Powered Industrial Truck Operator Training

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1926

[Docket No. S-008]

Powered Industrial Truck Operator Training

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

proposing to revise the Agency's construction safety standard that

mandates the training of powered industrial truck operators. These

revisions are being proposed to reduce the number of injuries and

deaths that have continued to occur as a result of inadequate truck

operator training. The proposal is a follow-up to a parallel proposal

to improve truck operator training in the general and maritime

industries that was published in the Federal Register on March 14,

1995.

The proposed operator training requirements would mandate the

development of a training program that bases the amount and type of

training on the prior knowledge of the trainee and the ability of that

trainee to acquire, retain, and use the knowledge and skills that are

necessary to safely operate a powered industrial truck. A periodic

evaluation of each operator's performance would also be required.

Refresher or remedial training would be required, if unsafe vehicle

operation, an accident or near miss, or other deficiencies were

identified in this periodic evaluation.

Today, OSHA also is publishing a Federal Register notice reopening

the comment period for the general industry and maritime industry truck

operator training proposal. OSHA is scheduling a joint informal hearing

to revise comments and testimony on both proposals, i.e., the proposal

published in March and the one being published today.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed standards and notices of

intention to appear at the informal public hearings on the proposed

standards must be postmarked by April

[[Page 3095]]

1, 1996. Parties who request more than 10 minutes for their

presentations at the informal public hearing and parties who will

submit documentary evidence at the hearing must submit the full text of

their testimony and all documentary evidence postmarked no later than

April 15, 1996. The hearing will take place in Washington, DC and is

scheduled to begin on April 30, 1996. OSHA also is reopening the

comment period for the proposed revision of the training requirements

for powered industrial truck operators in general industry and the

maritime industries to April 1, 1996 as announced in a separate

document published today and is scheduling a joint hearing for those

sectors along with the construction industry hearing.

ADDRESSES: Comments and information 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 Ave.,

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

Notices of intention to appear at the informal rulemaking hearing,

testimony, and documentary evidence are to be submitted in

quadruplicate to: Mr. Thomas Hall, OSHA Division of Consumer Affairs,

Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Ave.,

NW., Room N3647, Washington, DC 20210 (202-219-8615). Written comments

received, notices of intention to appear, and all other material

related to the development of these proposed standards will be

available for inspection and copying in the public record in the Docket

Office, Room N2624, at the above address.

The hearing will be held in the auditorium of the U.S. Department

of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Ms. Ann Cyr, Office of Information and

Consumer Affairs, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and

Health Administration, Room N3647; 200 Constitution Ave., NW.,

Washington, DC 20210 (202-219-8148, FAX 202-219-5986).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

a. The Construction Safety Standard

Congress amended the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act

(CWHSA) (40 U.S.C. 327 et seq.) in 1969 by adding a new section 107 (40

U.S.C. 333) to provide employees in the construction industry with a

safer work environment and to reduce the frequency and severity of

construction accidents and injuries. The amendment, commonly known as

the Construction Safety Act (CSA) (Pub. L. 91-54, August 9, 1969),

significantly strengthened employee protection by providing for the

adoption of occupational safety and health standards for employees of

the building trades and construction industry working on federally

financed or federally assisted construction projects. Accordingly, the

Secretary of Labor issued Safety and Health Regulations for

Construction at 29 CFR part 1518 (36 FR 7340, April 17, 1971) pursuant

to section 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act.

The Occupational Safety and Health Act allowed the Secretary of

Labor to adopt established Federal standards issued under other

statutes as occupational safety and health standards that are

enforceable under the OSH Act. Accordingly, the Secretary of Labor

adopted the Construction Standards that had been issued under the CSA

at 29 CFR part 1518 as OSHA standards. These standards were

redesignated as part 1926 later in 1971 (36 FR 25232, Dec. 30, 1971).

The provisions pertaining to powered industrial trucks are contained at

Sec. 1926.602(c). Section 1926.602(c)(1)(vi) states:

(vi) All industrial trucks in use shall meet the applicable

requirements of design, construction, stability, inspection,

testing, maintenance, and operation, as defined in American National

Standards Institute B56.1-1969, Safety Standards for Powered

Industrial Trucks.

Thus, the construction standard relating to the training of industrial

truck operators is an adoption by reference of the training provision

of the consensus standard which is identical to the corresponding

general industry standard, which contains the full text of the American

National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard.

The present training provision that is applicable to construction

through cross reference to the ANSI B56.1-1969 (and is directly

incorporated into general industry as Sec. 1910.178(l)) reads, ``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.''

b. Action on Other Powered Industrial Truck Operator Training

Requirements

In the Federal Register of March 14, 1995 (60 FR 13782), OSHA

published a proposal to revise the general industry standard for

training powered industrial truck operators (Sec. 1910.178(l)) and to

adopt the same requirements for the maritime industries

(Secs. 1915.120(a), 1917.43(I), and 1918.77(a)). Copies of a draft of

that Federal Register document had been provided to OSHA's Advisory

Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH) at the Committee's

meeting on Feb. 28 and March 1, 1995. The Committee advised OSHA that

it would like additional time to study the proposal and would finalize

its recommendations by its next meeting on May 25-26, 1995. Because

OSHA had received no recommendations or other information from the

ACCSH, the Agency decided to delay proposing the adoption of training

requirements for powered industrial truck operators in the construction

industry until the Committee had concluded its deliberations.

ACCSH met on May 25-26, at which time the Committee prepared its

comments and recommendations. The Committee recommended that OSHA

propose improved powered industrial truck training for construction

employees. The Committee also suggested some changes from the general

industry proposed standard that OSHA is considering incorporating in

the construction standard. Some of these suggestions may be of value to

employees in the general and maritime industries as well.

OSHA has decided that the most effective way to fully consider the

Committee's suggestions in the proposal is to raise them in the

preamble discussion as a series of issues and to invite public comment

on them. OSHA also is asking in a companion Federal Register document

published today whether some of these changes also should be made to

the general and maritime industries' powered industrial truck operator

training regulations. In the final rule, OSHA will consider the

suggestions of the committee and changes for the construction, general

and maritime industries based on the comments and evidence received.

In Section VIII below, OSHA discusses the specific recommendations

of the ACCSH. It also poses to the public various questions to focus

comments on these recommendations.

c. Updated Consensus Standard

Since promulgation of the OSHA safety and health standards for

construction in 1971, the consensus standard on which the powered

industrial truck standard was based (ANSI B56.1) has undergone four

complete revisions (dated 1975, 1983, 1988 and 1993). The current

consensus standard (Ex. 3-1) addresses retraining of truck operators as

follows:

[[Page 3096]]

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

addressing operating safety rules and practices;

(2) Provisions of this Standard in Section 5.5 addressing care

of the truck;

(3) Other rules, regulations, or practices specified by the

employer at the location where the powered industrial truck will be

used.

(e) Operational training practice, including;

(1) If feasible, practice in the operation of powered industrial

trucks shall be conducted in an area separate from other workplace

activities and personnel;

(2) Training practice shall be conducted under the supervision

of the trainer;

(3) Training practice shall include the actual operation or

simulated performance of all operating tasks such as load handling,

maneuvering, traveling, stopping, starting, and other activities

under the conditions which will be encountered in the use of the

truck.

4.19.5 Testing, Retraining, and Enforcement

(a) During training, performance and oral and/or written tests

shall be given by the employer to measure the skill and knowledge of

the operator in meeting the requirements of the Standard. Employers

shall establish a pass/fail requirement for such tests. Employers

may delegate such testing to others but shall remain responsible for

the testing. Appropriate records shall be kept.

(b) Operators shall be retrained when new equipment is

introduced, existing equipment is modified, operating conditions

change, or an operator's performance is unsatisfactory.

(c) The user shall be responsible for enforcing the safe use of

the powered industrial truck according to the provisions of this

Standard.

Note: Information on operator training is available from such

sources as powered industrial truck manufacturers, government

agencies dealing with employee safety, trade organizations of users

of powered industrial trucks, public and private organizations, and

safety consultants.

(For an explanation of why OSHA decided to propose a standard that

is somewhat different from the consensus standard, see section

entitled Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard, below.)

Since 1971, the ANSI consensus committee has adopted other

volumes1 for additional types of vehicles that fall within the

broad definition of a powered industrial truck. Specifically, volumes

have been developed and adopted for guided industrial vehicles, rough

terrain forklift trucks, industrial crane trucks, personnel and burden

carriers, operator controlled industrial tow tractors, and manually

propelled high lift industrial trucks. The training provisions OSHA is

proposing are performance oriented and are applicable to all types of

industrial trucks. Accordingly, OSHA is proposing the same training

standards language for all types of industrial trucks. Comments are

requested on this issue.

\1\ The consensus committees call the standards for different

pieces of equipment ``volumes'' and all of the volumes produced by

the committee the ``standard''. OSHA has decided to use the same

nomenclature.

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

d. Petitions and Requests

Since the promulgation of the OSHA standard in 1971, interested

persons have requested that OSHA improve its training requirements for

powered industrial truck operators. ANSI (now the American Society of

Mechanical Engineers (ASME)) has substantially upgraded its training

provisions for powered industrial truck operators.

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 revision of the OSHA powered industrial

truck operator training requirement would begin as soon as other

priority projects were completed.

Congress, in particular, has expressed a special interest in this

standard. A resolution urging OSHA to revise its regulations on

forklift operator safety

[[Page 3097]]

training was passed by the Senate in the 103rd Congress. Senate

Concurrent Resolution 17 was approved by voice vote with 55 cosponsors

and broad bipartisan support. Its companion measure in the House of

Representatives, H. Con. Res. 92, had 236 cosponsors from both parties,

although no formal vote was taken.

OSHA preliminarily concludes that upgrading the training

requirements for powered industrial truck operators will substantially

reduce a significant risk of death and injury caused by the unsafe

operation of powered industrial trucks driven by untrained or

inadequately trained operators.

II. The Powered Industrial Truck

The term ``powered industrial truck'' is defined in the ASME B56.1

(formerly the ANSI B56.1) standard as a ``mobile, power propelled truck

used to carry, push, pull, lift, stack, or tier material.'' Powered

industrial trucks are particularly useful when handling palletized

materials.

There are presently approximately 855,900 powered industrial trucks

in use in American industry. Of this number, OSHA estimates that there

are about 8300 powered industrial trucks in use in the construction

industry.

Powered industrial trucks are classified by manufacturers according

to their individual characteristics. There are seven classes of powered

industrial trucks:

Class 1--Electric Motor, Sit-down Rider, Counter-Balanced Trucks

(Solid and Pneumatic Tires).

Class 2--Electric Motor Narrow Aisle Trucks (Solid Tires).

Class 3--Electric Motor Hand Trucks or Hand/Rider Trucks (Solid

Tires).

Class 4--Internal Combustion Engine Trucks (Solid Tires).

Class 5--Internal Combustion Engine Trucks (Pneumatic Tires).

Class 6--Electric and Internal Combustion Engine Tractors (Solid

and Pneumatic Tires).

Class 7--Rough Terrain Forklift Trucks (Pneumatic Tires).

Each of the different types of powered industrial trucks has its

own unique characteristics and inherent hazards. To maximize

effectiveness, training must address the unique characteristics of the

type vehicle(s) the employee is being trained to operate.

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. Construction forklift trucks are more

frequently operated on rough terrain than trucks used in other industry

sectors.

Trucks of different types are designed and manufactured to operate

in various work environments. Powered industrial trucks can be used for

moving material about the workplace. High lift trucks can be used to

raise loads up to 30 or 40 feet above the ground, to deposit the

material on a roof under construction, a mezzanine or another elevated

location, and subsequently to retrieve and lower the material.

Powered industrial trucks also may be 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 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. 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. 1926.602(c)(1)(ii) that:

(ii) No modifications and additions which affect capacity and

safe operation of the equipment shall be made without the

manufacturer's written approval. If such modifications or changes

are made, the capacity, operation, and maintenance instruction

plates, tags, or decals shall be changed accordingly. In no case

shall the original safety factor of the equipment be reduced.

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 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 use of those attachments or the conduct of those

operations.

III. Powered Industrial Truck Hazards

Powered industrial trucks are used in many construction activities.

Their principal utility lies in the fact that either a large number of

objects on a pallet or confined in a large box, crate or other

container or large objects may be moved about the workplace and raised

and placed on elevated surfaces 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

of vehicle. Each type of truck presents different operating hazards.

For example, the chance of a falling load accident occurring when the

truck is a sitdown, counterbalanced high lift rider truck is much

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

height to which the load can be raised by a sitdown rider truck is much

greater than that for the hand truck.

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

protect employees from injury may be different with different types of

trucks. For example, when a rider truck is involved in a tipover

accident, the operator has the opportunity to remain in the operator's

position in 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 of a rider truck 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, the

operator usually should attempt to jump clear of the vehicle, and

should be trained accordingly.

Because a powered industrial truck is a motor vehicle, its

operation is similar in some respects to that of an automobile, and

some of its hazards are the same as those experienced during the

operation of an automobile. Automobile and powered industrial truck are

both subject to a number of common hazards, such as contacting fixed or

movable objects (including employees) and tipping over.

Additionally, operating a car or an industrial truck at excessive

speed or skidding on a wet or otherwise slippery ground or floor can be

dangerous to the operator or nearby employees. Driving a powered

industrial truck at excessive speed may result in loss of control,

causing the vehicle to skid, tip over, or fall off a loading dock or

other elevated walking or working surface. Failure to maintain control

of the vehicle also may

[[Page 3098]]

cause the vehicle to strike an employee or to strike stored material,

causing the material to topple and possibly injure an employee. Driver

training is necessary so that the operator will act properly to

minimize the hazard to himself or herself and to other employees.

Although there are many similarities between the automobile and the

powered industrial truck, there are also many differences. Another

reason for training industrial truck operators is to make operators

aware of these differences. Some of the characteristics of a powered

industrial truck that have a pronounced effect upon truck operation and

safety that are outside auto driving experience are the truck's ability

to change its stability, to raise, lower and tilt loads, and to steer

with the rear wheels while being powered by the front wheels. In

addition, vision is sometimes partially obscured by the load. Moving

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

center of gravity and can adversely affect the overall stability of the

vehicle. 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 posed to the stability of the truck by the

movement of the material being handled, the ANSI B56.1-1969 has seven

provisions that address proper operation of a powered industrial truck.

These provisions specify:

604 Q. While negotiating turns, speed shall be reduced to a safe

level by means of turning the hand steering wheel in a smooth,

sweeping motion. Except when maneuvering at a very low speed, the

hand steering wheel shall be turned at a moderate, even rate.

605 A. Only stable or safely arranged loads shall be handled.

Caution shall be exercised when handling off-center loads which

cannot be centered.

605 B. Only loads within the rated capacity of the truck shall

be handled.

605 C. The long or high (including multiple-tiered) loads which

may affect capacity shall be adjusted.

605 D. Trucks equipped with attachments shall be operated as

partially loaded trucks when not handling a load.

605 E. A load engaging means shall be placed under the load as

far as possible; the mast shall be carefully tilted backward to

stabilize the load.

605 F. Extreme care shall be used when tilting the load forward

or backward, particularly when high tiering. Tilting forward with

load engaging means elevated shall be prohibited except to pick up a

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

load is in a deposit position over a rack or stack. When stacking or

tiering, only enough backward tilt to stabilize the load shall be

used.

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. Operators of vehicles used in construction need

to be trained about the requirements of the consensus standard because

failure to adhere to the techniques emphasized in these provisions are

major causes of accidents.

The hazards addressed in this proposed rule are those associated

with industrial trucks in general, as well as those posed by specific

makes or models of trucks. Each powered industrial truck has a

different feel that makes its operation slightly different from the

operation of other trucks, and operators must therefore be aware of the

effects of these differences on safe truck operation. The workplaces

where these trucks are being used may also present particular hazards.

For these reasons, a uniform and all-inclusive set of hazards that

applies to all industrial trucks and workplaces cannot be delineated.

For the same reason, the development of a single ``generic'' training

program that fits all powered industrial trucks and all workplaces is

impractical. In developing an effective powered industrial truck

training program, there are however three major areas of concern that

should be kept in mind. These are the hazards associated with the

particular make and model of truck, the hazards of the workplace (which

are particularly important on construction sites), and the general

hazards that apply to the operation of all or most powered industrial

trucks.

In addition, some hazards are related to the improper operation of

a powered industrial truck. Among these hazards are: Falling loads

caused by overloading, unbalanced loading or other improper loading;

the vehicle falling from a platform, curb, trailer or other surface on

which the vehicle is operating; the vehicle being driven while the

operator has an obstructed view in the direction of travel; 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 hits an obstruction when the vehicle comes too close to that

obstruction. Finally, powered industrial truck accidents occur because

the vehicle is not properly maintained (These accidents most commonly

involve employees being overcome by excessive carbon monoxide emissions

or vehicle component failure).

The seriousness of the consequences associated with these accidents

depends on such factors as the method of operation of the powered

industrial truck, the load being carried, and the characteristics of

the workplace in which the vehicle is being operated. Accordingly,

truck operators must be trained to recognize unsafe conditions and how

to react to them when they occur.

Several features of powered industrial trucks contribute either

directly or indirectly to the hazards posed by these vehicles. Some of

the factors that influence the extent of the hazards presented by a

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. These hazards include the following: Operating powered

industrial trucks on rough, uneven or sloped surfaces; operating

powered industrial trucks with unusual loads; operating in hazardous

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

and operating where there is pedestrian traffic or where employees are

working in or adjacent to the path of travel of the powered industrial

truck. The first hazard is particularly pronounced on construction

sites.

The operation of a powered industrial truck presents hazards not

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

around the vehicle. As explained in the section entitled ``Studies and

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 causes described above.

IV. Studies and Accident, Injury and Other Data

A detailed analysis of powered industrial truck studies and

accident and injury data appears in the NPRM for truck training for

general industry and the maritime industry, which was published in the

Federal Register on March 14, 1995 (60 FR 13787). The section presented

here briefly summarizes the data relevant to the construction industry.

[[Page 3099]]

a. Studies 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, pp. 125-135) entitled ``Measuring the

Effectiveness of an Industrial Lift Truck Safety Training Program''

(Ex. 4). The article contained an analysis of two studies that were

undertaken to measure objectively the effects of safety training on the

driving performance and safety practices of powered industrial truck

operators.

This article detailed the results of an experiment that was

conducted to evaluate training of 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 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. These studies

demonstrate that training powered industrial truck operators reduced

the operators' error rates (number of unsuccessful operations divided

by the total number of operations) and that training combined with

feedback reduced error rates even more.

The studies were conducted at different warehouses using similar

training techniques. The training was conducted to emphasize those

operator behaviors that were measurable, frequently observed, capable

of being reliably observed, related to frequent accident occurrence and

amenable to corrective action through training. There were 14 behaviors

evaluated in these studies. Positive reinforcement of the training was

used with some trainees to measure its effectiveness. The experiment

was conducted in four phases:

(1) The pre-training phase, during which none of the operators had

been trained;

(2) The post-training 1 phase, during which the control group

remained untrained, the treatment group had received training, and the

treatment-plus-feedback group had received training and also was

receiving performance feedback;

(3) The post-training 2 phase, during which all three groups had

received training but only the training-plus- feedback group received

performance feedback; and

(4) The retention phase, which started 3 months after the end of

the post-training 2 phase (and the end of the feedback program).

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 the influence of peer modeling, i.e., the untrained

control group operators were copying the behavior of their trained

counterparts. Toward the end of the post-training 1 phase, the error

rates of the three groups converged, suggesting that the effects of the

training program had begun to wear off. Observers also noted that some

behaviors were being compromised when employees 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. The control group's performance improved by 28 percent

(from a mean error rate of .32 to .23) while the training group

experienced a 4 percent improvement (from a mean error rate of .27 to

.26) and the training-plus-feedback group had a 7 percent improvement

(from .27 to .25). The authors concluded that there was further

evidence of the effect of peer modeling because the performance of all

three groups continued to improve although no additional instruction

was given.

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.

During this phase of the study, mean error rates were checked, as was

done during the other phases of the study. 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 to verify and extend the findings of

the first study. A modified experimental design was used to eliminate

the mitigating influence of the untrained control group. In the second

study, all operators were trained at the same time and all received

performance feedback. Comparisons were made only before and after

training. The study was divided into three phases: Pre-training, post-

training and retention. The retention phase of the study was again

conducted three months after the conclusion of the prior phase.

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

percent 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). 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.

b. 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 caused extensive property damage.

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

abstract describing the activities taking place at the time of the

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

computerized database system.

A substantial percentage of the serious powered industrial truck

accidents that were investigated occurred in the construction industry.

Specifically, 29 out of the 200 accidents investigated took place in

the construction industry.

c. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Data

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 Census

of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI) on 170 fatal powered industrial

truck accidents. Table 1 lists the

[[Page 3100]]

classifications of those powered industrial truck accidents.

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

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

How accident occurred Number Percent

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

Forklift overturned................................... 41 24

Forklift struck something, or ran off dock............ 13 8

Worker pinned between objects......................... 19 11

Worker struck by material............................. 29 17

Worker struck by forklift............................. 24 14

Worker fell from forklift............................. 24 14

Worker died during forklift repair.................... 10 6

Other accident........................................ 10 6

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

Total........................................... 170 100

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

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Fatal Workplace Injuries in 1992,

A Collection of Data and Analysis'', Report 870, April 1994.

d. Fatality and Injury Data

As discussed in the Preliminary Economic Analysis, there are on

average 15 deaths and 1440 serious injuries from powered industrial

truck operations in the construction industry each year. It is

estimated that this standard would prevent 3 or 4 deaths and 463 to 601

of these serious injuries per year.

V. Basis for Agency Action

OSHA believes that, as the above discussion indicates, 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 in

the construction industry. The data indicate that there are a

substantial number of fatalities and injuries from industrial truck

accidents in the construction industry. Studies indicate that better

training would substantially reduce the number of such fatalities and

serious injuries. Consequently, these requirements would reduce the

number of fatalities and injuries resulting from accidents involving

powered industrial trucks operated by untrained or insufficiently

trained employees.

In addition, as discussed above, there are other reasons to update

the standard. For example, there now exist substantially updated

consensus standards on this subject. In addition, OSHA has been

petitioned to improve the requirements for industrial truck training.

Further, the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health has

recommended improving the standard. Finally, the Senate recently passed

a resolution urging OSHA to revise its outdated powered industrial

truck operator standards.

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 has 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

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

formal methods of training (lectures, conferences, formal

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

training is usually used to impart more, or more complicated

information to a trainee.

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

skills, and abilities to perform the tasks necessary for safe lift

truck operation. 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 truck safely. Operational

characteristics of powered industrial trucks, such as vehicles equipped

with rear-wheel steering and front-wheel drive and the capability to

hoist-move-lower loads, require operator training and practice to

master the different driving skills that must be used when an employee

operates powered industrial trucks.

Many accidents 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 emphasize that the vehicle can

only be moved when the load is at its lowest point. However, even if an

operator fails to follow this practice and the vehicle tips over, the

injury to the operator is usually minimal if 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 while it is tipping over. In these cases, since the normal

tendency is for a person to jump downward, the operator lands on the

floor or ground in the path of the overhead guard, leading to a

crushing injury of the head, neck or back. Training an employee to stay

with the vehicle will reduce the severity of some of these injuries.

The studies conducted by Cohen and Jensen, discussed under Studies,

Accident, Injury and Other Data earlier in this preamble, found a

reduction in operator errors rate of up to 70 percent from training.

Although a 70 percent error rate reduction cannot 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 powered industrial trucks is the major cause of accidents

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

the unsafe operation of these trucks will reduce the number of

accidents, and the resultant fatalities and injuries.

Although not all powered industrial truck accident reports spell

out lack of training as a causal factor in the accident, each accident

can, in part, be attributed to 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 number of

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. Construction sites usually include many of these factors,

such as rough terrain. Operator training must emphasize two points

regarding any

[[Page 3101]]

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.

VII. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Rule

a. Specific Provisions Included in the Proposed Standard

OSHA is proposing to improve the training of powered industrial

truck operators in construction by adding a new 29 CFR 1926.602(d) that

would supersede the current cross- reference to the 1969 ANSI standard

insofar as that standard specifies that only trained operators be

permitted to operate powered industrial trucks. This proposal is

intended to enhance the safe operation of powered industrial trucks in

the construction workplace.

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.

The proposed standard includes six elements. First, the employer is

only to use powered industrial truck operators who are trained for and

capable of performing the job. Operator training is to include both

formal training and practical experience. Various relevant topics are

to be covered in the training unless they are not relevant to the

employer's vehicles or workplace. Refresher training is to be provided,

and if there is an accident or unsafe operation of the vehicle,

remedial training must be given. Employers are to certify that

employees are trained. Prior training and experience may count toward

the required training.

At paragraph (d)(1)(i), OSHA specifies that each employee who will

be required to operate a powered industrial truck must be capable of

performing the duties that are required of the job after training and

appropriate accommodation. This means that the employee must have to

climb onto and off a truck, to sit on the vehicle for extended periods

of time, to turn his or her body to be able to drive in reverse, and to

have 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 of trucks that the employee will operate, this information would

have to taught by means other than assigning the employee to read the

truck manuals. The initial evaluation can also be useful in avoiding

duplicative training.

Paragraph (d)(1)(ii) provides that the employer shall ensure that

the employee has received required training, that the employee has been

evaluated and that the operator can perform the job competently. After

the training, the evaluation must be carried out by a designated person

so that the employer can ensure that the trainee can perform the duties

required of an operator in a competent manner. Conducting evaluations

during 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 decide to send the employees to

an outside training organization. Alternately, the employer may be

sufficiently trained to enable the employer to be qualified as a

designated person.

At paragraph (d)(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 there is minimum danger to the trainee or other

employees.

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

of a combination of classroom instruction and practical training. The

Agency believes that only a combination of training methods will ensure

adequate employee training. 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 operate a powered industrial truck

successfully.

At paragraph (d)(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 and judge their competence.

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

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

select the particular items that are pertinent to the types of truck

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 of 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 (d)(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 only be

conducted at the intervals necessary to ensure that the operators have

not forgotten or chosen to disregard their training. OSHA is proposing

that such evaluations be carried out at least annually. The evaluation

does not have to be formal; for example, it could be something as

simple as having the designated person observe an operation to ensure

that the powered industrial truck is being operated safely.

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

that the

[[Page 3102]]

required training and evaluations have been conducted. To minimize

paperwork burden on the employer, OSHA is specifying that the

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

training or evaluation, and the signature of the person conducting the

training or evaluation. In light of the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995, OSHA is requesting comment on ways it can determine whether

employees have been properly trained without using even the minimal

requirement of certification. In this paragraph, OSHA also specifies

that all of 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 (d)(6), OSHA is proposing to allow the employers to

forego those portions of the required training that employees have

previously received. The intent of these provisions is to prevent

duplicative training. For example if an employee is already trained in

powered industrial truck operation, knows the necessary information,

has been evaluated, and has proven to be competent to perform the

duties of an operator, there is no reason to require an employer to

repeat the training.

As previously discussed, three major areas 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 associated with 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 the employer a reasonable degree of flexibility in developing the

training program and conducting the training. OSHA recognizes that

there are inherent differences in the capabilities and limitations of

employees, both in their ability to assimilate the training and then to

use 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 prescribed because different topics

must be taught to address the variations associated with different

makes and models of vehicles and cover hazards specific to each

workplace. However, the proposal does identify the topics that should

be covered unless the employer determines that one or more of them are

not relevant to the employer's situation.

OSHA believes that the training needs to be administered before the

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

initial training of employees so that they will acquire the knowledge

and skills that are necessary for the safe operation of the powered

industrial truck before being allowed to operate the vehicle without

close supervision.

OSHA has generally left the particulars of the type of training

(lecture, conference, demonstration, practical exercise, test or

examination, etc.) to the employer. However, the training must include

some formal instruction and some practical experience. The length of

the training 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 included in this OSHA standard, the trainer's skills and

knowledge, and the trainee's skill level. Consequently, 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 at paragraph (d)(4) that a designated person

evaluate the trainee's understanding of the training and his/her

competency to operate a powered industrial truck. This is the best

method of proving that the operator has been adequately trained and

that the training has been, and continues to be, effective. By

observing how the trainee operates the vehicle, the evaluator can

assess how well the trainee has absorbed the necessary information.

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 evaluating the applicability and adequacy of an employee's prior

experience, the employer must consider the type of equipment the

employee has operated, how long ago this experience was gained, and the

type of work environment in which the employee worked. Some 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 an evaluation of this information,

the employer can determine whether the experience is recent and

thorough enough, the documentation sufficient, and the competency

adequate to forego some or much of the initial training. Some training

on the specific factors of the new employee's workplace will always be

necessary. Again, the major criterion for evaluating an employee is:

Does the person know how to do the job and does the vehicle operator

have and use the knowledge that is needed to do the job safely?

The proposed regulatory text for construction includes some minor

changes to improve the clarity from the language proposed for other

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

the standard. These appendices are intended to provide guidance to

employers in establishing a training program (Appendix A) and in

understanding the basic principles of stability (Appendix B). In

neither case is the information contained in these appendices intended

to provide an 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 use the material to provide basic training.

b. Specific Provisions of the ASME Standard Not Included in This

Proposal

OSHA has not included some of the suggested language contained in

the ASME B56.1-1993 standard. Specifically, paragraph 4.19.2 of the

consensus standard has not been included 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 also has not adopted the language contained in 4.19.3(a)

of the consensus standard because the responsibility for providing a

safe

[[Page 3103]]

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

with the employer under the OSH Act. Paragraph 4.19.3(a) 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 above, the employer is responsible for selecting the methods

that are employed to train the operators. For example, in some

circumstances, the employee may be able to gain valuable information

from reading the operator's manual for the vehicle. In other

circumstances, reading the manual may be less effective than practical

lessons in how to operate the truck safely.

Many OSHA standards and consensus standards specify that some means

be used to verify that training has been conducted. Examples of such

verification include: (1) Documentation of training, (2) retention of

lesson plans and attendance rosters and, (3) 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). The proposed rule would

require 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 a

sufficient method of verification. The ASME provision would require

additional paperwork that is discouraged by the Paperwork Reduction Act

of 1995.

VIII. The Comments and Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on

Construction Safety and Health

The Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH)

was advised at its meeting of February 28 and March 1, 1995, of the

effort being undertaken by OSHA to promulgate like training

requirements for all powered industrial truck operators regardless of

where the powered industrial truck is being used. At that time, the

ACCSH recommended to the Agency that the issuance of an NPRM for

construction be delayed until the Committee had more time to study the

draft of the proposal and to submit its formal comments and

recommendations to OSHA. At that meeting, the Committee also set up a

task force to consider the matter.

At its meeting of May 25 and 26, ACCSH received the recommendations

from the task force. ACCSH voted unanimously that OSHA should publish a

proposal for improving the training requirement for powered industrial

truck operators in the construction industry. The Committee also

suggested that OSHA consider the changes recommended and get feedback

from the public on the proposal and then proceed from there (Tr. pp.

202-223)(Ex. 9).

OSHA has carefully considered the comments and recommendations

received from the ACCSH. OSHA has decided that the best approach at

this time is to raise the suggested ACCSH changes as issues for public

comment in this preamble rather than to incorporate them into the

proposed regulatory text. OSHA believes this is the best approach to

highlight these issues for public comment. After considering the public

comments, OSHA will consider the best approach for handling the

suggested changes in the final powered industrial truck operator

training standard for construction. OSHA also is publishing these

recommendations for consideration for inclusion in the final general

industry and maritime rules to see whether the ACCSH recommendations

may be appropriate in these industries as well. Therefore, OSHA is not

making specific word changes in the proposed regulatory text and will

examine the comments received in response to this document before it

does so. This also may prevent possible confusion, because ACCSH used

the specific language and paragraph numbering of the ASME standard

rather than the proposed general industry regulatory text and

paragraphic numeration when referencing its discussion.

The following issues were submitted by ACCSH. Also included is a

short discussion of the reasons for the ACCSH recommendations:

1. In the construction industry, should an employer be allowed to

accept the certification of training by a third party such as a union,

manufacturer, consultant, or other private or public organization?

Since OSHA does not accredit certifiers, what criteria should be used

to establish their credibility?

ACCSH recommended that construction employers be permitted to

accept such accreditation. In the construction industry, it is common

that such training would be presented by the union, an apprenticeship

program, or by a local employer organization. In addition, employees

often work for an employer only briefly and it would be inefficient for

the new employer to have to review the performance of each new

employee. If this approach were adopted, there would need to be some

mechanism to ensure that the operator would be trained in conditions

comparable to those found at the present site and to enable the

employer to know that the operator had been trained.

2. What type of testing should be conducted during initial training

to judge the competency of the trainee (performance testing and oral

and/or written tests)?

A. If tests are administered, what subjects should be tested, and

what methods, if any, should be used to judge that the tests are

reliable and address the subject matter adequately?

B. What, if any, should be the acceptable pass/fail requirement for

the tests?

ACCSH recommended that the employer or other organization training

operators give both performance tests and oral/written tests to ensure

the skill and knowledge of the operator. The committee also recommended

that there should be pass/fail requirements for those tests and that

records be kept of the results of the tests. ACCSH believed that this

requirement would assist in lowering accident rates. The Committee also

suggested that, if this turned out not to be effective, OSHA consider

accreditation of training programs.

3. Are some of the listed training subjects not needed?

ACCSH believes that most of the training topics in the proposed

standard are necessary but that a few might not be. Specifically, they

felt that the recommended topic of the differences between driving an

auto and a powered industrial truck might be unnecessary.

4. Should an employee receive refresher or remedial training only

if operating a vehicle unsafely or if involved in an accident? Is there

any fixed operator retraining frequency suitable for the construction

industry?

The Advisory Committee believed that a periodic retraining

provision for construction was inappropriate because most construction

employees are only on a particular job a short period. However, the

Committee recommended reevaluation and possible retraining after an

incident, accident or expiration of a certificate. (See question 1.)

IX. Statutory Considerations

Section 2(b)(3) of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act

authorizes

[[Page 3104]]

``the Secretary of Labor to set mandatory occupational safety and

health standards applicable to businesses affecting interstate

commerce'', and section 5(a)(2) provides that ``(each employer shall

comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under

this Act'' (emphasis added). Section 3(8) of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C.

652(8)) provides that ``the term 'occupational safety and health

standard' means a standard which requires conditions, or the adoption

or use of one or more practices, means, methods, operations, or

processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or

healthful employment and places of employment.''

OSHA considers a standard to be ``reasonably necessary or

appropriate'' within the meaning of section 3(8) if it meets the

following criteria: (1) The standard will substantially reduce a

significant risk of material harm; (2) compliance is technologically

feasible in the sense that the protective measures being required

already exist, can be brought into existence with available technology,

or can be created with 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 the corresponding

national consensus standards, must be compatible with prior agency

action, must be responsive to significant comment in the record, and,

to the extent allowed by statute, must be consistent with applicable

Executive Orders. OSHA believes that application of these criteria

results in standards that provide a high degree of worker protection

without imposing an undue burden on employers. (See the discussion of

60 FR 13796-13799, March 14, 1995, for a detailed analysis of the case

law.)

As discussed in various places in the preamble of the March 14

notice, OSHA has determined that the operation of powered industrial

trucks by untrained or inadequately trained operators generally poses

significant risks to employees. It is also OSHA's view that operation

of powered industrial trucks by untrained or inadequately trained

operators poses a significant risk to employees in the construction

industry. There have been on average 15 fatalities and 1441 serious

injuries in the construction industry annually due to unsafe powered

industrial truck operation. OSHA estimates that compliance with the

revised training requirement for powered industrial truck operators

will reduce the risk of these injuries and deaths to those operators

and other employees by between 20 and 45 percent (preventing 3 to 4

fatalities and 463 to 600 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 merely 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 Preliminary Economic Analysis,

all regulated sectors can readily absorb or pass on compliance costs.

OSHA estimates total costs of $250,000, a negligible percent of the

industry's $500 billion in sales and $35 billion in pretax profits.

The standard's costs, benefits, and compliance requirements are

reasonable, amounting to approximately $250,000 per year while

preventing 3-4 fatalities and 463-600 serious injuries per year.

In some subsectors of the construction industry there are

relatively few lift trucks and in any given year, there may be no

fatalities and few injuries in these subsectors. Nevertheless, OSHA

believes the risks to individual drivers in these environments are

significant and that the costs of compliance in these subsectors will

be negligible.

For these reasons and those further spelled out in the Federal

Register document of March 14, 1995 (60 FR 13795), OSHA has determined

that it is inappropriate to exclude any construction subsectors merely

because they have not recently reported documented powered industrial

truck injuries or fatalities, insofar as these subsectors contain

workplaces where powered industrial trucks are operated.

As discussed above in sector VII(b) of this preamble; many of the

provisions of this proposed standard are based on the current ASME

consensus standard. Pursuant to section 6(b)(8) of the OSH Act, OSHA

explains above why the proposed provisions that differ from the ASME

standard better effectuate the purpose of the Act.

Conclusion

OSHA has preliminarily determined that the proposed powered

industrial truck standard for construction, like other safety

standards, is subject to the constraints of section 3(8) of the OSH

Act, and that the standard is ``reasonably necessary or appropriate to

provide safe or healthful employment and places of employment.''

The Agency believes that the use of powered industrial trucks in

the construction workplace by untrained or poorly trained employees

poses significant risks and that the need to require that only properly

trained employees operate these vehicles is reasonably necessary to

protect affected employees from those risks. OSHA also has determined

that compliance with the standard for the training of these operators

is technologically feasible because many companies offer the type of

training that the standard would require. In addition, OSHA believes

that compliance is economically feasible, because, as documented by the

Preliminary Economic Analysis (Ex. 2), all regulated sectors can

readily absorb or pass on initial compliance costs and the benefits are

substantial. In particular, the Agency believes that compliance with

the proposed powered industrial truck training requirements will result

in substantial cost savings and productivity gains at facilities that

utilize powered industrial trucks whose operations might otherwise be

disrupted by accidents and injuries.

As detailed in OSHA's March 14, 1995, document (60 FR 13799) and in

the Preliminary Economic Analysis, the standard's costs, benefits, and

compliance requirements are consistent with those of other OSHA safety

standards.

X. Summary of the Preliminary Economic Feasibility and Regulatory

Flexibility Analyses and Environmental Impact Assessment

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 this preliminary economic

analysis to accompany the revised proposal being published, which would

extend requirements for the training of powered

[[Page 3105]]

industrial truck operators to the construction industry. OSHA's initial

proposal, which proposed such training for truck operators in general

industry and the maritime industries, was published in the Federal

Register on March 14, 1995 (60 FR 13782). These proposed construction

industry training requirements will supplement and extend the minimal

powered industrial truck operator training requirements currently

codified at 29 CFR 1926.602 (c)(1)(vi). This preliminary economic

analysis of the potential impacts of the proposal on firms in the

construction industry will be incorporated into the Preliminary

Economic Analysis developed by OSHA to support the proposed powered

industrial truck operator training requirements for the general

industry and maritime sectors published on March 14, 1995.

This preliminary economic analysis of the potential impacts of the

proposed rule on the construction industry includes a description of

the industry, an assessment of the benefits attributable to the

proposal, a preliminary determination of the technological feasibility

of the proposed requirements, an estimation of the costs of compliance,

an analysis of the economic feasibility of the proposed provisions, and

an evaluation of the economic and other impacts of the proposed rule on

establishments in this sector. This preamble discussion summarizes the

more detailed analysis that is available in the docket (Ex. 2).

Affected Industries

Using powered industrial truck sales data provided by the

Industrial Truck Association (ITA), OSHA estimates that, of the 822,831

industrial trucks in use in industries covered by OSHA, the

construction sector (SICs 15-17) uses about 8,300. This proposed rule

will cover construction workers who operate powered industrial trucks,

including workers who are employed as dedicated (i.e., full time) truck

operators and those whose operation of powered industrial trucks is

incidental to the performance of another job. These incidental users of

powered industrial trucks include maintenance personnel and general

laborers. Non-driving workers such as materials handlers, laborers, and

pedestrians who work on or are present in the vicinity of powered

industrial truck operations may also be injured or killed in powered

industrial truck accidents.

OSHA estimates that approximately 1.2 million workers are employed

as industrial truck operators in industries regulated by OSHA. OSHA

estimates that 12,400 of these operators are employed by the

construction sector.

Technological Feasibility

OSHA did not identify any proposed requirement that raises

technological feasibility problems for construction establishments that

use industrial trucks. On the contrary, there is substantial evidence

that establishments can achieve compliance with all of the proposed

requirements using existing methods and equipment. In addition, the

proposed standard introduces no technological requirements of any type.

Therefore, OSHA has preliminarily concluded that technological

feasibility is not an issue in relation to the proposed construction

industry training standard for powered industrial truck operators.

Costs of Compliance

The proposed industrial truck operator training requirements would

expand the training required by OSHA's existing industrial truck

training standard (29 CFR 1926.602 (c)(1)) to include training

information on the operating instructions and warnings appropriate to

the type of truck used, the specific hazards found in the workplace

where the truck will be operated, and the requirements of this

standard. Additionally, the proposed provisions require construction

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.

The annual costs construction employers will incur to comply with

the proposed revisions are estimated to be $254,420. Table 2 presents

estimated annual costs, by provision, at the three-digit SIC level.

OSHA developed these industry compliance cost estimates based on per-

operator costs, the number of operators affected, and employee turnover

rates. Costs are annualized based on a 7 percent discount rate, as

directed by the Office of Management and Budget, and are projected over

10-years.

Current industry practice was also 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 new standard. OSHA estimated that it is

current practice for 80 percent of employers in this industry to

conduct an initial evaluation of each powered industrial truck

operator's skill, as would be required by the proposal. In addition,

specific equipment training is often a component of initial training in

this industry. Many operators are also currently trained in both

classroom and hands-on settings, and on the specific type of truck they

will use. OSHA estimates that about 75 percent of employers currently

are in compliance with these proposed requirements. Across all OSHA-

regulated sectors, including construction, 65 percent of employers are

assumed to be providing truck operators with training in the hazards of

the industrial truck environment they will operate in. This requirement

is often overlooked in generic or off-the-shelf training programs and

may be inadequately covered in programs provided by external trainers.

Table 2.--Annualized Compliance Costs

[For the Proposed Industrial Truck Operator Training Standard in the Construction Sector, by Provision and by Three-Digit SIC]

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

Initial training Monitoring

Initial ------------------------------------------------------ Remedial

SIC/Industry evaluation Specific Operating Annual training Annual cost

equipment environment monitoring Recordkeeping

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

152 Residential building construction..................... $905 $2,962 $7,592 $8,297 $6,223 $830 $26,810

153 Operative builders.................................... 74 242 620 677 508 68 2,189

154 Nonresidential building construction.................. 1,423 4,655 11,931 13,039 9,779 1,304 42,130

161 Highway and street construction....................... 259 846 2,169 2,371 1,778 237 7,660

162 Heavy construction, except highway.................... 499 1,632 4,184 4,572 3,429 457 14,773

171 Plumbing, heating, air-conditioning................... 1,167 3,819 9,788 10,697 8,023 1,070 34,564

172 Painting and paper hanging............................ 322 1,054 2,701 2,952 2,214 295 9,539

173 Electrical work....................................... 952 3,115 7,983 8,724 6,543 872 28,190

[[Page 3106]]

174 Masonry, stonework and plastering..................... 833 2,727 6,989 7,638 5,728 764 24,679

175 Carpentry and floor work.............................. 363 1,187 3,042 3,425 2,493 332 10,742

176 Roofing, siding and sheet metal work.................. 366 1,198 3,071 3,356 2,517 336 10,844

177 Concrete work......................................... 427 1,397 3,581 3,914 2,935 391 12,646

178 Water well drilling................................... 36 118 302 330 247 33 1,065

179 Miscellaneous special trade contractors............... 966 3,159 8,096 8,848 6,636 885 28,590

Total Construction Sector............................ 8,592 28,109 72,051 78,739 59,054 7,874 254,420

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

Source: US Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, 1995.

[a] Costs are annualized over 10 years at a 7 percent discount rate (annualization factor 0.1424).

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

OSHA estimated per-operator compliance costs for each component of

the proposed standard. These compliance costs include the wages of

trainees and trainers2, as well as monitoring and recordkeeping

costs. Auxiliary costs (e.g., costs for course development and travel)

will remain unchanged from those required by the existing standard, and

were not included when computing compliance costs for the proposed

revisions. The cost associated with the 30-minute initial truck

operator evaluation required to categorize operators either as

experienced or inexperienced is estimated to be $11.01; this figure

includes the expense of the supervisor's time. The cost per trainee for

each of the proposed two and one-half hour training sessions on

specific equipment to be used and the hazards in the operating

environment is estimated to be $52.74 per session, or $105.48 for both

types of training. The per-operator cost for annual monitoring and

recordkeeping is estimated to be $16.51. Therefore, the cost of

compliance for each untrained newly hired truck operator in

construction is estimated to be $133.01 ($11.01 + $105.49 +$16.51).

\2\The construction operator wage rate, with compensation

estimated at 30 percent of the wage rate, is estimated to be $18.34

per hour. The supervisor wage rate of $22.01 used in the analysis is

calculated by increasing the operator's wage rate by 20 percent.

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

A more detailed analysis of costs is presented in Chapter III of

the full Preliminary Economic Analysis. OSHA welcomes comments on the

preliminary costs and the underlying assumptions presented in this

Preliminary Economic Analysis.

Benefits

The number of truck-related fatalities and injuries that will be

prevented by the proposed training standard in all OSHA-regulated

sectors is estimated by first determining the number of powered

industrial truck fatalities and injuries attributable to hazards

addressed by OSHA's existing powered industrial truck training

standards as well as the number of fatalities and injuries determined

not to be preventable by OSHA's existing requirements or by the

proposed standard. The number of fatalities and injuries likely to be

prevented by compliance with the standard is based on the Agency's

analysis of powered industrial truck accidents as reported in the

narratives and citation data from OSHA's fatality catastrophe reports

gathered through the OSHA Integrated Management Information System

(IMIS).

OSHA used results from the Cohen and Jensen study (Ex. 4) to derive

an estimate of the beneficial effect of enhanced training on powered

industrial truck accidents. This study, which was conducted in two

warehouses where powered industrial trucks were widely used, provides a

quantitative estimate of the effectiveness of an operators' training

program similar to the one required by the proposed standard. The

training program described in the study included a series of short

training sessions, post-training feedback, and supervision and

monitoring of driver behavior. The study estimated the effect of

increased training and operator monitoring on operator driving

practices, and showed that the mean error rates before and after

training3, as well as three months after training, declined by 44

and 70 percent after training, respectively.

\3\Mean error rate = operator errors divided by total number of

driving behaviors observed.

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

As presented in Table 3, an estimated 15 fatalities and 1,441 lost

workday injuries occur annually as a result of industrial truck-related

accidents in the construction industry. OSHA estimates that compliance

with the proposed standard in the construction sector will prevent 3 or

4 of these fatalities and between 463 and 600 lost workday injuries per

year. These preventable fatalities and injuries are attributable

directly to the proposed training requirements, i.e., they are in

addition to the lives already being saved and the injuries already

being prevented by OSHA's existing powered industrial truck training

requirements for construction (29 CFR 1926.602(c)(1)). A discussion of

the methodology used to calculate these estimates is presented in

Chapter IV of the Preliminary Economic Analysis.

[[Page 3107]]

Table 3.--Number of Fatalities and Lost Workday Injuries Potentially Prevented Annually by Compliance With the

Proposed Powered Industrial Truck Training Standard in the Construction Sector

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

Total Preventable fatalities Total Preventable injuries

number of under proposed standard number of under proposed standard

powered -------------------------- industrial -------------------------

Sector industrial truck lost

truck Low High workday Low High

fatalities estimate estimate injuries estimate estimate

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

Construction...................... 15 3.0 3.8 1,441 463 600

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

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, 1995.

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 covered industry groups. Detailed

information at the three-digit SIC level is presented in Chapter V of

the full Preliminary Economic Analysis.

When an industry enjoys an inelastic demand for its products, any

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 annualized compliance cost in each

industry by the average revenue for that industry. As shown in Table 4,

OSHA estimates that the average price increase for the construction

sector would be negligible, i.e., less than 0.0001 percent. 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 minimal price increases necessary

to cover the cost of the proposed training requirements, employers

should be able to pass along compliance costs to their customers.

However, even if all costs were absorbed by the affected firms, the

highest reduction in profits in the construction sector would be 0.001

percent for the construction special trades industry (SIC 17). 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

proposed standard to have a significant economic impact on affected

firms.

Table 4.--Economic Impact of the Proposed Powered Industrial Trucks Operator Training Standard in the

Construction Sector

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

Value of

industry Compliance

shipments, Annualized Compliance costs as a Pre-tax costs as a

SIC/Industry sector receipts or compliance percent of sales income ($ percent of

sales ($ costs millions) pre-tax

millions) income

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

15 Building Construction........ $223,007 $71,128 Negligible............... $16,149 0.0004

16 Heavy Construction........... 77,746 22,433 Negligible............... 6,496 0.0003

17 Construction (Special Trades) 204,154 160,859 Negligible............... 13,522 0.0012

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

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, 1995. Negligible denotes less than 0.0001

percent.

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 requiring training in a given facility. OSHA

has preliminarily concluded that the proposed standard would not have a

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

It has already been shown that the revenue and price increases for

all businesses are negligible. To test the possibility that the

proposed standard might have significant impacts on some small

businesses, OSHA developed a worst case-analysis of small firms in the

construction sector by assuming that the establishment is currently not

in compliance with any of the requirements of the proposed standard and

that all truck operators in the establishment would need specific

equipment and operating environment training, i.e., that none of the

operators currently employed have any training. The representative

establishment was assumed to have 14 employees, the average for

establishments with 10 to 19 employees. OSHA estimates that 60 percent

of employees, or a total of 8 employees, would operate powered

industrial truck either full-time or as part of another job. Using a

turnover rate of 15 percent, the small establishment is expected to

spend $449 annually to achieve full compliance with the proposed

standard. Under this worst case scenario, the impacts of compliance

costs as a percent of revenues are approximately 0.06 percent, an

insignificant impact even in the worst case. Similarly, OSHA estimates

that, if the average small construction establishment could not pass

any of the compliance costs through to its customers (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 preliminarily determined to be economically

feasible even for very small construction industry establishments.

Environmental Impact

The proposed standard has been reviewed in accordance with the

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42

[[Page 3108]]

U.S.C. 4321, et seq.), the regulation of the Council on Environmental

Quality (40 CFR part 1500 through 1517), and the Department of Labor's

NEPA procedures (29 CFR part 11). As a result of this review, OSHA has

determined that the proposed standard will have no significant

environmental impact.

XIII. Federalism

This proposed regulation has been reviewed in accordance with

Executive Order 12612 (52 FR 41685, Oct. 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.

XIV. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

This paragraph contains a collection of information as defined in

OMB's new regulations at 60 FR 44978 (August 29, 1995) in

Sec. 1926.602(d)(5). This provision requires employers to prepare and

maintain a certification record. Specifically, the employer must

prepare a record to certify that employees have been trained and

evaluated as required by the standard. The record includes the name of

the employee who was trained, the date of the training and the

signature of the person who performed the training and evaluation.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, agencies are required to

seek OMB approval for all collections of information. As part of the

approval process, agencies are required to solicit comment from

affected parties with regard to the collection of information,

including the financial and time burdens estimated by the agencies for

the collection of information. OSHA believes it is necessary for

employers to prepare the certification record to verify that powered

industrial truck operators are trained to perform their duties

competently and safely. To comply with the training requirement,

employers must keep a record certifying that their employees have

successfully completed powered industrial truck operator training. Safe

operation can decrease the number of fatalities and injuries associated

with powered industrial trucks.

OSHA estimates that it will take employers about 1 hour to prepare

and 8 hours to deliver the training; and another 15 minutes to prepare

a certification record, make it available during compliance

inspections, retain current training materials and course outlines, and

document the types of trucks that an operator is authorized to operate.

It will cost employers on average about $53 to initially train and

certify each employee. The total respondent burden for construction

workplaces in the first year is $45,709 and 6,411 burden hours. In

subsequent years cost is $6,000 and the hourly burden is 3,543. The

number of operators in construction is 1% of the total number.

OSHA requests comment from the public on all aspects of this

collection of information. Specifically, OSHA requests comment on

whether this proposed collection of information does:

Ensure that the collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have practical utility;

Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the

burden of the proposed collection of information, including the

validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the

information to be collected; and

Minimize the burden of the collection of information on

those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate

automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection

techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g.,

permitting electronic submissions of responses.

Comments on the collection of information proposed provision should

be sent to the OMB Desk Officer for OSHA at Room 10235, 726 Jackson

Place, NW, Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to send a

copy of their comment on the collection of information to OSHA along

with their other comments. The supporting statement for this collection

of information requirement is available in both OSHA and OMB Docket

Offices.

OMB is currently reviewing OSHA proposed collection of information

to determine its consistency with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

At this time OMB has not approved this collection of information.

XV. Public Participation

Interested persons are requested to submit written data, views and

arguments concerning this proposal. These comments must be postmarked

by April 1, 1996, 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 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. The comments

submitted as part of this proposal for construction also will be

considered part of the record for general industry and maritime and the

comments for general industry and maritime will be considered part of

the record for this

[[Page 3109]]

rulemaking. In addition, OSHA is reopening the record for additional

comment on the proposed requirements for general industry and maritime

to coincide with the comment period for construction.

This rulemaking is for procedural purposes combined with the

rulemaking that was proposed for general industry and maritime

industries on March 14, 1995. The docket will be combined, comments and

evidence submitted in response to one notice, need not be repeated for

the other notice and will be considered for all sectors. The hearing

will be conducted for all sectors. Of course, to the extent that the

record supports different provisions for different sectors, these

differences will be incorporated into the final rule.

Notice of Intention to Appear at the Informal Hearing

Pursuant to section 6(b)(3) of the Act, an opportunity to submit

oral testimony concerning the issues raised by the proposed standard

including economic and environmental impacts, will be provided at an

informal public hearing to be held in Washington, DC on April 30, 1996.

If OSHA receives sufficient requests to participate in the hearing, the

hearing period may be extended. Conversely, the hearing may be

shortened if there are few requests.

The hearing will commence at 9:30 a.m. on April 30, 1996, in the

Auditorium, Frances Perkins Building, U.S. Department of Labor, 200

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210.

All persons desiring to participate at the hearing must file in

quadruplicate a notice of intention to appear, postmarked on or before

April 1, 1996. The notice of intention to appear, which will be

available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Technical Data Center

Docket Office (Room N2624), telephone (202) 219-7894, must contain the

following information:

1. The name, address, and telephone number of each person to

appear;

2. The capacity in which the person will appear;

3. The approximate amount of time required for the presentation;

4. The issues that will be addressed;

5. A brief statement of the position that will be taken with

respect to each issue; and

6. Whether the party intends to submit documentary evidence and, if

so, a brief summary of it.

The notice of intention to appear shall be mailed to Mr. Thomas

Hall, OSHA Division of Consumer Affairs, Docket S-008, Room N3647, U.S.

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210;

telephone (202) 219-8615.

A notice of intention to appear also may be transmitted by

facsimile to (202) 219-5986 (Attention: Thomas Hall), by the same date,

provided the original and 3 copies are sent to the same address and

postmarked no more than 3 days later.

Filing of Testimony and Evidence Before the Hearing

Any party requesting more than 10 minutes for a presentation at the

hearing, or who will submit documentary evidence, must provide in

quadruplicate, the complete text of the testimony, including any

documentary evidence to be presented at the hearing. One copy shall not

be stapled or bound and be suitable for copying. These materials must

be provided to Mr. Thomas Hall, OSHA Division of Consumer Affairs at

the address above and be postmarked no later than April 15, 1996.

Each such submission will be reviewed in light of the amount of

time requested in the notice of intention to appear. In those instances

when the information contained in the submission does not justify the

amount of time requested, a more appropriate amount of time will be

allocated and the participant will be notified of that fact prior to

the informal public hearing.

Any party who has not substantially complied with this requirement

may be limited to a 10-minute presentation, and may be requested to

return for questioning at a later time.

Any party who has not filed a notice of intention to appear may be

allowed to testify for no more than 10 minutes as time permits, at the

discretion of the Administrative Law Judge, but will not be allowed to

question witnesses.

Notice of intention to appear, testimony and evidence will be

available for copying at the Docket Office at the address above.

Conduct and Nature of the Hearing

The hearing will commence at 9:30 a.m. on April 30, 1996. At that

time, any procedural matters relating to the proceeding will be

resolved.

The nature of an informal rulemaking hearing is established in the

legislative history of section 6 of the OSH Act and is reflected by

OSHA's rules of procedure for hearings (29 CFR 1911.15(a)). Although

the presiding officer is an Administrative Law Judge and limited

questioning by persons who have filed notices of intention to appear is

allowed on crucial issues, the proceeding is informal and legislative

in type. The Agency's intent, in essence, is to provide interested

persons with an opportunity to make effective oral presentations that

can proceed expeditiously in the absence of procedural restraints that

impede or protract the rulemaking process.

Additionally, since the hearing is primarily for information

gathering and clarification, it is an informal administrative

proceeding rather than an adjudicative one. The technical rules of

evidence, for example, do not apply. The regulations that govern

hearings and the pre-hearing guidelines to be issued for this hearing

will ensure fairness and due process and also facilitate the

development of a clear, accurate and complete record. Those rules and

guidelines will be interpreted in a manner that furthers that

development. Thus, questions of relevance, procedure and participation

generally will be decided so as to favor development of the record.

The hearing will be conducted in accordance with 29 CFR part 1911.

It should be noted that Sec. 1911.4 specifies that the Assistant

Secretary may, upon reasonable notice, issue alternative procedures to

expedite proceedings or for other good cause.

The hearing will be presided over by an Administrative Law Judge

who makes no decision or recommendation on the merits of OSHA's

proposal. The responsibility of the Administrative Law Judge is to

ensure that the hearing proceeds at a reasonable pace and in an orderly

manner. The Administrative Law Judge, therefore, will have all the

powers necessary and appropriate to conduct a full and fair informal

hearing as provided in 29 CFR part 1911, including the powers:

1. To regulate the course of the proceedings;

2. To dispose of procedural requests, objections and comparable

matters;

3. To confine the presentations to the matters pertinent to the

issues raised;

4. To regulate the conduct of those present at the hearing by

appropriate means;

5. At the Judge's discretion, to question and permit the

questioning of any witness and to limit the time for questioning; and

6. At the Judge's discretion, to keep the record open for a

reasonable, stated time (known as the post-hearing comment period) to

receive written information and additional data, views and arguments

from any person who has participated in the oral proceedings.

OSHA recognizes that there may be interested persons who, through

their knowledge of safety or their experience in the operations

involved, would wish to endorse or support certain provisions

[[Page 3110]]

in the standard. OSHA welcomes such supportive comments, including any

pertinent accident data or cost information that may be available, so

that the record of this rulemaking will present a balanced picture of

the public response on the issues involved.

XVI. State Plan Standards

The 25 States with their own OSHA approved occupational safety and

health plans must adopt a comparable standard within six months of the

publication date of the final standard. These States are: Alaska,

Arizona, California, Connecticut (for State and local government

employees only), Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan,

Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York (for State and local government

employees only), North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina,

Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Virgin Islands, Washington, and

Wyoming. Until such time as a State standard is promulgated, Federal

OSHA will provide interim enforcement assistance, as appropriate, in

those States.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR part 1926

Construction industry, Motor vehicle safety, Occupational safety

and health, Transportation.

XVII. Authority

This document was prepared under the direction of Joseph A. Dear,

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S.

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC

20210.

Accordingly, pursuant to section 4, 6(b), 8(c) and 8(g) of the

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657),

the Construction Safety Act (40 U.S.C. 333), Secretary of Labor's Order

No. 1-90 (55 FR 9033), and 29 CFR part 1911, it is proposed to amend 29

CFR part 1926 as set forth below.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 22nd day of January, 1996.

Joseph A. Dear,

Assistant Secretary of Labor.

PART 1926--CONSTRUCTION SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS

1. The authority citation for subpart O of part 1926 would be

revised to read as follows:

Authority: Section 107, Construction Work Hours and Safety

Standards Act (Construction Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 333); secs. 4, 6,

8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653,

655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76

(41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), or 1-90 (55 FR 9033), as

applicable. Section 1926.602 also issued under 29 CFR part 1911.

2. Section 1926.602 is proposed to be amended by adding a new

paragraph (d) and by adding appendices A and B to read as follows:

Sec. 1926.602 Material handling equipment.

* * * * *

(d) Powered industrial, truck Operator training.--(1) Operator

qualifications. (i) The employer shall ensure that each powered

industrial truck operator is capable of performing the duties that are

required to operate the truck safely.

(ii) Prior to permitting an operator to drive except for training

purposes, the employer shall ensure that each operator has received the

training required by this paragraph, that each operator has been

evaluated by a designated person while performing the required duties,

and that each operator performs the required duties competently.

(2) Training program implementation. (i) The employer shall

implement a training program and ensure that only trained operators who

have successfully completed the training program are allowed to operate

powered industrial trucks. Exception: Trainees under the direct

supervision of a designated person shall be allowed to operate a

powered industrial truck provided the operation of the vehicle is

conducted in an area where other employees are not near and where the

conditions are such that the trainee can safely operate the truck.

(ii) Training shall consist of a combination of classroom

instruction (Lecture, discussion, video tapes, and/or conference) and

practical training (demonstrations and practical exercises by the

trainee).

(iii) All training and evaluation shall be conducted by a

designated person who has the requisite knowledge, training and

experience to train powered industrial truck operators and judge their

competency.

(3) Training program content. Powered industrial truck operator

trainees shall be trained in the following topics unless the employer

can demonstrate that some of the topics are not needed for safe

operation.

(i) Truck related topics.

(A) All necessary operating instructions, warnings and precautions

for the types of trucks the operator will be authorized to operate;

(B) Similarities to and differences from the automobile;

(C) Controls and instrumentation: location, what they do and how

they work;

(D) Power plant operation and maintenance;

(E) Steering and maneuvering;

(F) Visibility (including restrictions due to loading);

(G) Fork and attachment adaption, operation and use limitations;

(H) Vehicle capacity;

(I) Vehicle stability;

(J) Vehicle inspection and maintenance;

(K) Refueling or charging and recharging batteries;

(L) Operating limitations; and

(M) Any other operating instruction, warning, or precaution listed

in the operator's manual for the type vehicle that the employee is

being trained to operate.

(ii) Workplace related topics.

(A) Surface conditions where the vehicle will be operated;

(B) Composition of probable loads and load stability;

(C) Load manipulation, stacking, unstacking;

(D) Pedestrian traffic;

(E) Narrow aisles and other restricted places of operation;

(F) Operating in hazardous classified locations;

(G) Operating the truck on ramps and other sloped surfaces that

could affect the stability of the vehicle;

(H) Other unique or potentially hazardous environmental conditions

that exist or may exist in the workplace; and

(I) Operating the vehicle in closed environments and other areas

where insufficient ventilation could cause a buildup of carbon monoxide

or diesel exhaust.

(iii) The requirements of this section.

(4) Evaluation and refresher or remedial training. (i) Sufficient

evaluation and remedial training shall be conducted so that the

employee retains and uses the knowledge, skills and ability needed to

operate the powered industrial truck safely.

(ii) An evaluation of the performance of each powered industrial

truck operator shall be conducted at least annually by a designated

person.

(iii) Refresher or remedial training shall be provided when there

is reason to believe that there has been unsafe operation, when an

accident or a near-miss occurs or when an evaluation indicates that the

operator is not capable of performing the assigned duties.

(5) Certification. (i) The employer shall certify that each

operator has received the training, has been evaluated as required by

this paragraph, and has demonstrated competency in the performance of

the operator's duties. The certification shall include the name

[[Page 3111]]

of the trainee, the date of training, and the signature of the person

performing the training and evaluation.

(ii) The employer shall retain the current training materials and

course outline or the name and address of the person who conducted the

training if it was conducted by an outside trainer.

(6) Avoidance of duplicative training. (i) Each current truck

operator who has received training in any of the elements specified in

paragraph (d)(3) of this section for the types of truck the employee is

authorized to operate and the type of workplace that the trucks are

being operated in need not be retrained in those elements if the

employer certifies in accordance with paragraph (d)(5)(i) of this

section that the operator has been evaluated and found to be competent

to perform those duties.

(ii) Each new truck operator who has received training in any of

the elements specified in paragraph (d)(3) of this section for the

types of truck the employee will be authorized to operate and the type

of workplace in which the trucks will be operated need not be retrained

in those elements before initial assignment in the workplace if the

employer has a record of the training and if the employee is evaluated

pursuant to paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section and is found to be

competent.

Appendix A--Training of Powered Industrial Truck Operators

(Non-mandatory appendix to paragraph (d) of this section)

A-1. Operator Selection

A-1.1. Prospective operators of powered industrial trucks should

be identified based upon their ability to be trained and permitted

to perform job functions that are essential to the operation of a

powered industrial truck. Determination of the capabilities of a

prospective operator to fulfill the demands of the job should be

based upon the tasks that the job demands.

A-1.2. The employer should identify all the aspects of the job

that the employee must meet/perform when doing his or her job. These

aspects could include the level at which the employee must see and

hear, the physical demands of the job, and the environmental

extremes of the job.

A-1.3. One factor to be considered is the ability of the

candidate to see and hear within reasonably acceptable limits.

Included in the vision requirements are the ability to see at

distance and peripherally. In certain instances, there also is a

requirement for the candidate to discern different colors, primarily

red, yellow and green.

A-1.4. The environmental extremes that might be demanded of a

potential powered industrial truck operator include the ability of

the person to work in areas of excessive cold or heat.

A-1.5. After an employee has been trained and appropriate

accommodations have been made, the employer needs to determine

whether the employee can safely perform the job.

A-2. The Method(s) of Training

A-2.1. Among the many methods of training are the lecture,

conference, demonstration, test (written and/or oral) and the

practical exercise. In most instances, a combination of these

methods has been successfully used to train employees in the

knowledge, skills and abilities that are essential to perform the

job function that the employee is being trained to perform. To

enhance the training and to make the training more understandable to

the employee, employers and other trainers have used movies, slides,

video tapes and other visual presentations. Making the presentation

more understandable has several advantages including:

(1) The employees being trained remain more attentive during the

presentation if graphical presentation is used, thereby increasing

the effectiveness of the training;

(2) The use of visual presentations allows the trainer to ensure

that the necessary information is covered during the training;

(3) The use of graphics makes better utilization of the training

time by decreasing the need for the instructor to carry on long

discussions about the instructional material; and

(4) The use of graphics during instruction provides greater

retention by the trainees.

A-3. Training Program Content

A-3.1. Because each type (make and model) of powered industrial

truck has different operating characteristics, limitations and other

unique features, an optimum employee training program for powered

industrial truck operators must be based upon the type vehicles that

the employee will be trained and authorized to operate. The training

must also emphasize the features of the workplace that will affect

the manner in which the vehicle must be operated. Finally, the

training must include the general safety rules applicable to the

operation of all powered industrial trucks.

A-3.2. Selection of the methods of training the operators has

been left to the reasonable determination of the employer. Whereas

some employees can assimilate instructional material while seated in

a classroom, other employees may learn best by observing the conduct

of operations (demonstration) and/or by having to personally conduct

the operations (practical exercise). In some instances, an employee

can receive valuable instruction through the use of electronic

mediums, such as the use of video tapes and movies. In most

instances, a combination of the different training methods may

provide the mechanism for providing the best training in the least

amount of time. OSHA has specified at paragraph (d)(2)(ii) that the

training must consist of a combination of classroom instruction and

practical exercise. The use of both of these modes of instruction is

the only way of ensuring that the trainee has received and

comprehended the instruction and can use the information to safely

operate a powered industrial truck.

A-4. Initial Training

A-4.1. The following is an outline of a generalized forklift

operator training program:

(1) Characteristics of the powered industrial truck(s) the

employee will be allowed to operate:

(a) Similarities to and differences from the automobile;

(b) Controls and instrumentation: location, what they do and how

they work;

(c) Power plant operation and maintenance;

(d) Steering and maneuvering;

(e) Visibility;

(f) Fork and/or attachment adaption, operation and limitations

of their use;

(g) Vehicle capacity;

(h) Vehicle stability;

(i) Vehicle inspection and maintenance;

(j) Refueling or charging and recharging batteries.

(k) Operating limitations.

(l) Any other operating instruction, warning, or precaution

listed in the operator's manual for the type of vehicle the employee

is being trained to operate.

(2) The operating environment:

(a) Floor surfaces and/or ground conditions where the vehicle

will be operated;

(b) Composition of probable loads and load stability;

(c) Load manipulation, stacking, unstacking;

(d) Pedestrian traffic;

(e) Narrow aisle and restricted place operation;

(f) Operating in classified hazardous locations;

(g) Operating the truck on ramps and other sloped surfaces that

would affect the stability of the vehicle;

(h) Other unique or potentially hazardous environmental

conditions that exist or may exist in the workplace.

(i) Operating the vehicle in closed environments and other areas

where insufficient ventilation could cause a buildup of carbon

monoxide or diesel exhaust.

(3) The requirements of this OSHA Standard.

A-5. Trainee Evaluation

A-5.1. The provisions of these proposed requirements specify

that an employee evaluation be conducted both as part of the

training and after completion of the training. The initial

evaluation is useful for many reasons, including:

(1) the employer can determine what methods of instruction will

produce a proficient truck operator with the minimum of time and

effort;

(2) the employer can gain insight into the previous training

that the trainee has received; and

(3) a determination can be made as to whether the trainee will

be able to successfully operate a powered industrial truck. This

initial evaluation can be completed by having the employee fill out

a questionnaire, by an oral interview, or by a combination of these

mechanisms. In many cases, answers received by the employee can be

substantiated by contact with other employees or previous employers.

[[Page 3112]]

A-6. Refresher or Remedial Training

A-6.1. (The type of information listed below would be used when

the training is more than an on-the-spot correction being made by a

supervisor or when multiple instances of on-the-spot corrections

have occurred.) When an on-the-spot correction is used, the person

making the correction should point out the incorrect manner of

operation of the truck or other unsafe act being conducted, tell the

employee how to do the operation correctly, and then ensure that the

employee does the operation correctly.

A-6.2. The following items may be used when a more general,

structured retraining program is utilized to train employees and

eliminate unsafe operation of the vehicle:

(1) Common unsafe situations encountered in the workplace;

(2) Unsafe methods of operating observed or known to be used;

(3) The need for constant attentiveness to the vehicle, the

workplace conditions and the manner in which the vehicle is

operated.

A-6.3. Details about the above subject areas need to be expanded

upon so that the operator receives all the information that is

necessary for the safe operation of the vehicle. Insight into some

of the specifics of the above subject areas may be obtained from the

vehicle manufacturers' literature, the national consensus standards

[e.g. the ASME B56 series of standards (current revisions)] and this

OSHA Standard. Appendix B--Stability of Powered Industrial Trucks

(Non-mandatory appendix to paragraph (d) of this section)

B-1. Definitions

To understand the principle of stability, understanding

definitions of the following is necessary:

Center of Gravity is that point of an object at which all of the

weight of an object can be considered to be concentrated.

Counterweight is the weight that is a part of the basic

structure of a truck that is used to offset the weight of a load and

to maximize the resistance of the vehicle to tipping over.

Fulcrum is the axis of rotation of the truck when it tips over.

Grade is the slope of any surface that is usually measured as

the number of feet of rise or fall over a hundred foot horizontal

distance (this measurement is designated as a percent).

Lateral stability is the resistance of a truck to tipping over

sideways.

Line of action is an imaginary vertical line through the center

of gravity of an object.

Load center is the horizontal distance from the edge of the load

(or the vertical face of the forks or other attachment) to the line

of action through the center of gravity of the load.

Longitudinal stability is the resistance of a truck to

overturning forward or rearward.

Moment is the product of the weight of the object times the

distance from a fixed point. In the case of a powered industrial

truck, the distance is measured from the point that the truck will

tip over to the line of action of the object. The distance is always

measured perpendicular to the line of action.

Track is the distance between wheels on the same axle of a

vehicle.

Wheelbase is the distance between the centerline of the front

and rear wheels of a vehicle.

B-2. General

B-2.1. Stability determination for a powered industrial truck is

not complicated once a few basic principles are understood. There

are many factors that influence vehicle stability. Vehicle

wheelbase, track, height and weight distribution of the load, and

the location of the counterweights of the vehicle (if the vehicle is

so equipped), all contribute to the stability of the vehicle.

B-2.2. The ``stability triangle'', used in most discussions of

stability, is not mysterious but is used to demonstrate truck

stability in a rather simple fashion.

B-3. Basic Principles

B-3.1. The determination of whether an object is stable is

dependent on the moment of an object at one end of a system being

greater than, equal to or smaller than the moment of an object at

the other end of that system. This is the same principle on which a

see saw or teeter-totter works, that is, if the product of the load

and distance from the fulcrum (moment) is equal to the moment at the

other end of the device, the device is balanced and it will not

move. However, if there is a greater moment at one end of the

device, the device will try to move downward at the end with the

greater moment.

B-3.2. Longitudinal stability of a counterbalanced powered

industrial truck is dependent on the moment of the vehicle and the

moment of the load. In other words, if the mathematic product of the

load moment (the distance from the front wheels, the point about

which the vehicle would tip forward) to the center of gravity of the

load times the weight of the load is less than the moment of the

vehicle, the system is balanced and will not tip forward. However,

if the load-moment is greater than the vehicle-moment, the greater

load-moment will force the truck to tip forward.

B-4. The Stability Triangle

B-4.1. Almost all counterbalanced powered industrial trucks have

a three point suspension system, that is, the vehicle is supported

at three points. This is true even if it has four wheels. The steer

axle of most trucks is attached to the truck by means of a pivot pin

in the center of the axle. This three point support forms a triangle

called the stability triangle when the points are connected with

imaginary lines. Figure 1 depicts the stability triangle.

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[[Page 3113]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP30JA96.002

BILLING CODE 4510-26-C

B-4.2. When the line of action of the vehicle or load-vehicle

falls within the stability triangle, the vehicle is stable and will

not tip over. However, when the line of action of the vehicle or the

vehicle/load combination falls outside the stability triangle, the

vehicle is unstable and may tip over. (See Figure 2.)

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[[Page 3114]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP30JA96.003

BILLING CODE 4510-26-C

[[Page 3115]]

B-5. Longitudinal Stability

B-5.1. The axis of rotation when a truck tips forward is the

point of contact of the front wheels of the vehicle with the

pavement. When a powered industrial truck tips forward, it is this

line that the truck will rotate about. When a truck is stable the

vehicle-moment must exceed the load-moment. As long as the vehicle-

moment is equal to or exceeds the load-moment, the vehicle will not

tip over. On the other hand, if the load-moment slightly exceeds the

vehicle-moment, the truck will begin the tip forward, thereby

causing loss of steering control. If the load-moment greatly exceeds

the vehicle-moment, the truck will tip forward.

B-5.2. In order to determine the maximum safe load moment, the

truck manufacturer normally rates the truck at a maximum load at a

given distance from the front face of the forks. The specified

distance from the front face of the forks to the line of action of

the load is commonly called a load center. Because larger trucks

normally handle loads that are physically larger, these vehicles

have greater load centers. A truck with a capacity of 30,000 pounds

or less capacity is normally rated at a given load weight at a 24-

inch load center. For trucks of greater than 30,000 pound capacity,

the load center is normally rated at 36- or 48-inch load center

distance. In order to safely operate the vehicle, the operator

should always check the data plate and determine the maximum

allowable weight at the rated load center.

B-5.3. Although the true load moment distance is measured from

the front wheels, this distance is greater than the distance from

the front face of the forks. Calculation of the maximum allowable

load moment using the load center distance always provides a lower

load moment than the truck was designed to handle. When handling

unusual loads, such as those that are larger than 48 inches long

(the center of gravity is greater than 24 inches), with an offset

center of gravity, etc., then calculation of a maximum allowable

load moment should be undertaken and this value used to determine

whether a load can be handled. For example, if an operator is

operating a 3000 pound capacity truck (with a 24 inch load center),

the maximum allowable load moment is 72,000 inch-pounds (3,000 times

24). If a probable load is 60 inches long (30 inch load center),

then the maximum weight that this load can weigh is 2,400 pounds

(72,000 divided by 30).

B-6. Lateral Stability

B-6.1. The lateral stability of a vehicle is determined by the

position of the line of action (a vertical line that passes through

the combined center of gravity of the vehicle and the load) relative

to the stability triangle. When the vehicle is not loaded, the

location of the center of gravity of the truck is the only factor to

be considered in determining the stability of the truck. As long as

the line of action of the combined center of gravity of the vehicle

and the load falls within the stability triangle, the truck is

stable and will not tip over. However, if the line of action falls

outside the stability triangle, the truck is not stable and may tip

over.

B-6.2. Factors that affect the lateral stability of a vehicle

include the placement of the load on the truck, the height of the

load above the surface on which the vehicle is operating, and the

degree of lean of the vehicle.

B-7. Dynamic Stability

B-7.1. Up to this point, we have covered stability of a powered

industrial truck without consideration of the dynamic forces that

result when the vehicle and load are put into motion. The transfer

of weight and the resultant shift in the center of gravity due to

the dynamic forces created when the machine is moving, braking,

cornering, lifting, tilting, and lowering loads, etc., are important

stability considerations.

B-7.2. When determining whether a load can be safely handled,

the operator should exercise extra caution when handling loads that

cause the vehicle to approach its maximum design characteristics.

For example, if an operator must handle a maximum load, the load

should be carried at the lowest position possible, the truck should

be accelerated slowly and evenly, and the forks should be tilted

forward cautiously. However, no precise rules can be formulated to

cover all of these eventualities.

[FR Doc. 96-1216 Filed 1-29-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P