3094 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / January 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules

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 Occupational

Safety and Health 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 § 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 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

in the standard. OSHA welcomes such

supportive comments, including any

pertinent accident data or cost

information that may be available, in

order that the record of this rulemaking

will present a balanced picture of the

public response on the issues involved.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 22nd day

of January, 1996.

Joseph A. Dear,

Assistant Secretary of Labor.

[FR Doc. 96–1215 Filed 1–29–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P

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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / January 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules 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

§ 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 § 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 (§ 1910.178(l)) and to

adopt the same requirements for the

maritime industries (§§ 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:
3096 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / January 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules

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.

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 volumes 1

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.

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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / January 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules 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

§ 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
3098 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / January 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules

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.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / January 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules 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 treatmentplus-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-plusfeedback group received performance

feedback; and

(4) The retention phase, which started

3 months after the end of the posttraining 2 phase (and the end of the

feedback program).

Following the initial training (posttraining 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 pretraining 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 trainingplus-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
3100 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / January 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules

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 onthe-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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / January 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules 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 nontraining 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
3102 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / January 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules

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 nonmandatory 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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / January 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules 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
3104 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / January 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules

‘‘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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / January 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules 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 threedigit 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]

SIC/Industry Initial evaluation

Initial training Monitoring

Remedial

training Annual cost Specific

equipment

Operating

environment

Annual

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
3106 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / January 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules

2The 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.

3Mean error rate = operator errors divided by

total number of driving behaviors observed.

TABLE 2.—ANNUALIZED COMPLIANCE COSTS—Continued

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

SIC/Industry Initial evaluation

Initial training Monitoring

Remedial

training Annual cost Specific

equipment

Operating

environment

Annual

monitoring

Recordkeeping

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 trainers 2, 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).

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

training 3, as well as three months after

training, declined by 44 and 70 percent

after training, respectively.

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.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / January 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules 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

Sector

Total number of powered industrial truck

fatalities

Preventable fatalities

under proposed standard

Total number of industrial

truck lost

workday injuries

Preventable injuries

under proposed standard

Low estimateHigh estimateLow estimateHigh 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

SIC/Industry sector

Value of industry shipments, receipts or

sales

($ millions)

Annualized

compliance

costs

Compliance

costs as a percent of sales

Pre-tax income

($ millions)

Compliance

costs as a

percent of

pre-tax 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
3108 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / January 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules

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 § 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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / January 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules 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 § 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
3110 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / January 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules

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:

§ 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 nearmiss 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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / January 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules 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.
3112 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / January 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules

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 (Nonmandatory 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 loadmoment 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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / January 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules 3113

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
3114 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / January 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 4510–26–C
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / January 30, 1996 / Proposed Rules 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 loadmoment. 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 inchpounds (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