks

and operators. This approach was upheld in International Union, UAW, v.

OSHA, --F. 2d--, (D.C. Circ., October 21, 1994)

For all of the foregoing reasons, OSHA has determined that it is

inappropriate to exclude any of the SICs merely because they have not

recently had documented powered industrial truck injuries or

fatalities, insofar as those SICs contain workplaces where those

vehicles are operated.

D. Conclusion

OSHA has determined that the powered industrial truck standard,

like other safety standards, is subject to the constraints of section

3(8) of the OSH [[Page 13799]] Act, that the standard is ``reasonably

necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment and

places of employment.'' But the standard is not subject to the section

6(b)(5) requirement that it limit significant risk ``to the extent

feasible.''

The Agency believes that the use of powered industrial trucks in

the workplace by untrained or poorly trained employees poses

significant risks and that the need to require that only properly

trained employees operate those vehicles is reasonably necessary to

protect affected employees from those risks. OSHA also has determined

that compliance with the standard for the training of those operators

is technologically feasible because many companies offer the type

training that the standard would require. In addition, OSHA believes

that compliance is economically feasible, because, as documented by the

Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (Ex. 2), all regulated sectors

can readily absorb or pass on initial compliance costs and economic

benefits will ultimately exceed compliance costs. In particular, the

Agency believes that compliance with the powered industrial truck

training requirement will result in substantial cost savings and

productivity gains at facilities that utilize powered industrial trucks

that might otherwise be disrupted by accidents and injuries.

As detailed in the Summary of the Preliminary Regulatory Impact

Analysis, the standard's costs, benefits, and compliance requirements

are consistent with those of other OSHA safety standards. For example,

the Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response standard (29 CFR

1910.120) requires the use of existing technology and well accepted

safety practices to eliminate at least 32 deaths and 18,700 lost

workday injuries at a cost of about $153 million per year (54 FR 9311-

9312; March 6, 1989). The Excavations standard (29 CFR 1926, Subpart P)

also drew on existing technology and recognized safety practices to

save 74 lives and over 800 lost workday injuries annually at a cost of

about $306 million (54 FR 45,954; Oct. 31, 1989). Additionally, the

Grain Handling Facilities standard (29 CFR 1910.272) relied primarily

on simple housekeeping measures to save 18 lives and 394 injuries

annually, at a total net cost of between $5.9 million and $33.4 million

(52 FR 49,622; Dec. 31, 1987). Also, compliance with the planning, work

practice, and training provisions of the Process Safety Management

standard (29 CFR 1910.119) will reduce the risk of catastrophic fire

and explosion (330 fatalities and 1917 injuries and illnesses annually)

by 80 percent, at an annualized cost of $888.7 million in the first

five years and at an annualized cost of $470.8 million in the following

five years.

IX. Summary of the Preliminary Economic, Feasibility and Regulatory

Flexibility Analyses and Environmental Impact Assessment

A. Introduction

Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act require

Federal Agencies to analyze the costs, benefits and other consequences

and impacts of proposed standards and final rules. Consistent with

these requirements, OSHA has prepared a preliminary economic analysis

for the proposed revisions to and adoption of the powered industrial

truck operator training provisions which are proposed in this document.

This analysis includes a description of the industries that would

be affected by the regulation, an assessment of the benefits

attributable to adoption of the proposal, a determination of the

technological feasibility of the proposed revisions, estimation of the

costs of compliance, a determination of the economic feasibility of

compliance with the proposed provisions, and an analysis of the

economic and other impacts of this rulemaking. The Advisory Committee

on Construction Safety and Health is currently reviewing the proposed

rule for applicability to the construction industry and based on the

Advisory Committee's recommendations, OSHA may extend the coverage of

the proposed rule to this sector in the future.

Affected Industries

Using powered industrial truck sales data provided by the

Industrial Truck Association (ITA), OSHA estimates that there are

822,831 industrial trucks in use in industries covered by the proposed

standard. Industries with the largest number of powered industrial

trucks include wholesale trade-non-durable goods (SIC 51) with an

estimated 109,232 powered industrial trucks, and food and kindred

products (SIC 20) with an estimated 71,275 such trucks.

The proposed OSHA revisions will cover workers who operate powered

industrial trucks. This includes operators using these vehicles in the

general industry and maritime sectors. 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 truck 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 warehousemen, materials

handlers, laborers and pedestrians who work on or are present in the

vicinity of powered industrial trucks are also injured or killed in

powered industrial truck accidents. Estimates of the number of non-

driving employees are not included in the population-at-risk numbers

presented in this economic analysis. However, non-driving employees are

included in the number of preventable fatal and non-fatal injuries

estimated to be associated with compliance with the proposed rule.

OSHA estimates that approximately 1.2 million workers are employed

as industrial truck operators in industries regulated by OSHA.

Industries with the largest number of operators include wholesale trade

(SIC 51) with 163,848 operators, and food and kindred products (SIC 20)

with 106,913 operators.

Technological Feasibility

OSHA could not identify any requirement in the proposed 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 requirements using

existing methods and equipment. In addition, the standard introduces no

technological requirements of any type. Therefore, OSHA has

preliminarily concluded that technological feasibility is not an issue

for the proposed standard.

Costs of Compliance

The proposed OSHA industrial truck operator training standard would

expand the initial training required by the existing standard to

include information on the operating instructions and warnings

appropriate to the type of truck used, the specific hazards in the

workplace where the truck will be operated, and instructions pertaining

to the requirements of the OSHA standard. Additionally, the proposed

standard requires employers to monitor the performance of industrial

truck operators through an annual evaluation and to provide remedial

training when this evaluation suggests that such training is needed.

[[Page 13800]]

OSHA estimates that the first year cost of compliance with the

proposed standard will be $34.9 million and that the annual cost of

compliance thereafter will be $19.4 million. Table 12 outlines the

annual costs by each sector affected by the proposed standard. Industry

sectors with the highest estimated annualized compliance costs are

manufacturing, with $9.8 million, and wholesale and retail trade with

$5.6 million. 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 proposed standard,

no cost is attributed to the standard. OSHA welcomes comments on the

preliminary costs and assumptions presented in this Preliminary

Economic Analysis.

Table 12.--Estimated Annualized Compliance Costs for the Proposed Industrial Truck Operator Training Standard

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initial Initial Remedial

Sector evaluation training Monitoring training Total

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agriculture.............................. $2,457 $28,637 $39,404 $2,251 $72,749

Mininga.................................. 1,109 12,923 17,778 1,016 32,825

Manufacturing............................ 332,222 3,872,651 5,327,726 304,441 9,837,040

Transportation and Utilities............. 91,344 1,064,777 1,464,847 83,706 2,704,674

Wholesale and Retail Trade............... 189,193 2,205,396 3,034,033 173,373 5,601,996

Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate........ 2,607 30,389 41,807 2,389 77,192

Services................................. 37,477 436,859 601,001 34,343 1,109,679

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Total.............................. 656,408 7,651,632 10,526,595 601,519 19,436,154

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

aOil and gas extraction.

Note: Costs are annualized over 10 years at a 7 percent interest rate (annualization factor 0.1424).

Source: US Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, based on ERG [1, Section 3].

Benefits

An estimated 85 fatalities and 34,902 injuries result annually from

industrial truck-related accidents. As presented in Table 13, OSHA

estimates that full compliance with the proposed standard will prevent

between 17 and 22 of these fatalities per year and between 10,898 and

14,118 lost workday injuries. These preventable fatalities and injuries

are in addition to lives saved and injuries prevented by OSHA's

existing standard.

The proposed standard will also reduce property damage and

training-related litigation. OSHA's preliminary analysis of the impacts

of improved training show reductions in property damage valued at an

estimated $8 million to $42 million annually. In addition, OSHA

estimates that approximately $770,018 will be saved annually in damages

and settlements in court cases that would have been awarded as a result

of injuries caused by deficiencies in industrial truck operator

training.

Table 13.--Number of Fatalities and Injuries Prevented by Compliance With the Proposed Powered Industrial Truck

Training Standard

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Preventable fatalities Total Preventable injuries

number of under proposed standard number of under proposed standard

Industry group industrial -------------------------- industrial -------------------------

truck truck

fatalities Low High injuries Low High

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Forestry, Fishing and Agricultural

Services......................... 0 0 0 219 68 88

Mining--oil and gas extraction.... 1 0.2 0.3 84 26 34

Manufacturing..................... 30 5.9 7.7 14,895 4,651 6,025

Transportation, communication, and

utilities........................ 20 3.9 5.1 4,265 1,332 1,725

Wholesale and retail trade........ 25 4.9 6.4 12,012 3,751 4,859

Finance, insurance, and real

estate........................... 0 0 0 212 66 86

Services.......................... 9 1.8 2.3 3,215 1,004 1,300

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

All industries.............. 85 17 22 34,902 10,898 14,118

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, based on ERG Report (1, Section 4).

Economic Impacts and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

OSHA assessed the potential economic impacts of compliance with the

proposed standard and has preliminarily determined that the standard is

economically feasible for all industry groups. Detailed information at

the three-digit SIC level is presented in OSHA's Preliminary Economic

Analysis. When an industry enjoys an inelastic demand for its products,

an increase in operating costs can ordinarily be passed on to

consumers. In this case, the maximum expected price increase is

calculated by dividing the average estimated compliance cost in each

industry by the average revenue for that industry. OSHA estimates that

the average price increase would be negligible, about 0.0002 percent.

Table 14 shows that the average price increase at the two-digit SIC

level would be extremely small. (For impacts at the three-digit SIC

level, see economic analysis, Table V-1). These estimates indicate that

even if all costs were passed on to consumers through price increases,

the proposed standard would have a negligible impact on prices overall.

Given the minuscule price increases necessary to cover the cost of

the proposed training requirements, employers should be able to pass

along compliance costs to customers. However, even if all costs were

absorbed by the affected firms, the average [[Page 13801]] reduction in

profits would be only 0.007 percent. As presented in Table 14, the

largest potential decrease in profits--0.038 percent--would occur in

SIC 51, Nondurable Goods. Because most firms will not find it necessary

to absorb all of the costs from profits and should be able to pass most

if not all of the standard's costs on to consumers, average profits are

not expected to decline to the extent calculated here. OSHA, therefore,

does not expect the revised standard to have a significant economic

impact on affected firms or industries.

Table 14.--Economic Impact of the Proposed Powered Industrial Trucks Operator Training Standard

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Value of

industry Compliance

shipments, Annualized Compliance costs Pre-tax costs as a

SIC/Industry sector receipts or compliance as a percent of income ($ percent of

sales ($ costs sales millions) pre-tax

millions) income

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

07 Agricultural services.............. NA $72,749 ................ ........... ...........

13 Mining--oil and gas extraction..... $48,178 32,825 Negligible...... ........... ...........

20 Food and kindred products.......... 387,601 1,774,023 0.0005.......... 36,213 0.005

21 Tobacco products................... 32,032 43,951 0.0001.......... (\1\) (\1\)

22 Textile mill products.............. 65,706 384,461 0.0006.......... 5,102 0.008

23 Apparel and other textile products. 65,345 109,656 0.0002.......... 3,548 0.003

24 Lumber and wood products........... 70,569 415,093 0.0006.......... 2,881 0.014

25 Furniture and fixtures............. 40,027 194,006 0.0005.......... 1,942 0.010

26 Paper and allied products.......... 128,824 760,042 0.0006.......... 7,307 0.010

27 Printing, publishing, and allied 156,685 435,959 0.0003.......... 13,171 0.003

industries.

28 Chemicals and allied products...... 292,326 931,407 0.0003.......... 24,169 0.004

29 Petroleum refining and related 158,076 92,786 0.0001.......... 11,193 0.001

industries.

30 Rubber and miscellaneous plastics 100,668 522,973 0.0005.......... 5,366 0.010

products.

31 Leather and leather products....... 9,142 47,059 0.0005.......... (\2\) (\2\)

32 Stone, clay, glass, and concrete 59,611 396,003 0.0007.......... 2,664 0.015

products.

33 Primary metal industries........... 132,837 567,368 0.0004.......... 3,133 0.018

34 Fabricated metal products.......... 157,077 717,423 0.0005.......... 7,660 0.009

35 Industrial and commercial machinery 243,479 900,774 0.0004.......... ........... ...........

and computer equip.

36 Electric and electronic equipment.. 197,880 492,784 0.0002.......... 15,378 0.003

37 Transportation equipment........... 364,032 691,674 0.0002.......... 1,916 0.036

38 Instruments and related equipment.. 127,160 141,176 0.0001.......... 8,326 0.002

39 Miscellaneous manufacturing 37,131 218,423 0.0006.......... 2,418 0.009

industries.

40 Railroad transportation............ 44,422 69,042 0.0002.......... ........... ...........

41 Local, suburban, and interurban 8,094 51,782 0.0006.......... ........... ...........

passenger transit.

42 Trucking and warehousing........... 110,103 1,800,849 0.0016.......... ........... ...........

44 Water transportation............... 18,336 105,655 0.0006.......... ........... ...........

45 Transportation by air.............. 82,055 188,820 0.0002.......... ........... ...........

46 Pipelines, except natural gas...... 2,098 4,707 0.0002.......... ........... ...........

47 Transportation services............ 54,432 156,391 0.0003.......... ........... ...........

48 Communications..................... 232,257 60,673 Negligible...... ........... ...........

49 Electric, gas and sanitary services 292,280 266,754 0.0001.......... ........... ...........

50 Durable goods...................... 981,208 1,335,982 0.0001.......... 4,880 0.027

51 Nondurable goods................... 943,174 2,201,118 0.0002.......... 5,831 0.038

52 Building materials and garden 115,855 426,997 0.0004.......... ........... ...........

supplies.

53 General merchandise stores......... 266,991 683,253 0.0003.......... ........... ...........

54 Food stores........................ 392,400 690,815 0.0002.......... ........... ...........

55 Automatic dealers and service 587,890 67,212 Negligible...... ........... ...........

stations.

56 Apparel and accessory stores....... 106,128 39,537 Negligible...... ........... ...........

57 Furniture and home furnishings 113,673 136,581 0.0001.......... ........... ...........

stores.

58 Eating and drinking places......... 211,036 28,035 Negligible...... ........... ...........

59 Miscellaneous retails.............. 249,463 265,974 0.0001.......... ........... ...........

60 Banking............................ 48,477 15,103 Negligible...... ........... ...........

61 Credit agencies other than banks... 69,148 6,293 Negligible...... ........... ...........

62 Security and commodity brokers and 41,226 5,034 Negligible...... ........... ...........

services.

63 Insurance carriers................. 521,036 27,269 Negligible...... ........... ...........

64 Insurance agents, brokers, and 31,623 2,937 Negligible...... ........... ...........

services.

65 Real estate........................ 96,942 13,425 Negligible...... ........... ...........

67 Holding and other investment 47,301 7,132 Negligible...... ........... ...........

offices.

70 Hotels and other lodging places.... 64,630 13,486 Negligible...... ........... ...........

72 Personal services.................. 59,052 13,486 Negligible...... ........... ...........

78 Motion pictures.................... 43,838 17,164 Negligible...... ........... ...........

79 Amusement and recreation services.. 51,107 25,746 Negligible...... ........... ...........

80 Health services.................... 285,040 72,743 Negligible...... ........... ...........

81 Legal services..................... 96,179 4,495 Negligible...... ........... ...........

82 Educational services............... 4,617 64,569 0.0014.......... ........... ...........

83 Social services.................... 68,312 22,068 Negligible...... ........... ...........

84 Museums, art galleries, botanical 3,551 1,226 Negligible...... ........... ...........

and zoological gardens.

86 Membership organizations........... 39,118 7,765 Negligible...... ........... ...........

87 Engineering, accounting, research 224,238 52,309 Negligible...... ........... ...........

and management svcs.

89 Miscellaneous services, n.e.c...... 23,871 15,938 0.0001.......... ........... ...........

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 13802]]Totals............. ........... 19,436,154 0.0002.......... ........... 0.007

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\=included under SIC 20.

\2\=included under SIC 23.

Negligible denotes less than 0.00001 percent.

Source: US Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, based on ERG Report (1, Chapter 6).

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C.

601 et seq.), OSHA has also analyzed the economic impact of the

proposed standard on small establishments (19 or fewer employees),

looking particularly for evidence that the rule would have a

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small

businesses will incur lower compliance costs than larger businesses

because the compliance costs depend directly on the number of

industrial truck operators in a given facility. OSHA has preliminarily

concluded that it would not have a significant impact upon a

substantial number of small entities. Assuming a 15 percent turnover

rate, compliance costs for a typical small business in public

warehousing and storage (SIC 422) will be $1,188 in the first year and

$280 annually thereafter. OSHA estimates that the average price impact

for small establishments will not exceed 0.12 percent. Similarly, OSHA

estimates that, if the average establishment could not pass any of

these costs to its customers through this very small price increase (a

highly unlikely scenario), the costs would impact average profits by

less than 1.2 percent. These impacts are judged to be relatively minor;

therefore, the proposed standard is economically feasible for small

establishments.

XI. Environmental Assessment

The proposed rules have been reviewed in accordance with the

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969

(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the regulations of the Council of

Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR part 1500), and DOL NEPA procedures

(29 CFR part 11). The provision of the standard focuses on the

reduction and avoidance of incidents involving powered industrial

trucks. Consequently, no major negative impact is foreseen on air,

water or soil quality, plant or animal life, the use of land or other

aspects of the environment. Therefore, this revision is categorized as

an excluded action according to subpart B, Sec. 11.10 of the DOL NEPA

regulations.

X. International Trade

This revision of the OSHA standards on powered industrial trucks

and the promulgation of the same standard for other industries is not

likely to have a significant effect on international trade because of

the small magnitude of any price increase that would be required for

passing forward compliance costs. As shown above, the maximum price

increases generated from the proposed rule would be less that 1.0

percent for the majority of affected establishments. Further, none of

the compliance requirements affect the demand for foreign-made safety

equipment. It can be concluded, therefore, that there will be no

measurable impacts on foreign trade.

XII. Federalism

This proposed regulation has been reviewed in accordance with

Executive Order 12612 (52 FR 41685, October 30, 1987), regarding

Federalism. This Order requires 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.

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 in 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 proposed 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

which 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 for

affected employers to use, methods of compliance which are appropriate

to the working conditions covered by the standard.

In brief, this proposed rule addresses a clear national problem

related to occupational safety and health in general industry. Those

states which have elected to participate under section 18 of the OSH

Act are not preempted by this standard, 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 their

standard. State comments are invited on this proposal and will be fully

considered prior to promulgation of a final rule.

XIII. Public Participation

Interested persons are requested to submit written data, views and

arguments concerning this proposal. These comments must be postmarked

by July 12, 1995, and submitted in quadruplicate to the Docket Office;

Docket No. S-008, Room N2624; U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational

Safety and Health Administration; 200 [[Page 13803]] Constitution Ave.,

NW., Washington, DC 20210.

All written comments received within the specified comment period

will be made a part of the record and will be available for public

inspection and copying at the above Docket Office address.

Additionally, under section 6(b)(3) of the OSH Act and 29 CFR

1911.11, interested persons may file objections to the proposal and

request an informal hearing. The objections and hearing requests should

be submitted in quadruplicate to the Docket Office at the above address

and must comply with the following conditions:

1. The objection must include the name and address of the objector;

2. The objections must be postmarked by July 12, 1995;

3. The objections must s

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.