[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 30, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3094-3115]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1216]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1926

[Docket No. S-008]


Powered Industrial Truck Operator Training

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is 
proposing to revise the Agency's construction safety standard that 
mandates the training of powered industrial truck operators. These 
revisions are being proposed to reduce the number of injuries and 
deaths that have continued to occur as a result of inadequate truck 
operator training. The proposal is a follow-up to a parallel proposal 
to improve truck operator training in the general and maritime 
industries that was published in the Federal Register on March 14, 
1995.
    The proposed operator training requirements would mandate the 
development of a training program that bases the amount and type of 
training on the prior knowledge of the trainee and the ability of that 
trainee to acquire, retain, and use the knowledge and skills that are 
necessary to safely operate a powered industrial truck. A periodic 
evaluation of each operator's performance would also be required. 
Refresher or remedial training would be required, if unsafe vehicle 
operation, an accident or near miss, or other deficiencies were 
identified in this periodic evaluation.
    Today, OSHA also is publishing a Federal Register notice reopening 
the comment period for the general industry and maritime industry truck 
operator training proposal. OSHA is scheduling a joint informal hearing 
to revise comments and testimony on both proposals, i.e., the proposal 
published in March and the one being published today.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed standards and notices of 
intention to appear at the informal public hearings on the proposed 
standards must be postmarked by April 

[[Page 3095]]
1, 1996. Parties who request more than 10 minutes for their 
presentations at the informal public hearing and parties who will 
submit documentary evidence at the hearing must submit the full text of 
their testimony and all documentary evidence postmarked no later than 
April 15, 1996. The hearing will take place in Washington, DC and is 
scheduled to begin on April 30, 1996. OSHA also is reopening the 
comment period for the proposed revision of the training requirements 
for powered industrial truck operators in general industry and the 
maritime industries to April 1, 1996 as announced in a separate 
document published today and is scheduling a joint hearing for those 
sectors along with the construction industry hearing.

ADDRESSES: Comments and information should be sent in quadruplicate to: 
Docket Office, Docket No. S-008; Room N2624; U.S. Department of Labor, 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration; 200 Constitution Ave., 
NW., Washington, DC 20210 (202-219-7894).
    Notices of intention to appear at the informal rulemaking hearing, 
testimony, and documentary evidence are to be submitted in 
quadruplicate to: Mr. Thomas Hall, OSHA Division of Consumer Affairs, 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Ave., 
NW., Room N3647, Washington, DC 20210 (202-219-8615). Written comments 
received, notices of intention to appear, and all other material 
related to the development of these proposed standards will be 
available for inspection and copying in the public record in the Docket 
Office, Room N2624, at the above address.
    The hearing will be held in the auditorium of the U.S. Department 
of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Ms. Ann Cyr, Office of Information and 
Consumer Affairs, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration, Room N3647; 200 Constitution Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20210 (202-219-8148, FAX 202-219-5986).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

a. The Construction Safety Standard

    Congress amended the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act 
(CWHSA) (40 U.S.C. 327 et seq.) in 1969 by adding a new section 107 (40 
U.S.C. 333) to provide employees in the construction industry with a 
safer work environment and to reduce the frequency and severity of 
construction accidents and injuries. The amendment, commonly known as 
the Construction Safety Act (CSA) (Pub. L. 91-54, August 9, 1969), 
significantly strengthened employee protection by providing for the 
adoption of occupational safety and health standards for employees of 
the building trades and construction industry working on federally 
financed or federally assisted construction projects. Accordingly, the 
Secretary of Labor issued Safety and Health Regulations for 
Construction at 29 CFR part 1518 (36 FR 7340, April 17, 1971) pursuant 
to section 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act.
    The Occupational Safety and Health Act allowed the Secretary of 
Labor to adopt established Federal standards issued under other 
statutes as occupational safety and health standards that are 
enforceable under the OSH Act. Accordingly, the Secretary of Labor 
adopted the Construction Standards that had been issued under the CSA 
at 29 CFR part 1518 as OSHA standards. These standards were 
redesignated as part 1926 later in 1971 (36 FR 25232, Dec. 30, 1971). 
The provisions pertaining to powered industrial trucks are contained at 
Sec. 1926.602(c). Section 1926.602(c)(1)(vi) states:

    (vi) All industrial trucks in use shall meet the applicable 
requirements of design, construction, stability, inspection, 
testing, maintenance, and operation, as defined in American National 
Standards Institute B56.1-1969, Safety Standards for Powered 
Industrial Trucks.

Thus, the construction standard relating to the training of industrial 
truck operators is an adoption by reference of the training provision 
of the consensus standard which is identical to the corresponding 
general industry standard, which contains the full text of the American 
National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard.
    The present training provision that is applicable to construction 
through cross reference to the ANSI B56.1-1969 (and is directly 
incorporated into general industry as Sec. 1910.178(l)) reads, ``Only 
trained and authorized operators shall be permitted to operate a 
powered industrial truck. Methods of training shall be devised to train 
operators in the safe operation of powered industrial trucks.''

b. Action on Other Powered Industrial Truck Operator Training 
Requirements

    In the Federal Register of March 14, 1995 (60 FR 13782), OSHA 
published a proposal to revise the general industry standard for 
training powered industrial truck operators (Sec. 1910.178(l)) and to 
adopt the same requirements for the maritime industries 
(Secs. 1915.120(a), 1917.43(I), and 1918.77(a)). Copies of a draft of 
that Federal Register document had been provided to OSHA's Advisory 
Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH) at the Committee's 
meeting on Feb. 28 and March 1, 1995. The Committee advised OSHA that 
it would like additional time to study the proposal and would finalize 
its recommendations by its next meeting on May 25-26, 1995. Because 
OSHA had received no recommendations or other information from the 
ACCSH, the Agency decided to delay proposing the adoption of training 
requirements for powered industrial truck operators in the construction 
industry until the Committee had concluded its deliberations.
    ACCSH met on May 25-26, at which time the Committee prepared its 
comments and recommendations. The Committee recommended that OSHA 
propose improved powered industrial truck training for construction 
employees. The Committee also suggested some changes from the general 
industry proposed standard that OSHA is considering incorporating in 
the construction standard. Some of these suggestions may be of value to 
employees in the general and maritime industries as well.
    OSHA has decided that the most effective way to fully consider the 
Committee's suggestions in the proposal is to raise them in the 
preamble discussion as a series of issues and to invite public comment 
on them. OSHA also is asking in a companion Federal Register document 
published today whether some of these changes also should be made to 
the general and maritime industries' powered industrial truck operator 
training regulations. In the final rule, OSHA will consider the 
suggestions of the committee and changes for the construction, general 
and maritime industries based on the comments and evidence received.
    In Section VIII below, OSHA discusses the specific recommendations 
of the ACCSH. It also poses to the public various questions to focus 
comments on these recommendations.

c. Updated Consensus Standard

    Since promulgation of the OSHA safety and health standards for 
construction in 1971, the consensus standard on which the powered 
industrial truck standard was based (ANSI B56.1) has undergone four 
complete revisions (dated 1975, 1983, 1988 and 1993). The current 
consensus standard (Ex. 3-1) addresses retraining of truck operators as 
follows:


[[Page 3096]]

    4.18  Operator qualifications.
    Only trained and authorized persons shall be permitted to 
operate a powered industrial truck. Operators of powered industrial 
trucks shall be qualified as to visual, auditory, physical, and 
mental ability to operate the equipment safely according to 4.19 and 
all other applicable parts of Section 4.
    4.19  Operator training.
    4.19.1  Personnel who have not been trained to operate powered 
industrial trucks may operate a truck for the purposes of training 
only, and only under the direct supervision of the trainer. This 
training should be conducted in an area away from other trucks, 
obstacles, and pedestrians.
    4.19.2  The operator training program should include the user's 
policies for the site where the trainee will operate the truck, the 
operating conditions for that location, and the specific truck the 
trainee will operate. The training program shall be presented to all 
new operators regardless of previous experience.
    4.19.3  The training program shall inform the trainee that:
    (a) The primary responsibility of the operator is to use the 
powered industrial truck safely following the instructions given in 
the training program.
    (b) Unsafe or improper operation of a powered industrial truck 
can result in: Death or serious injury to the operator or others; 
damage to the powered industrial truck or other property.
    4.19.4  The training program shall emphasize safe and proper 
operation to avoid injury to the operator and others and prevent 
property damage, and shall cover the following areas:
    (a) Fundamentals of the powered industrial truck(s) the trainee 
will operate, including:
    (1) Characteristics of the powered industrial truck(s), 
including variations between trucks in the workplace;
    (2) Similarities to and differences from automobiles:
    (3) Significance of nameplate data, including rated capacity, 
warnings, and instructions affixed to the truck;
    (4) Operating instructions and warnings in the operating manual 
for the truck, and instructions for inspection and maintenance to be 
performed by the operator;
    (5) Type of motive power and its characteristics;
    (6) Method of steering;
    (7) Braking method and characteristics, with and without load;
    (8) Visibility, with and without load, forward and reverse;
    (9) Load handling capacity, weight and load center.
    (10) Stability characteristics with and without load, with and 
without attachments;
    (11) Controls--location, function, method of operation, 
identification of symbols;
    (12) Load handling capabilities; forks, attachments;
    (13) Fueling and battery charging;
    (14) Guards and protective devices for the specific type of 
truck;
    (15) Other characteristics of the specific industrial truck.
    (b) Operating environment and its effect on truck operation, 
including:
    (1) Floor or ground conditions including temporary conditions;
    (2) Ramps and inclines, with and without load;
    (3) Trailers, railcars, and dockboards (including the use of 
wheel chocks, jacks, and other securing devices);
    (4) Fueling and battery charging facilities;
    (5) The use of ``classified'' trucks in areas classified as 
hazardous due to risk of fire or explosion, as defined in ANSI/NFPA 
505;
    (6) Narrow aisles, doorways, overhead wires and piping, and 
other areas of limited clearance;
    (7) Areas where the truck may be operated near other powered 
industrial trucks, other vehicles, or pedestrians;
    (8) Use and capacity of elevators;
    (9) Operation near edge of dock or edge of improved surface;
    (10) Other special operating conditions and hazards which may be 
encountered.
    (c) Operation of the powered industrial truck, including:
    (1) Proper preshift inspection and approved method for removing 
from service a truck which is in need of repair;
    (2) Load handling techniques, lifting, lowering, picking up, 
placing, tilting;
    (3) Traveling, with and without loads; turning corners;
    (4) Parking and shutdown procedures;
    (5) Other special operating conditions for the specific 
application.
    (d) Operating safety rules and practices, including:
    (1) Provisions of this Standard in Sections 5.1 to 5.4 
addressing operating safety rules and practices;
    (2) Provisions of this Standard in Section 5.5 addressing care 
of the truck;
    (3) Other rules, regulations, or practices specified by the 
employer at the location where the powered industrial truck will be 
used.
    (e) Operational training practice, including;
    (1) If feasible, practice in the operation of powered industrial 
trucks shall be conducted in an area separate from other workplace 
activities and personnel;
    (2) Training practice shall be conducted under the supervision 
of the trainer;
    (3) Training practice shall include the actual operation or 
simulated performance of all operating tasks such as load handling, 
maneuvering, traveling, stopping, starting, and other activities 
under the conditions which will be encountered in the use of the 
truck.
    4.19.5  Testing, Retraining, and Enforcement
    (a) During training, performance and oral and/or written tests 
shall be given by the employer to measure the skill and knowledge of 
the operator in meeting the requirements of the Standard. Employers 
shall establish a pass/fail requirement for such tests. Employers 
may delegate such testing to others but shall remain responsible for 
the testing. Appropriate records shall be kept.
    (b) Operators shall be retrained when new equipment is 
introduced, existing equipment is modified, operating conditions 
change, or an operator's performance is unsatisfactory.
    (c) The user shall be responsible for enforcing the safe use of 
the powered industrial truck according to the provisions of this 
Standard.

    Note: Information on operator training is available from such 
sources as powered industrial truck manufacturers, government 
agencies dealing with employee safety, trade organizations of users 
of powered industrial trucks, public and private organizations, and 
safety consultants.

(For an explanation of why OSHA decided to propose a standard that 
is somewhat different from the consensus standard, see section 
entitled Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard, below.)
    Since 1971, the ANSI consensus committee has adopted other 
volumes<SUP>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.

    \1\ The consensus committees call the standards for different 
pieces of equipment ``volumes'' and all of the volumes produced by 
the committee the ``standard''. OSHA has decided to use the same 
nomenclature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Petitions and Requests

    Since the promulgation of the OSHA standard in 1971, interested 
persons have requested that OSHA improve its training requirements for 
powered industrial truck operators. ANSI (now the American Society of 
Mechanical Engineers (ASME)) has substantially upgraded its training 
provisions for powered industrial truck operators.
    On March 15, 1988, the Industrial Truck Association (ITA) 
petitioned OSHA to revise its standard requiring the training of 
powered industrial truck operators (Ex. 3-2). The petition contained 
suggested language for a proposed requirement along with a model 
operator training program by which compliance with the recommended 
requirement could be met. OSHA responded to the petition on April 8, 
1988, stating that work on the revision of the OSHA powered industrial 
truck operator training requirement would begin as soon as other 
priority projects were completed.
    Congress, in particular, has expressed a special interest in this 
standard. A resolution urging OSHA to revise its regulations on 
forklift operator safety 

[[Page 3097]]
training was passed by the Senate in the 103rd Congress. Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 17 was approved by voice vote with 55 cosponsors 
and broad bipartisan support. Its companion measure in the House of 
Representatives, H. Con. Res. 92, had 236 cosponsors from both parties, 
although no formal vote was taken.
    OSHA preliminarily concludes that upgrading the training 
requirements for powered industrial truck operators will substantially 
reduce a significant risk of death and injury caused by the unsafe 
operation of powered industrial trucks driven by untrained or 
inadequately trained operators.

II. The Powered Industrial Truck

    The term ``powered industrial truck'' is defined in the ASME B56.1 
(formerly the ANSI B56.1) standard as a ``mobile, power propelled truck 
used to carry, push, pull, lift, stack, or tier material.'' Powered 
industrial trucks are particularly useful when handling palletized 
materials.
    There are presently approximately 855,900 powered industrial trucks 
in use in American industry. Of this number, OSHA estimates that there 
are about 8300 powered industrial trucks in use in the construction 
industry.
    Powered industrial trucks are classified by manufacturers according 
to their individual characteristics. There are seven classes of powered 
industrial trucks:
    Class 1--Electric Motor, Sit-down Rider, Counter-Balanced Trucks 
(Solid and Pneumatic Tires).
    Class 2--Electric Motor Narrow Aisle Trucks (Solid Tires).
    Class 3--Electric Motor Hand Trucks or Hand/Rider Trucks (Solid 
Tires).
    Class 4--Internal Combustion Engine Trucks (Solid Tires).
    Class 5--Internal Combustion Engine Trucks (Pneumatic Tires).
    Class 6--Electric and Internal Combustion Engine Tractors (Solid 
and Pneumatic Tires).
    Class 7--Rough Terrain Forklift Trucks (Pneumatic Tires).
    Each of the different types of powered industrial trucks has its 
own unique characteristics and inherent hazards. To maximize 
effectiveness, training must address the unique characteristics of the 
type vehicle(s) the employee is being trained to operate.
    These trucks may operate on almost any type surface, from smooth 
and level floors to rocky, uneven ground, provided they were 
manufactured to operate on that type floor or ground and the surface 
does not have an excessive slope. Construction forklift trucks are more 
frequently operated on rough terrain than trucks used in other industry 
sectors.
    Trucks of different types are designed and manufactured to operate 
in various work environments. Powered industrial trucks can be used for 
moving material about the workplace. High lift trucks can be used to 
raise loads up to 30 or 40 feet above the ground, to deposit the 
material on a roof under construction, a mezzanine or another elevated 
location, and subsequently to retrieve and lower the material.
    Powered industrial trucks also may be equipped with, or can be 
modified to accept, attachments that allow movement of odd-shaped 
materials or permit the truck to carry out tasks that may not have been 
envisioned when the truck was designed and manufactured. Many of these 
attachments may be added to or installed on the vehicle by the dealer 
or by the employer. For example, there are powered industrial truck 
attachments for grasping barrels or drums of material. Some of these 
attachments not only grasp a barrel or drum but allow the vehicle 
operator to rotate the barrel or drum to empty the vessel or lay it on 
its side. OSHA recognizes that certain attachments may limit the safe 
use of the vehicle. To ensure that modifications or additions do not 
adversely affect the safe use of the vehicle, OSHA requires at 
Sec. 1926.602(c)(1)(ii) that:

    (ii) No modifications and additions which affect capacity and 
safe operation of the equipment shall be made without the 
manufacturer's written approval. If such modifications or changes 
are made, the capacity, operation, and maintenance instruction 
plates, tags, or decals shall be changed accordingly. In no case 
shall the original safety factor of the equipment be reduced.

    When the use of specialized attachments restricts the use of the 
powered industrial truck or when the truck is used to lift people, it 
is essential that operator training include instruction on the safe use 
of the vehicle so that the operator knows and understands the 
restrictions or limitations that are imposed upon the operation of the 
vehicle by the use of those attachments or the conduct of those 
operations.

III. Powered Industrial Truck Hazards

    Powered industrial trucks are used in many construction activities. 
Their principal utility lies in the fact that either a large number of 
objects on a pallet or confined in a large box, crate or other 
container or large objects may be moved about the workplace and raised 
and placed on elevated surfaces with relative ease. Since powered 
industrial truck movement is controlled by the operator and is not 
restricted by the frame of the machine or other impediments, virtually 
unrestricted movement of the vehicle about the workplace is possible.
    The hazards that are commonly associated with powered industrial 
trucks may not exist or be as pronounced for every type, make or model 
of vehicle. Each type of truck presents different operating hazards. 
For example, the chance of a falling load accident occurring when the 
truck is a sitdown, counterbalanced high lift rider truck is much 
greater than when the vehicle is a motorized hand truck, because the 
height to which the load can be raised by a sitdown rider truck is much 
greater than that for the hand truck.
    Correspondingly, the method or means to prevent an accident or to 
protect employees from injury may be different with different types of 
trucks. For example, when a rider truck is involved in a tipover 
accident, the operator has the opportunity to remain in the operator's 
position in the vehicle during the tipover, thereby minimizing the 
potential for injury. In most cases, the operator of a rider truck is 
injured in a tipover accident when he or she attempts to jump clear of 
the vehicle when it begins to tip over. Because the natural tendency of 
the operator is to jump downward, he or she lands on the floor or 
ground and is then crushed by the overhead guard of the vehicle. 
Consequently, the operator of a rider truck should be trained to stay 
with the vehicle during a lateral tipover. On the other hand, when an 
order picker tips over with the platform in a raised position, the 
operator usually should attempt to jump clear of the vehicle, and 
should be trained accordingly.
    Because a powered industrial truck is a motor vehicle, its 
operation is similar in some respects to that of an automobile, and 
some of its hazards are the same as those experienced during the 
operation of an automobile. Automobile and powered industrial truck are 
both subject to a number of common hazards, such as contacting fixed or 
movable objects (including employees) and tipping over.
    Additionally, operating a car or an industrial truck at excessive 
speed or skidding on a wet or otherwise slippery ground or floor can be 
dangerous to the operator or nearby employees. Driving a powered 
industrial truck at excessive speed may result in loss of control, 
causing the vehicle to skid, tip over, or fall off a loading dock or 
other elevated walking or working surface. Failure to maintain control 
of the vehicle also may 

[[Page 3098]]
cause the vehicle to strike an employee or to strike stored material, 
causing the material to topple and possibly injure an employee. Driver 
training is necessary so that the operator will act properly to 
minimize the hazard to himself or herself and to other employees.
    Although there are many similarities between the automobile and the 
powered industrial truck, there are also many differences. Another 
reason for training industrial truck operators is to make operators 
aware of these differences. Some of the characteristics of a powered 
industrial truck that have a pronounced effect upon truck operation and 
safety that are outside auto driving experience are the truck's ability 
to change its stability, to raise, lower and tilt loads, and to steer 
with the rear wheels while being powered by the front wheels. In 
addition, vision is sometimes partially obscured by the load. Moving 
loads upwards, downwards, forwards and backwards causes a shift of the 
center of gravity and can adversely affect the overall stability of the 
vehicle. When a load is raised or moved away from the vehicle, the 
vehicle's longitudinal stability is decreased. When the load is lowered 
or moved closer to the vehicle, its longitudinal stability is 
increased.
    To mitigate the hazards posed to the stability of the truck by the 
movement of the material being handled, the ANSI B56.1-1969 has seven 
provisions that address proper operation of a powered industrial truck. 
These provisions specify:

    604 Q. While negotiating turns, speed shall be reduced to a safe 
level by means of turning the hand steering wheel in a smooth, 
sweeping motion. Except when maneuvering at a very low speed, the 
hand steering wheel shall be turned at a moderate, even rate.
    605 A. Only stable or safely arranged loads shall be handled. 
Caution shall be exercised when handling off-center loads which 
cannot be centered.
    605 B. Only loads within the rated capacity of the truck shall 
be handled.
    605 C. The long or high (including multiple-tiered) loads which 
may affect capacity shall be adjusted.
    605 D. Trucks equipped with attachments shall be operated as 
partially loaded trucks when not handling a load.
    605 E. A load engaging means shall be placed under the load as 
far as possible; the mast shall be carefully tilted backward to 
stabilize the load.
    605 F. Extreme care shall be used when tilting the load forward 
or backward, particularly when high tiering. Tilting forward with 
load engaging means elevated shall be prohibited except to pick up a 
load. An elevated load shall not be tilted forward except when the 
load is in a deposit position over a rack or stack. When stacking or 
tiering, only enough backward tilt to stabilize the load shall be 
used.

Knowledge of and adherence to these principles, as well as the other 
requirements of the OSHA standard, are essential for safe load handling 
and vehicle operation. Operators of vehicles used in construction need 
to be trained about the requirements of the consensus standard because 
failure to adhere to the techniques emphasized in these provisions are 
major causes of accidents.
    The hazards addressed in this proposed rule are those associated 
with industrial trucks in general, as well as those posed by specific 
makes or models of trucks. Each powered industrial truck has a 
different feel that makes its operation slightly different from the 
operation of other trucks, and operators must therefore be aware of the 
effects of these differences on safe truck operation. The workplaces 
where these trucks are being used may also present particular hazards. 
For these reasons, a uniform and all-inclusive set of hazards that 
applies to all industrial trucks and workplaces cannot be delineated. 
For the same reason, the development of a single ``generic'' training 
program that fits all powered industrial trucks and all workplaces is 
impractical. In developing an effective powered industrial truck 
training program, there are however three major areas of concern that 
should be kept in mind. These are the hazards associated with the 
particular make and model of truck, the hazards of the workplace (which 
are particularly important on construction sites), and the general 
hazards that apply to the operation of all or most powered industrial 
trucks.
    In addition, some hazards are related to the improper operation of 
a powered industrial truck. Among these hazards are: Falling loads 
caused by overloading, unbalanced loading or other improper loading; 
the vehicle falling from a platform, curb, trailer or other surface on 
which the vehicle is operating; the vehicle being driven while the 
operator has an obstructed view in the direction of travel; and the 
vehicle being operated at an excessive rate of speed.
    OSHA has identified several accidents that have occurred when an 
employee other than the operator is ``given a ride'' on a powered 
industrial truck. Most trucks were designed and are intended to allow 
only the operator to ride on the vehicle. The carrying of other persons 
may result in an accident when that other person either falls from the 
vehicle or hits an obstruction when the vehicle comes too close to that 
obstruction. Finally, powered industrial truck accidents occur because 
the vehicle is not properly maintained (These accidents most commonly 
involve employees being overcome by excessive carbon monoxide emissions 
or vehicle component failure).
    The seriousness of the consequences associated with these accidents 
depends on such factors as the method of operation of the powered 
industrial truck, the load being carried, and the characteristics of 
the workplace in which the vehicle is being operated. Accordingly, 
truck operators must be trained to recognize unsafe conditions and how 
to react to them when they occur.
    Several features of powered industrial trucks contribute either 
directly or indirectly to the hazards posed by these vehicles. Some of 
the factors that influence the extent of the hazards presented by a 
particular truck are the placement of the critical components of the 
vehicle, the age of the vehicle, and the manner in which the vehicle is 
operated and maintained.
    There are other hazards related to the use of powered industrial 
trucks that are caused or enhanced by the characteristics of the 
workplace. These hazards include the following: Operating powered 
industrial trucks on rough, uneven or sloped surfaces; operating 
powered industrial trucks with unusual loads; operating in hazardous 
(classified) areas; operating in areas where there are narrow aisles; 
and operating where there is pedestrian traffic or where employees are 
working in or adjacent to the path of travel of the powered industrial 
truck. The first hazard is particularly pronounced on construction 
sites.
    The operation of a powered industrial truck presents hazards not 
only to the operator, but also to other employees working with or 
around the vehicle. As explained in the section entitled ``Studies and 
Accident, Injury and Other Data,'' below, employees other than 
operators have been injured or killed in accidents involving powered 
industrial trucks. Proper training can reduce accidents resulting from 
the causes described above.

IV. Studies and Accident, Injury and Other Data

    A detailed analysis of powered industrial truck studies and 
accident and injury data appears in the NPRM for truck training for 
general industry and the maritime industry, which was published in the 
Federal Register on March 14, 1995 (60 FR 13787). The section presented 
here briefly summarizes the data relevant to the construction industry. 


[[Page 3099]]


a. Studies Measuring the Effectiveness of an Industrial Lift Truck 
Safety Training Program

    In 1984, H. Harvey Cohen and Roger C. Jensen, working under 
contract with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 
(NIOSH), published an article in the Journal of Safety Research (Fall 
1984, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 125-135) entitled ``Measuring the 
Effectiveness of an Industrial Lift Truck Safety Training Program'' 
(Ex. 4). The article contained an analysis of two studies that were 
undertaken to measure objectively the effects of safety training on the 
driving performance and safety practices of powered industrial truck 
operators.
    This article detailed the results of an experiment that was 
conducted to evaluate training of powered industrial truck operators 
using a behavioral (work) sampling procedure to obtain objective data 
about work practices that correlate with injury risk. There were two 
separate studies conducted in this experiment, one at each of two 
similar warehouses. The studies that comprised the experiment were 
conducted to assess the value of training and the influence of post- 
training actions on the safety performance of workers. These studies 
demonstrate that training powered industrial truck operators reduced 
the operators' error rates (number of unsuccessful operations divided 
by the total number of operations) and that training combined with 
feedback reduced error rates even more.
    The studies were conducted at different warehouses using similar 
training techniques. The training was conducted to emphasize those 
operator behaviors that were measurable, frequently observed, capable 
of being reliably observed, related to frequent accident occurrence and 
amenable to corrective action through training. There were 14 behaviors 
evaluated in these studies. Positive reinforcement of the training was 
used with some trainees to measure its effectiveness. The experiment 
was conducted in four phases:
    (1) The pre-training phase, during which none of the operators had 
been trained;
    (2) The post-training 1 phase, during which the control group 
remained untrained, the treatment group had received training, and the 
treatment-plus-feedback group had received training and also was 
receiving performance feedback;
    (3) The post-training 2 phase, during which all three groups had 
received training but only the training-plus- feedback group received 
performance feedback; and
    (4) The retention phase, which started 3 months after the end of 
the post-training 2 phase (and the end of the feedback program).
    Following the initial training (post-training 1), all three groups 
showed a decrease in their mean error rates with the training-plus-
feedback group showing the largest decrease (from .35 to .27, a 23 
percent decrease) followed by the training-only (from .33 to .27, an 18 
percent decrease) and the control group (from .34 to .32, a 6 percent 
decrease). The reduction in the error rate of the control group from 
the pre-training to the post-training 1 phase of the study was 
attributed to the influence of peer modeling, i.e., the untrained 
control group operators were copying the behavior of their trained 
counterparts. Toward the end of the post-training 1 phase, the error 
rates of the three groups converged, suggesting that the effects of the 
training program had begun to wear off. Observers also noted that some 
behaviors were being compromised when employees of different knowledge 
levels were required to interact, particularly in conflict avoidance 
situations such as signaling and yielding at blind intersections.
    During the post-training 2 phase of the study, all groups improved 
in performance. The control group's performance improved by 28 percent 
(from a mean error rate of .32 to .23) while the training group 
experienced a 4 percent improvement (from a mean error rate of .27 to 
.26) and the training-plus-feedback group had a 7 percent improvement 
(from .27 to .25). The authors concluded that there was further 
evidence of the effect of peer modeling because the performance of all 
three groups continued to improve although no additional instruction 
was given.
    The retention phase of the study was conducted three months 
following the completion of the post-training 2 phase of the study. It 
was intended to determine the longer term effects of the training. 
During this phase of the study, mean error rates were checked, as was 
done during the other phases of the study. The results of this phase of 
the study indicate an additional improvement in the performance of the 
operators, with the mean error rate decreasing from .25 to .19, a 24 
percent improvement in their performance. The total performance gain 
achieved during this study was a 44 percent improvement from the pre-
training (baseline) phase through the retention phase (from a mean 
error rate of .34 to a final error rate of .19). The data indicate that 
there were significantly fewer errors at each successive phase of the 
study.
    The second study was conducted to verify and extend the findings of 
the first study. A modified experimental design was used to eliminate 
the mitigating influence of the untrained control group. In the second 
study, all operators were trained at the same time and all received 
performance feedback. Comparisons were made only before and after 
training. The study was divided into three phases: Pre-training, post-
training and retention. The retention phase of the study was again 
conducted three months after the conclusion of the prior phase.
    Following the training of the vehicle operators, there was a 61 
percent improvement in performance scores (from an error rate of .23 to 
.09). Observation in the retention phase of this study showed an 
additional reduction of 22 percent in mean error rates (from .09 to .07 
mean error rate). The overall improvement in mean error rates between 
the pre-training error rate (.23) to that achieved during the retention 
phase (.07) was a reduction of 70 percent.

b. The OSHA Fatality/Catastrophe Reports

    OSHA records a summary of the results of investigations of all 
accidents resulting in fatalities, catastrophes, amputations and 
hospitalizations of two or more days, and those accidents that have 
received significant publicity or caused extensive property damage. 
These summaries are recorded on an OSHA Form 170 and include an 
abstract describing the activities taking place at the time of the 
accident and the causes of the accident. These reports are stored in a 
computerized database system.
    A substantial percentage of the serious powered industrial truck 
accidents that were investigated occurred in the construction industry. 
Specifically, 29 out of the 200 accidents investigated took place in 
the construction industry.

c. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Data

    In April, 1994, BLS published a booklet entitled ``Fatal Workplace 
Injuries in 1992: A Collection of Data and Analysis'' (Ex. 3-4). In 
this booklet, there was an article written by Gary A. Helmer entitled 
``Fatalities Involving Forklifts and Other Powered Industrial Carriers, 
1991-1992.'' This report contains information contained in the Census 
of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI) on 170 fatal powered industrial 
truck accidents. Table 1 lists the 

[[Page 3100]]
classifications of those powered industrial truck accidents.

    Table 1.--Classification of Forklift Fatalities, CFOI, 1991-1992    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 How accident occurred                   Number  Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forklift overturned...................................       41       24
Forklift struck something, or ran off dock............       13        8
Worker pinned between objects.........................       19       11
Worker struck by material.............................       29       17
Worker struck by forklift.............................       24       14
Worker fell from forklift.............................       24       14
Worker died during forklift repair....................       10        6
Other accident........................................       10        6
                                                       -----------------
      Total...........................................      170      100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Fatal Workplace Injuries in 1992, 
  A Collection of Data and Analysis'', Report 870, April 1994.          

d. Fatality and Injury Data

    As discussed in the Preliminary Economic Analysis, there are on 
average 15 deaths and 1440 serious injuries from powered industrial 
truck operations in the construction industry each year. It is 
estimated that this standard would prevent 3 or 4 deaths and 463 to 601 
of these serious injuries per year.

V. Basis for Agency Action

    OSHA believes that, as the above discussion indicates, there is a 
sufficient body of data and information on which to base a revision of 
the existing standard for powered industrial truck operator training in 
the construction industry. The data indicate that there are a 
substantial number of fatalities and injuries from industrial truck 
accidents in the construction industry. Studies indicate that better 
training would substantially reduce the number of such fatalities and 
serious injuries. Consequently, these requirements would reduce the 
number of fatalities and injuries resulting from accidents involving 
powered industrial trucks operated by untrained or insufficiently 
trained employees.
    In addition, as discussed above, there are other reasons to update 
the standard. For example, there now exist substantially updated 
consensus standards on this subject. In addition, OSHA has been 
petitioned to improve the requirements for industrial truck training. 
Further, the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health has 
recommended improving the standard. Finally, the Senate recently passed 
a resolution urging OSHA to revise its outdated powered industrial 
truck operator standards.

VI. The Need for Training

    Training is generally defined as making a person proficient through 
the use of specialized instruction and practice. Training is the means 
by which an employer ensures that employees have the knowledge, skills, 
and abilities that are necessary for the employees to do their jobs 
correctly.
    Once an employee acquires the basic knowledge, skills, and 
abilities, refresher or remedial training may be used to reinforce or 
improve those attributes, to provide new material, to provide material 
that was previously discussed in a new manner, or to simply maintain an 
awareness of the material that has previously been taught. Refresher or 
remedial training is normally conducted on a predetermined periodic 
basis, that is, on a monthly, semi-annual, or annual basis.
    Training may be as simple and informal as a supervisor pointing out 
an error in the manner in which an employee is doing a job (making an 
on-the-spot correction) or showing an employee how to do a particular 
task (demonstrating the proper method to do the job). On the other end 
of the spectrum is the detailed, structured instruction that uses 
formal methods of training (lectures, conferences, formal 
demonstrations, practical exercises, examinations, etc.). Formal 
training is usually used to impart more, or more complicated 
information to a trainee.
    For the most part, employees do not start out with the knowledge, 
skills, and abilities to perform the tasks necessary for safe lift 
truck operation. Although many employees who are selected or assigned 
to drive powered industrial trucks are licensed to drive automobiles, 
there are enough dissimilarities between these two types of vehicles 
and their operation to require additional knowledge, skills, and 
abilities to operate a powered industrial truck safely. Operational 
characteristics of powered industrial trucks, such as vehicles equipped 
with rear-wheel steering and front-wheel drive and the capability to 
hoist-move-lower loads, require operator training and practice to 
master the different driving skills that must be used when an employee 
operates powered industrial trucks.
    Many accidents can be prevented, or the seriousness of the injury 
to the employee can be mitigated, by training employees. Effective 
training and supervision also can prevent the occurrence of unsafe acts 
such as speeding, failing to look in the direction of travel, and 
failing to slow down or stop and sound the vehicle's horn at blind 
intersections and other areas where pedestrian traffic may not be 
observable. Another example in which training can prevent or lessen the 
severity of an accident of this kind is directly related to the 
stability of powered industrial trucks when traveling with an elevated 
load. Effective operator training should emphasize that the vehicle can 
only be moved when the load is at its lowest point. However, even if an 
operator fails to follow this practice and the vehicle tips over, the 
injury to the operator is usually minimal if he or she stays with the 
vehicle. As previously discussed, the usual injury in a powered 
industrial truck tipover occurs when the operator attempts to jump off 
the vehicle while it is tipping over. In these cases, since the normal 
tendency is for a person to jump downward, the operator lands on the 
floor or ground in the path of the overhead guard, leading to a 
crushing injury of the head, neck or back. Training an employee to stay 
with the vehicle will reduce the severity of some of these injuries.
    The studies conducted by Cohen and Jensen, discussed under Studies, 
Accident, Injury and Other Data earlier in this preamble, found a 
reduction in operator errors rate of up to 70 percent from training. 
Although a 70 percent error rate reduction cannot be directly equated 
to a corresponding reduction in the number of accidents that this or 
any other group of operators will experience, improper or unsafe 
operation of powered industrial trucks is the major cause of accidents 
and their resultant fatalities and injuries. Therefore, a reduction in 
the unsafe operation of these trucks will reduce the number of 
accidents, and the resultant fatalities and injuries.
    Although not all powered industrial truck accident reports spell 
out lack of training as a causal factor in the accident, each accident 
can, in part, be attributed to the actions or inactions of the 
operator. For example, when a powered industrial truck tips over, the 
accident is caused by one or more of several factors, including 
speeding, traveling with the load in an elevated position, or 
improperly negotiating a turn. Training can minimize the number of 
times that these events occur.
    Proper training of an employee must take into account the fact that 
different operating conditions (including the type and size of the 
load, the type and condition of the surface on which the vehicle is 
being operated, and other factors) can adversely affect vehicle 
operation. Construction sites usually include many of these factors, 
such as rough terrain. Operator training must emphasize two points 
regarding any 

[[Page 3101]]
potential accident scenario. These two factors are: (1) The employee 
should not engage in activities that may cause an accident, and (2) the 
employee should minimize the potential for injury (either to himself or 
herself or to other employees) by taking appropriate actions.

VII. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Rule

a. Specific Provisions Included in the Proposed Standard

    OSHA is proposing to improve the training of powered industrial 
truck operators in construction by adding a new 29 CFR 1926.602(d) that 
would supersede the current cross- reference to the 1969 ANSI standard 
insofar as that standard specifies that only trained operators be 
permitted to operate powered industrial trucks. This proposal is 
intended to enhance the safe operation of powered industrial trucks in 
the construction workplace.
    In developing this proposal, OSHA looked at the training 
requirements of the existing national consensus standard for powered 
industrial trucks, ANSI B56.1-1993, as well as training requirements 
from other standards (both industry and government). The non-training 
related requirements of those standards are beyond the scope of this 
proposal.
    The proposed standard includes six elements. First, the employer is 
only to use powered industrial truck operators who are trained for and 
capable of performing the job. Operator training is to include both 
formal training and practical experience. Various relevant topics are 
to be covered in the training unless they are not relevant to the 
employer's vehicles or workplace. Refresher training is to be provided, 
and if there is an accident or unsafe operation of the vehicle, 
remedial training must be given. Employers are to certify that 
employees are trained. Prior training and experience may count toward 
the required training.
    At paragraph (d)(1)(i), OSHA specifies that each employee who will 
be required to operate a powered industrial truck must be capable of 
performing the duties that are required of the job after training and 
appropriate accommodation. This means that the employee must have to 
climb onto and off a truck, to sit on the vehicle for extended periods 
of time, to turn his or her body to be able to drive in reverse, and to 
have the physical and mental abilities to perform the job. Information 
obtained during the initial employee evaluation can be used to, among 
other things, determine how best to train the employee. For example, if 
the employee cannot read and comprehend the operator's manuals for the 
type of trucks that the employee will operate, this information would 
have to taught by means other than assigning the employee to read the 
truck manuals. The initial evaluation can also be useful in avoiding 
duplicative training.
    Paragraph (d)(1)(ii) provides that the employer shall ensure that 
the employee has received required training, that the employee has been 
evaluated and that the operator can perform the job competently. After 
the training, the evaluation must be carried out by a designated person 
so that the employer can ensure that the trainee can perform the duties 
required of an operator in a competent manner. Conducting evaluations 
during training is known as a practical exercise or a performance test. 
OSHA believes that only through evaluation by a knowledgeable person 
after training can an employer know that the employee has been 
adequately trained and can safely perform the job.
    The designated person may be the employer, if qualified. A small 
business person who has employees may decide to send the employees to 
an outside training organization. Alternately, the employer may be 
sufficiently trained to enable the employer to be qualified as a 
designated person.
    At paragraph (d)(2), OSHA is proposing to require that the employer 
implement a training program for all powered industrial truck 
operators. This program would ensure that only trained drivers who have 
successfully completed the training program would be allowed to operate 
these vehicles. An exception to the rule would allow trainees to 
operate powered industrial trucks provided the operation is under the 
direct supervision of a designated person and the operation is 
conducted where there is minimum danger to the trainee or other 
employees.
    OSHA is proposing at paragraph (d)(2)(ii) that the training consist 
of a combination of classroom instruction and practical training. The 
Agency believes that only a combination of training methods will ensure 
adequate employee training. Although classroom training is invaluable 
for the teaching of the principles of vehicle operation, it is the 
hands-on training and the evaluation of the operation of the vehicle 
that finally proves the adequacy of the training and the ability of the 
employee to use that training to operate a powered industrial truck 
successfully.
    At paragraph (d)(2)(iii), OSHA is proposing to require that all 
training be conducted by a designated person. OSHA defines a designated 
person as one who has the requisite knowledge, training and experience 
to train powered industrial truck operators and judge their competence. 
As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, the employer may have the 
necessary prerequisites to qualify as a designated person, or he or she 
may assign the training responsibility to another person (either a 
knowledgeable employee or an trainer from outside the company).
    To ensure that the training contains the appropriate information 
for the operator, OSHA has provided a list of subjects at paragraph 
(d)(3). Under this rule, it is the responsibility of the employer to 
select the particular items that are pertinent to the types of truck 
that the employee will be allowed to operate and the work environment 
in which the vehicle will be operated. For example, if the employee 
will be allowed to operate an order picker, it is essential that he or 
she understand the location and function of the controls, the location 
and operation of the powerplant, steering and maneuvering, visibility, 
inspection and maintenance, and other general operating functions of 
the vehicle. Additionally, it is essential that the employee know and 
understand that he or she must be restrained from falling when the 
platform of the truck is in an elevated position and that the truck 
must never be driven when the platform is elevated. Under this proposed 
requirement, it is the responsibility of the employer to select those 
elements of the training that are necessary for the type of vehicle to 
be used and the workplace in which that vehicle will be operated. The 
employer may leave out elements if the employer can demonstrate that 
they are not relevant to safe operation in the employer's workplace.
    An additional component of the training program is a continuing 
evaluation of the operator. At paragraph (d)(4), OSHA specifies that 
this evaluation be conducted on a periodic basis so that the employee 
retains and uses the knowledge, skills and abilities that are necessary 
for the safe operation of the vehicle. This evaluation need only be 
conducted at the intervals necessary to ensure that the operators have 
not forgotten or chosen to disregard their training. OSHA is proposing 
that such evaluations be carried out at least annually. The evaluation 
does not have to be formal; for example, it could be something as 
simple as having the designated person observe an operation to ensure 
that the powered industrial truck is being operated safely.
    OSHA is requiring at paragraph (d)(5) that the employer certify 
that the 

[[Page 3102]]
required training and evaluations have been conducted. To minimize 
paperwork burden on the employer, OSHA is specifying that the 
certification consist only of the name of the employee, the date of the 
training or evaluation, and the signature of the person conducting the 
training or evaluation. In light of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995, OSHA is requesting comment on ways it can determine whether 
employees have been properly trained without using even the minimal 
requirement of certification. In this paragraph, OSHA also specifies 
that all of the current training materials used in the conduct of 
training or the name and address of the outside trainer, if one is 
used, be maintained.
    At paragraph (d)(6), OSHA is proposing to allow the employers to 
forego those portions of the required training that employees have 
previously received. The intent of these provisions is to prevent 
duplicative training. For example if an employee is already trained in 
powered industrial truck operation, knows the necessary information, 
has been evaluated, and has proven to be competent to perform the 
duties of an operator, there is no reason to require an employer to 
repeat the training.
    As previously discussed, three major areas must be emphasized when 
conducting a powered industrial truck training program. These three 
areas are: (1) The characteristics, operation and limitations of the 
vehicles that the trainee will be authorized to operate, (2) the 
hazards associated with the workplace in which these vehicles will 
operate, and (3) the general safety rules that apply to these vehicles 
and their operation.
    This proposed rule has been drafted in performance language to 
allow the employer a reasonable degree of flexibility in developing the 
training program and conducting the training. OSHA recognizes that 
there are inherent differences in the capabilities and limitations of 
employees, both in their ability to assimilate the training and then to 
use the knowledge that has been gained. Therefore, the proposed 
regulation does not limit the employer by specifying the manner in 
which the training must be conducted. Similarly, the specific content 
of the training course has not been prescribed because different topics 
must be taught to address the variations associated with different 
makes and models of vehicles and cover hazards specific to each 
workplace. However, the proposal does identify the topics that should 
be covered unless the employer determines that one or more of them are 
not relevant to the employer's situation.
    OSHA believes that the training needs to be administered before the 
employee begins to operate a vehicle. To this end, OSHA has required 
initial training of employees so that they will acquire the knowledge 
and skills that are necessary for the safe operation of the powered 
industrial truck before being allowed to operate the vehicle without 
close supervision.
    OSHA has generally left the particulars of the type of training 
(lecture, conference, demonstration, practical exercise, test or 
examination, etc.) to the employer. However, the training must include 
some formal instruction and some practical experience. The length of 
the training must be based on the employee's experience and other 
qualifications and the nature of the work environment. The training 
must be based upon the type of vehicles the employee will be allowed to 
operate, the conditions that exist in the workplace, the general safety 
rules included in this OSHA standard, the trainer's skills and 
knowledge, and the trainee's skill level. Consequently, OSHA believes 
that one standardized training course will not suffice for all 
employees.
    The employer may choose the training provider. This could include 
contracting with an outside professional training company to come into 
the company and train the powered industrial truck operators or the 
employer developing and conducting the training program. In either 
case, the employer can choose the method or methods by which the 
employees will be trained and when the training is conducted.
    The standard requires at paragraph (d)(4) that a designated person 
evaluate the trainee's understanding of the training and his/her 
competency to operate a powered industrial truck. This is the best 
method of proving that the operator has been adequately trained and 
that the training has been, and continues to be, effective. By 
observing how the trainee operates the vehicle, the evaluator can 
assess how well the trainee has absorbed the necessary information.
    When a new employee claims prior experience in operating a powered 
industrial truck, the employer must ensure that the employee knows how 
to operate the vehicle safely. This can be ascertained by questioning 
the employee on various aspects of the operation of the truck and by 
requiring the operator to demonstrate his or her ability to operate the 
vehicle safely through the conduct of a practical exercise.
    In evaluating the applicability and adequacy of an employee's prior 
experience, the employer must consider the type of equipment the 
employee has operated, how long ago this experience was gained, and the 
type of work environment in which the employee worked. Some written 
documentation of the earlier training is also necessary to determine 
that proper training has been given. In addition, the competency of the 
employee must be evaluated. Based on an evaluation of this information, 
the employer can determine whether the experience is recent and 
thorough enough, the documentation sufficient, and the competency 
adequate to forego some or much of the initial training. Some training 
on the specific factors of the new employee's workplace will always be 
necessary. Again, the major criterion for evaluating an employee is: 
Does the person know how to do the job and does the vehicle operator 
have and use the knowledge that is needed to do the job safely?
    The proposed regulatory text for construction includes some minor 
changes to improve the clarity from the language proposed for other 
sectors. OSHA also is proposing to add two non-mandatory appendices to 
the standard. These appendices are intended to provide guidance to 
employers in establishing a training program (Appendix A) and in 
understanding the basic principles of stability (Appendix B). In 
neither case is the information contained in these appendices intended 
to provide an exhaustive explanation of the techniques of conducting 
training or of understanding the principles of stability, but each 
appendix is intended to introduce the basic concepts so that the 
employer can use the material to provide basic training.

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

    OSHA has not included some of the suggested language contained in 
the ASME B56.1-1993 standard. Specifically, paragraph 4.19.2 of the 
consensus standard has not been included because other enforceable 
language in the proposed standard covers the issue. This paragraph 
states:

    The operator training program should include the user's policies 
for the site where the trainee will operate the truck, the operating 
conditions for that location, and the specific truck the trainee 
will operate. The training program shall be presented to all new 
operators regardless of previous experience.

    The Agency also has not adopted the language contained in 4.19.3(a) 
of the consensus standard because the responsibility for providing a 
safe 

[[Page 3103]]
workplace (including the use of a powered industrial truck) is vested 
with the employer under the OSH Act. Paragraph 4.19.3(a) specifies, 
``The primary responsibility of the operator is to use the powered 
industrial truck safely following the instructions given in the 
training program.''
    The consensus standard, at 4.19.4(e) and 4.19.5, specifies the type 
of training and the testing that should be conducted, whereas the OSHA 
standard leaves the methods of training up to the employer. As 
explained above, the employer is responsible for selecting the methods 
that are employed to train the operators. For example, in some 
circumstances, the employee may be able to gain valuable information 
from reading the operator's manual for the vehicle. In other 
circumstances, reading the manual may be less effective than practical 
lessons in how to operate the truck safely.
    Many OSHA standards and consensus standards specify that some means 
be used to verify that training has been conducted. Examples of such 
verification include: (1) Documentation of training, (2) retention of 
lesson plans and attendance rosters and, (3) issuance of training 
certificates. When refresher or remedial training is specified, these 
other rules usually require that a set amount of training be conducted 
at a regular interval (for example, a certain number of hours of 
refresher training be conducted annually). The proposed rule would 
require evaluation by a designated person and certification that the 
employee has taken the training and can competently operate the truck. 
Course materials also must be kept. OSHA believes that this is a 
sufficient method of verification. The ASME provision would require 
additional paperwork that is discouraged by the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995.

VIII. The Comments and Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on 
Construction Safety and Health

    The Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH) 
was advised at its meeting of February 28 and March 1, 1995, of the 
effort being undertaken by OSHA to promulgate like training 
requirements for all powered industrial truck operators regardless of 
where the powered industrial truck is being used. At that time, the 
ACCSH recommended to the Agency that the issuance of an NPRM for 
construction be delayed until the Committee had more time to study the 
draft of the proposal and to submit its formal comments and 
recommendations to OSHA. At that meeting, the Committee also set up a 
task force to consider the matter.
    At its meeting of May 25 and 26, ACCSH received the recommendations 
from the task force. ACCSH voted unanimously that OSHA should publish a 
proposal for improving the training requirement for powered industrial 
truck operators in the construction industry. The Committee also 
suggested that OSHA consider the changes recommended and get feedback 
from the public on the proposal and then proceed from there (Tr. pp. 
202-223)(Ex. 9).
    OSHA has carefully considered the comments and recommendations 
received from the ACCSH. OSHA has decided that the best approach at 
this time is to raise the suggested ACCSH changes as issues for public 
comment in this preamble rather than to incorporate them into the 
proposed regulatory text. OSHA believes this is the best approach to 
highlight these issues for public comment. After considering the public 
comments, OSHA will consider the best approach for handling the 
suggested changes in the final powered industrial truck operator 
training standard for construction. OSHA also is publishing these 
recommendations for consideration for inclusion in the final general 
industry and maritime rules to see whether the ACCSH recommendations 
may be appropriate in these industries as well. Therefore, OSHA is not 
making specific word changes in the proposed regulatory text and will 
examine the comments received in response to this document before it 
does so. This also may prevent possible confusion, because ACCSH used 
the specific language and paragraph numbering of the ASME standard 
rather than the proposed general industry regulatory text and 
paragraphic numeration when referencing its discussion.
    The following issues were submitted by ACCSH. Also included is a 
short discussion of the reasons for the ACCSH recommendations:

    1. In the construction industry, should an employer be allowed to 
accept the certification of training by a third party such as a union, 
manufacturer, consultant, or other private or public organization? 
Since OSHA does not accredit certifiers, what criteria should be used 
to establish their credibility?

    ACCSH recommended that construction employers be permitted to 
accept such accreditation. In the construction industry, it is common 
that such training would be presented by the union, an apprenticeship 
program, or by a local employer organization. In addition, employees 
often work for an employer only briefly and it would be inefficient for 
the new employer to have to review the performance of each new 
employee. If this approach were adopted, there would need to be some 
mechanism to ensure that the operator would be trained in conditions 
comparable to those found at the present site and to enable the 
employer to know that the operator had been trained.

    2. What type of testing should be conducted during initial training 
to judge the competency of the trainee (performance testing and oral 
and/or written tests)?
    A. If tests are administered, what subjects should be tested, and 
what methods, if any, should be used to judge that the tests are 
reliable and address the subject matter adequately?
    B. What, if any, should be the acceptable pass/fail requirement for 
the tests?

    ACCSH recommended that the employer or other organization training 
operators give both performance tests and oral/written tests to ensure 
the skill and knowledge of the operator. The committee also recommended 
that there should be pass/fail requirements for those tests and that 
records be kept of the results of the tests. ACCSH believed that this 
requirement would assist in lowering accident rates. The Committee also 
suggested that, if this turned out not to be effective, OSHA consider 
accreditation of training programs.

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

    ACCSH believes that most of the training topics in the proposed 
standard are necessary but that a few might not be. Specifically, they 
felt that the recommended topic of the differences between driving an 
auto and a powered industrial truck might be unnecessary.

    4. Should an employee receive refresher or remedial training only 
if operating a vehicle unsafely or if involved in an accident? Is there 
any fixed operator retraining frequency suitable for the construction 
industry?

    The Advisory Committee believed that a periodic retraining 
provision for construction was inappropriate because most construction 
employees are only on a particular job a short period. However, the 
Committee recommended reevaluation and possible retraining after an 
incident, accident or expiration of a certificate. (See question 1.)

IX. Statutory Considerations

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

[[Page 3104]]
``the Secretary of Labor to set mandatory occupational safety and 
health standards applicable to businesses affecting interstate 
commerce'', and section 5(a)(2) provides that ``(each employer shall 
comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under 
this Act'' (emphasis added). Section 3(8) of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 
652(8)) provides that ``the term 'occupational safety and health 
standard' means a standard which requires conditions, or the adoption 
or use of one or more practices, means, methods, operations, or 
processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or 
healthful employment and places of employment.''
    OSHA considers a standard to be ``reasonably necessary or 
appropriate'' within the meaning of section 3(8) if it meets the 
following criteria: (1) The standard will substantially reduce a 
significant risk of material harm; (2) compliance is technologically 
feasible in the sense that the protective measures being required 
already exist, can be brought into existence with available technology, 
or can be created with technology that can reasonably be developed; (3) 
compliance is economically feasible in the sense that industry can 
absorb or pass on the costs without major dislocation or threat of 
instability; and (4) the standard is cost effective in that it employs 
the least expensive protective measures capable of reducing or 
eliminating significant risk. Additionally, safety standards must 
better effectuate the Act's protective purpose than the corresponding 
national consensus standards, must be compatible with prior agency 
action, must be responsive to significant comment in the record, and, 
to the extent allowed by statute, must be consistent with applicable 
Executive Orders. OSHA believes that application of these criteria 
results in standards that provide a high degree of worker protection 
without imposing an undue burden on employers. (See the discussion of 
60 FR 13796-13799, March 14, 1995, for a detailed analysis of the case 
law.)
    As discussed in various places in the preamble of the March 14 
notice, OSHA has determined that the operation of powered industrial 
trucks by untrained or inadequately trained operators generally poses 
significant risks to employees. It is also OSHA's view that operation 
of powered industrial trucks by untrained or inadequately trained 
operators poses a significant risk to employees in the construction 
industry. There have been on average 15 fatalities and 1441 serious 
injuries in the construction industry annually due to unsafe powered 
industrial truck operation. OSHA estimates that compliance with the 
revised training requirement for powered industrial truck operators 
will reduce the risk of these injuries and deaths to those operators 
and other employees by between 20 and 45 percent (preventing 3 to 4 
fatalities and 463 to 600 serious injuries annually). This constitutes 
a substantial reduction of significant risk of material harm.
    The Agency believes that compliance is technologically feasible 
because there exists a current rule for the training of powered 
industrial truck operators and the revised regulation merely specifies 
in more detail what is to be taught to those operators and requires the 
employer to institute effective supervisory measures to ensure 
continued safe operation of those vehicles. In many companies, the 
training of vehicle operators and the subsequent supervisory measures 
required by the standard have already been implemented.
    Additionally, OSHA believes that compliance is economically 
feasible, because, as documented by the Preliminary Economic Analysis, 
all regulated sectors can readily absorb or pass on compliance costs. 
OSHA estimates total costs of $250,000, a negligible percent of the 
industry's $500 billion in sales and $35 billion in pretax profits.
    The standard's costs, benefits, and compliance requirements are 
reasonable, amounting to approximately $250,000 per year while 
preventing 3-4 fatalities and 463-600 serious injuries per year.
    In some subsectors of the construction industry there are 
relatively few lift trucks and in any given year, there may be no 
fatalities and few injuries in these subsectors. Nevertheless, OSHA 
believes the risks to individual drivers in these environments are 
significant and that the costs of compliance in these subsectors will 
be negligible.
    For these reasons and those further spelled out in the Federal 
Register document of March 14, 1995 (60 FR 13795), OSHA has determined 
that it is inappropriate to exclude any construction subsectors merely 
because they have not recently reported documented powered industrial 
truck injuries or fatalities, insofar as these subsectors contain 
workplaces where powered industrial trucks are operated.
    As discussed above in sector VII(b) of this preamble; many of the 
provisions of this proposed standard are based on the current ASME 
consensus standard. Pursuant to section 6(b)(8) of the OSH Act, OSHA 
explains above why the proposed provisions that differ from the ASME 
standard better effectuate the purpose of the Act.

Conclusion

    OSHA has preliminarily determined that the proposed powered 
industrial truck standard for construction, like other safety 
standards, is subject to the constraints of section 3(8) of the OSH 
Act, and that the standard is ``reasonably necessary or appropriate to 
provide safe or healthful employment and places of employment.''
    The Agency believes that the use of powered industrial trucks in 
the construction workplace by untrained or poorly trained employees 
poses significant risks and that the need to require that only properly 
trained employees operate these vehicles is reasonably necessary to 
protect affected employees from those risks. OSHA also has determined 
that compliance with the standard for the training of these operators 
is technologically feasible because many companies offer the type of 
training that the standard would require. In addition, OSHA believes 
that compliance is economically feasible, because, as documented by the 
Preliminary Economic Analysis (Ex. 2), all regulated sectors can 
readily absorb or pass on initial compliance costs and the benefits are 
substantial. In particular, the Agency believes that compliance with 
the proposed powered industrial truck training requirements will result 
in substantial cost savings and productivity gains at facilities that 
utilize powered industrial trucks whose operations might otherwise be 
disrupted by accidents and injuries.
    As detailed in OSHA's March 14, 1995, document (60 FR 13799) and in 
the Preliminary Economic Analysis, the standard's costs, benefits, and 
compliance requirements are consistent with those of other OSHA safety 
standards.

X. Summary of the Preliminary Economic Feasibility and Regulatory 
Flexibility Analyses and Environmental Impact Assessment

Introduction

    Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act require 
Federal Agencies to analyze the costs, benefits and other consequences 
and impacts of proposed standards and final rules. Consistent with 
these requirements, OSHA has prepared this preliminary economic 
analysis to accompany the revised proposal being published, which would 
extend requirements for the training of powered 

[[Page 3105]]
industrial truck operators to the construction industry. OSHA's initial 
proposal, which proposed such training for truck operators in general 
industry and the maritime industries, was published in the Federal 
Register on March 14, 1995 (60 FR 13782). These proposed construction 
industry training requirements will supplement and extend the minimal 
powered industrial truck operator training requirements currently 
codified at 29 CFR 1926.602 (c)(1)(vi). This preliminary economic 
analysis of the potential impacts of the proposal on firms in the 
construction industry will be incorporated into the Preliminary 
Economic Analysis developed by OSHA to support the proposed powered 
industrial truck operator training requirements for the general 
industry and maritime sectors published on March 14, 1995.
    This preliminary economic analysis of the potential impacts of the 
proposed rule on the construction industry includes a description of 
the industry, an assessment of the benefits attributable to the 
proposal, a preliminary determination of the technological feasibility 
of the proposed requirements, an estimation of the costs of compliance, 
an analysis of the economic feasibility of the proposed provisions, and 
an evaluation of the economic and other impacts of the proposed rule on 
establishments in this sector. This preamble discussion summarizes the 
more detailed analysis that is available in the docket (Ex. 2).

Affected Industries

    Using powered industrial truck sales data provided by the 
Industrial Truck Association (ITA), OSHA estimates that, of the 822,831 
industrial trucks in use in industries covered by OSHA, the 
construction sector (SICs 15-17) uses about 8,300. This proposed rule 
will cover construction workers who operate powered industrial trucks, 
including workers who are employed as dedicated (i.e., full time) truck 
operators and those whose operation of powered industrial trucks is 
incidental to the performance of another job. These incidental users of 
powered industrial trucks include maintenance personnel and general 
laborers. Non-driving workers such as materials handlers, laborers, and 
pedestrians who work on or are present in the vicinity of powered 
industrial truck operations may also be injured or killed in powered 
industrial truck accidents.
    OSHA estimates that approximately 1.2 million workers are employed 
as industrial truck operators in industries regulated by OSHA. OSHA 
estimates that 12,400 of these operators are employed by the 
construction sector.

Technological Feasibility

    OSHA did not identify any proposed requirement that raises 
technological feasibility problems for construction establishments that 
use industrial trucks. On the contrary, there is substantial evidence 
that establishments can achieve compliance with all of the proposed 
requirements using existing methods and equipment. In addition, the 
proposed standard introduces no technological requirements of any type. 
Therefore, OSHA has preliminarily concluded that technological 
feasibility is not an issue in relation to the proposed construction 
industry training standard for powered industrial truck operators.

Costs of Compliance

    The proposed industrial truck operator training requirements would 
expand the training required by OSHA's existing industrial truck 
training standard (29 CFR 1926.602 (c)(1)) to include training 
information on the operating instructions and warnings appropriate to 
the type of truck used, the specific hazards found in the workplace 
where the truck will be operated, and the requirements of this 
standard. Additionally, the proposed provisions require construction 
employers to monitor the performance of industrial truck operators 
through an annual evaluation and to provide remedial training when this 
evaluation suggests that such training is needed.
    The annual costs construction employers will incur to comply with 
the proposed revisions are estimated to be $254,420. Table 2 presents 
estimated annual costs, by provision, at the three-digit SIC level. 
OSHA developed these industry compliance cost estimates based on per- 
operator costs, the number of operators affected, and employee turnover 
rates. Costs are annualized based on a 7 percent discount rate, as 
directed by the Office of Management and Budget, and are projected over 
10-years.
    Current industry practice was also taken into consideration when 
calculating costs, i.e., where employers have already voluntarily 
implemented practices that would be required by the proposed standard, 
no cost is attributed to the new standard. OSHA estimated that it is 
current practice for 80 percent of employers in this industry to 
conduct an initial evaluation of each powered industrial truck 
operator's skill, as would be required by the proposal. In addition, 
specific equipment training is often a component of initial training in 
this industry. Many operators are also currently trained in both 
classroom and hands-on settings, and on the specific type of truck they 
will use. OSHA estimates that about 75 percent of employers currently 
are in compliance with these proposed requirements. Across all OSHA-
regulated sectors, including construction, 65 percent of employers are 
assumed to be providing truck operators with training in the hazards of 
the industrial truck environment they will operate in. This requirement 
is often overlooked in generic or off-the-shelf training programs and 
may be inadequately covered in programs provided by external trainers.

                                                          Table 2.--Annualized Compliance Costs                                                         
             [For the Proposed Industrial Truck Operator Training Standard in the Construction Sector, by Provision and by Three-Digit SIC]             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Initial training              Monitoring                                  
                                                               Initial   ------------------------------------------------------   Remedial              
                        SIC/Industry                          evaluation    Specific    Operating      Annual                     training   Annual cost
                                                                           equipment   environment   monitoring  Recordkeeping                          
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
152  Residential building construction.....................         $905       $2,962       $7,592       $8,297        $6,223          $830      $26,810
153  Operative builders....................................           74          242          620          677           508            68        2,189
154  Nonresidential building construction..................        1,423        4,655       11,931       13,039         9,779         1,304       42,130
161  Highway and street construction.......................          259          846        2,169        2,371         1,778           237        7,660
162  Heavy construction, except highway....................          499        1,632        4,184        4,572         3,429           457       14,773
171  Plumbing, heating, air-conditioning...................        1,167        3,819        9,788       10,697         8,023         1,070       34,564
172  Painting and paper hanging............................          322        1,054        2,701        2,952         2,214           295        9,539
173  Electrical work.......................................          952        3,115        7,983        8,724         6,543           872      28,190 

[[Page 3106]]
                                                                                                                                                        
174  Masonry, stonework and plastering.....................          833        2,727        6,989        7,638         5,728           764       24,679
175  Carpentry and floor work..............................          363        1,187        3,042        3,425         2,493           332       10,742
176  Roofing, siding and sheet metal work..................          366        1,198        3,071        3,356         2,517           336       10,844
177  Concrete work.........................................          427        1,397        3,581        3,914         2,935           391       12,646
178  Water well drilling...................................           36          118          302          330           247            33        1,065
179  Miscellaneous special trade contractors...............          966        3,159        8,096        8,848         6,636           885       28,590
      Total Construction Sector............................        8,592       28,109       72,051       78,739        59,054         7,874     254,420 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: US Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, 1995.                                                                              
[a] Costs are annualized over 10 years at a 7 percent discount rate (annualization factor 0.1424).                                                      
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.                                                                                                               


    OSHA estimated per-operator compliance costs for each component of 
the proposed standard. These compliance costs include the wages of 
trainees and trainers<SUP>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).

    \2\The construction operator wage rate, with compensation 
estimated at 30 percent of the wage rate, is estimated to be $18.34 
per hour. The supervisor wage rate of $22.01 used in the analysis is 
calculated by increasing the operator's wage rate by 20 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A more detailed analysis of costs is presented in Chapter III of 
the full Preliminary Economic Analysis. OSHA welcomes comments on the 
preliminary costs and the underlying assumptions presented in this 
Preliminary Economic Analysis.

Benefits

    The number of truck-related fatalities and injuries that will be 
prevented by the proposed training standard in all OSHA-regulated 
sectors is estimated by first determining the number of powered 
industrial truck fatalities and injuries attributable to hazards 
addressed by OSHA's existing powered industrial truck training 
standards as well as the number of fatalities and injuries determined 
not to be preventable by OSHA's existing requirements or by the 
proposed standard. The number of fatalities and injuries likely to be 
prevented by compliance with the standard is based on the Agency's 
analysis of powered industrial truck accidents as reported in the 
narratives and citation data from OSHA's fatality catastrophe reports 
gathered through the OSHA Integrated Management Information System 
(IMIS).
    OSHA used results from the Cohen and Jensen study (Ex. 4) to derive 
an estimate of the beneficial effect of enhanced training on powered 
industrial truck accidents. This study, which was conducted in two 
warehouses where powered industrial trucks were widely used, provides a 
quantitative estimate of the effectiveness of an operators' training 
program similar to the one required by the proposed standard. The 
training program described in the study included a series of short 
training sessions, post-training feedback, and supervision and 
monitoring of driver behavior. The study estimated the effect of 
increased training and operator monitoring on operator driving 
practices, and showed that the mean error rates before and after 
training<SUP>3, as well as three months after training, declined by 44 
and 70 percent after training, respectively.

    \3\Mean error rate = operator errors divided by total number of 
driving behaviors observed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As presented in Table 3, an estimated 15 fatalities and 1,441 lost 
workday injuries occur annually as a result of industrial truck-related 
accidents in the construction industry. OSHA estimates that compliance 
with the proposed standard in the construction sector will prevent 3 or 
4 of these fatalities and between 463 and 600 lost workday injuries per 
year. These preventable fatalities and injuries are attributable 
directly to the proposed training requirements, i.e., they are in 
addition to the lives already being saved and the injuries already 
being prevented by OSHA's existing powered industrial truck training 
requirements for construction (29 CFR 1926.602(c)(1)). A discussion of 
the methodology used to calculate these estimates is presented in 
Chapter IV of the Preliminary Economic Analysis. 

[[Page 3107]]


 Table 3.--Number of Fatalities and Lost Workday Injuries Potentially Prevented Annually by Compliance With the 
                 Proposed Powered Industrial Truck Training Standard in the Construction Sector                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Total      Preventable fatalities      Total       Preventable injuries  
                                     number of    under proposed standard   number of    under proposed standard
                                      powered   --------------------------  industrial -------------------------
              Sector                 industrial                             truck lost                          
                                       truck         Low          High       workday        Low          High   
                                     fatalities    estimate     estimate     injuries     estimate     estimate 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction......................           15          3.0          3.8        1,441          463          600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, 1995.                                    

Economic Impacts and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    OSHA assessed the potential economic impacts of compliance with the 
proposed standard and has preliminarily determined that the standard is 
economically feasible for all covered industry groups. Detailed 
information at the three-digit SIC level is presented in Chapter V of 
the full Preliminary Economic Analysis.
    When an industry enjoys an inelastic demand for its products, any 
increase in operating costs can ordinarily be passed on to consumers. 
In this case, the maximum expected price increase is calculated by 
dividing the average estimated annualized compliance cost in each 
industry by the average revenue for that industry. As shown in Table 4, 
OSHA estimates that the average price increase for the construction 
sector would be negligible, i.e., less than 0.0001 percent. These 
estimates indicate that, even if all costs were passed on to consumers 
through price increases, the proposed standard would have a negligible 
impact on prices overall. Given the minimal price increases necessary 
to cover the cost of the proposed training requirements, employers 
should be able to pass along compliance costs to their customers. 
However, even if all costs were absorbed by the affected firms, the 
highest reduction in profits in the construction sector would be 0.001 
percent for the construction special trades industry (SIC 17). Because 
most firms will not find it necessary to absorb all of the costs from 
profits and should be able to pass most if not all of the standard's 
costs on to consumers, average profits are not expected to decline to 
the extent calculated here. OSHA, therefore, does not expect the 
proposed standard to have a significant economic impact on affected 
firms.

      Table 4.--Economic Impact of the Proposed Powered Industrial Trucks Operator Training Standard in the     
                                               Construction Sector                                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Value of                                                                   
                                     industry                                                         Compliance
                                    shipments,   Annualized    Compliance costs as a      Pre-tax     costs as a
       SIC/Industry sector         receipts or   compliance       percent of sales       income  ($   percent of
                                    sales  ($      costs                                 millions)     pre-tax  
                                    millions)                                                           income  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15  Building Construction........     $223,007      $71,128  Negligible...............      $16,149       0.0004
16  Heavy Construction...........       77,746       22,433  Negligible...............        6,496       0.0003
17  Construction (Special Trades)      204,154      160,859  Negligible...............       13,522       0.0012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, 1995. Negligible denotes less than 0.0001
  percent.                                                                                                      

    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq.), OSHA has also analyzed the economic impact of the 
proposed standard on small establishments (19 or fewer employees), 
looking particularly for evidence that the rule would have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 
businesses will incur lower compliance costs than larger businesses 
because the compliance costs depend directly on the number of 
industrial truck operators requiring training in a given facility. OSHA 
has preliminarily concluded that the proposed standard would not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    It has already been shown that the revenue and price increases for 
all businesses are negligible. To test the possibility that the 
proposed standard might have significant impacts on some small 
businesses, OSHA developed a worst case-analysis of small firms in the 
construction sector by assuming that the establishment is currently not 
in compliance with any of the requirements of the proposed standard and 
that all truck operators in the establishment would need specific 
equipment and operating environment training, i.e., that none of the 
operators currently employed have any training. The representative 
establishment was assumed to have 14 employees, the average for 
establishments with 10 to 19 employees. OSHA estimates that 60 percent 
of employees, or a total of 8 employees, would operate powered 
industrial truck either full-time or as part of another job. Using a 
turnover rate of 15 percent, the small establishment is expected to 
spend $449 annually to achieve full compliance with the proposed 
standard. Under this worst case scenario, the impacts of compliance 
costs as a percent of revenues are approximately 0.06 percent, an 
insignificant impact even in the worst case. Similarly, OSHA estimates 
that, if the average small construction establishment could not pass 
any of the compliance costs through to its customers (a highly unlikely 
scenario), the costs would impact average profits by less than 1.2 
percent. These impacts are judged to be relatively minor; therefore, 
the proposed standard is preliminarily determined to be economically 
feasible even for very small construction industry establishments.

Environmental Impact

    The proposed standard has been reviewed in accordance with the 
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

[[Page 3108]]
U.S.C. 4321, et seq.), the regulation of the Council on Environmental 
Quality (40 CFR part 1500 through 1517), and the Department of Labor's 
NEPA procedures (29 CFR part 11). As a result of this review, OSHA has 
determined that the proposed standard will have no significant 
environmental impact.

XIII. Federalism

    This proposed regulation has been reviewed in accordance with 
Executive Order 12612 (52 FR 41685, Oct. 30, 1987), regarding 
Federalism. This Order requires that agencies, to the extent possible, 
refrain from limiting state policy options, consult with states prior 
to taking any actions which would restrict state policy options, and 
take such actions only when there is clear constitutional authority and 
the presence of a problem of national scope. The Order provides for 
preemption of state law only if there is a clear Congressional intent 
for the Agency to do so. Any such preemption is to be limited to the 
extent possible.
    Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) 
expresses Congress' intent to preempt state laws relating to issues on 
which Federal OSHA has promulgated occupational safety and health 
standards. Under the OSH Act, a state can avoid preemption in issues 
covered by Federal standards only if it submits, and obtains Federal 
approval of, a plan for the development of such standards and their 
enforcement. Occupational safety and health standards developed by such 
Plan states must, among other things, be at least as effective in 
providing safe and healthful employment and places of employment as the 
Federal standards. When such standards are applicable to products 
distributed or used in interstate commerce they may not unduly burden 
commerce and must be justified by compelling local conditions.
    The Federal proposed standard on powered industrial truck operator 
training addresses hazards that are not unique to any one state or 
region of the country. Nonetheless, states with occupational safety and 
health plans approved under section 18 of the OSH Act will be able to 
develop their own state standards to deal with any special problems 
which might be encountered in a particular state. Moreover, because 
this standard is written in general, performance-oriented terms, there 
is considerable flexibility for state plans to require, and for 
affected employers to use, methods of compliance which are appropriate 
to the working conditions covered by the standard.
    In brief, this proposed rule addresses a clear national problem 
related to occupational safety and health in general industry. Those 
states which have elected to participate under section 18 of the OSH 
Act are not preempted by this standard, and will be able to address any 
special conditions within the framework of the Federal Act while 
ensuring that the state standards are at least as effective as their 
standard. State comments are invited on this proposal and will be fully 
considered prior to promulgation of a final rule.

XIV. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    This paragraph contains a collection of information as defined in 
OMB's new regulations at 60 FR 44978 (August 29, 1995) in 
Sec. 1926.602(d)(5). This provision requires employers to prepare and 
maintain a certification record. Specifically, the employer must 
prepare a record to certify that employees have been trained and 
evaluated as required by the standard. The record includes the name of 
the employee who was trained, the date of the training and the 
signature of the person who performed the training and evaluation.
    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, agencies are required to 
seek OMB approval for all collections of information. As part of the 
approval process, agencies are required to solicit comment from 
affected parties with regard to the collection of information, 
including the financial and time burdens estimated by the agencies for 
the collection of information. OSHA believes it is necessary for 
employers to prepare the certification record to verify that powered 
industrial truck operators are trained to perform their duties 
competently and safely. To comply with the training requirement, 
employers must keep a record certifying that their employees have 
successfully completed powered industrial truck operator training. Safe 
operation can decrease the number of fatalities and injuries associated 
with powered industrial trucks.
    OSHA estimates that it will take employers about 1 hour to prepare 
and 8 hours to deliver the training; and another 15 minutes to prepare 
a certification record, make it available during compliance 
inspections, retain current training materials and course outlines, and 
document the types of trucks that an operator is authorized to operate. 
It will cost employers on average about $53 to initially train and 
certify each employee. The total respondent burden for construction 
workplaces in the first year is $45,709 and 6,411 burden hours. In 
subsequent years cost is $6,000 and the hourly burden is 3,543. The 
number of operators in construction is 1% of the total number.
    OSHA requests comment from the public on all aspects of this 
collection of information. Specifically, OSHA requests comment on 
whether this proposed collection of information does:

    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected; and
    <bullet> Minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate 
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., 
permitting electronic submissions of responses.

    Comments on the collection of information proposed provision should 
be sent to the OMB Desk Officer for OSHA at Room 10235, 726 Jackson 
Place, NW, Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to send a 
copy of their comment on the collection of information to OSHA along 
with their other comments. The supporting statement for this collection 
of information requirement is available in both OSHA and OMB Docket 
Offices.
    OMB is currently reviewing OSHA proposed collection of information 
to determine its consistency with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 
At this time OMB has not approved this collection of information.

XV. Public Participation

    Interested persons are requested to submit written data, views and 
arguments concerning this proposal. These comments must be postmarked 
by April 1, 1996, and submitted in quadruplicate to the Docket Office; 
Docket No. S-008, Room N2624; U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration; 200 Constitution Ave., NW; 
Washington, DC 20210.
    All written comments received within the specified comment period 
will be made a part of the record and will be available for public 
inspection and copying at the above Docket Office address. The comments 
submitted as part of this proposal for construction also will be 
considered part of the record for general industry and maritime and the 
comments for general industry and maritime will be considered part of 
the record for this 

[[Page 3109]]
rulemaking. In addition, OSHA is reopening the record for additional 
comment on the proposed requirements for general industry and maritime 
to coincide with the comment period for construction.
    This rulemaking is for procedural purposes combined with the 
rulemaking that was proposed for general industry and maritime 
industries on March 14, 1995. The docket will be combined, comments and 
evidence submitted in response to one notice, need not be repeated for 
the other notice and will be considered for all sectors. The hearing 
will be conducted for all sectors. Of course, to the extent that the 
record supports different provisions for different sectors, these 
differences will be incorporated into the final rule.

Notice of Intention to Appear at the Informal Hearing

    Pursuant to section 6(b)(3) of the Act, an opportunity to submit 
oral testimony concerning the issues raised by the proposed standard 
including economic and environmental impacts, will be provided at an 
informal public hearing to be held in Washington, DC on April 30, 1996. 
If OSHA receives sufficient requests to participate in the hearing, the 
hearing period may be extended. Conversely, the hearing may be 
shortened if there are few requests.
    The hearing will commence at 9:30 a.m. on April 30, 1996, in the 
Auditorium, Frances Perkins Building, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210.
    All persons desiring to participate at the hearing must file in 
quadruplicate a notice of intention to appear, postmarked on or before 
April 1, 1996. The notice of intention to appear, which will be 
available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Technical Data Center 
Docket Office (Room N2624), telephone (202) 219-7894, must contain the 
following information:
    1. The name, address, and telephone number of each person to 
appear;
    2. The capacity in which the person will appear;
    3. The approximate amount of time required for the presentation;
    4. The issues that will be addressed;
    5. A brief statement of the position that will be taken with 
respect to each issue; and
    6. Whether the party intends to submit documentary evidence and, if 
so, a brief summary of it.
    The notice of intention to appear shall be mailed to Mr. Thomas 
Hall, OSHA Division of Consumer Affairs, Docket S-008, Room N3647, U.S. 
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210; 
telephone (202) 219-8615.
    A notice of intention to appear also may be transmitted by 
facsimile to (202) 219-5986 (Attention: Thomas Hall), by the same date, 
provided the original and 3 copies are sent to the same address and 
postmarked no more than 3 days later.

Filing of Testimony and Evidence Before the Hearing

    Any party requesting more than 10 minutes for a presentation at the 
hearing, or who will submit documentary evidence, must provide in 
quadruplicate, the complete text of the testimony, including any 
documentary evidence to be presented at the hearing. One copy shall not 
be stapled or bound and be suitable for copying. These materials must 
be provided to Mr. Thomas Hall, OSHA Division of Consumer Affairs at 
the address above and be postmarked no later than April 15, 1996.
    Each such submission will be reviewed in light of the amount of 
time requested in the notice of intention to appear. In those instances 
when the information contained in the submission does not justify the 
amount of time requested, a more appropriate amount of time will be 
allocated and the participant will be notified of that fact prior to 
the informal public hearing.
    Any party who has not substantially complied with this requirement 
may be limited to a 10-minute presentation, and may be requested to 
return for questioning at a later time.
    Any party who has not filed a notice of intention to appear may be 
allowed to testify for no more than 10 minutes as time permits, at the 
discretion of the Administrative Law Judge, but will not be allowed to 
question witnesses.
    Notice of intention to appear, testimony and evidence will be 
available for copying at the Docket Office at the address above.

Conduct and Nature of the Hearing

    The hearing will commence at 9:30 a.m. on April 30, 1996. At that 
time, any procedural matters relating to the proceeding will be 
resolved.
    The nature of an informal rulemaking hearing is established in the 
legislative history of section 6 of the OSH Act and is reflected by 
OSHA's rules of procedure for hearings (29 CFR 1911.15(a)). Although 
the presiding officer is an Administrative Law Judge and limited 
questioning by persons who have filed notices of intention to appear is 
allowed on crucial issues, the proceeding is informal and legislative 
in type. The Agency's intent, in essence, is to provide interested 
persons with an opportunity to make effective oral presentations that 
can proceed expeditiously in the absence of procedural restraints that 
impede or protract the rulemaking process.
    Additionally, since the hearing is primarily for information 
gathering and clarification, it is an informal administrative 
proceeding rather than an adjudicative one. The technical rules of 
evidence, for example, do not apply. The regulations that govern 
hearings and the pre-hearing guidelines to be issued for this hearing 
will ensure fairness and due process and also facilitate the 
development of a clear, accurate and complete record. Those rules and 
guidelines will be interpreted in a manner that furthers that 
development. Thus, questions of relevance, procedure and participation 
generally will be decided so as to favor development of the record.
    The hearing will be conducted in accordance with 29 CFR part 1911. 
It should be noted that Sec. 1911.4 specifies that the Assistant 
Secretary may, upon reasonable notice, issue alternative procedures to 
expedite proceedings or for other good cause.
    The hearing will be presided over by an Administrative Law Judge 
who makes no decision or recommendation on the merits of OSHA's 
proposal. The responsibility of the Administrative Law Judge is to 
ensure that the hearing proceeds at a reasonable pace and in an orderly 
manner. The Administrative Law Judge, therefore, will have all the 
powers necessary and appropriate to conduct a full and fair informal 
hearing as provided in 29 CFR part 1911, including the powers:
    1. To regulate the course of the proceedings;
    2. To dispose of procedural requests, objections and comparable 
matters;
    3. To confine the presentations to the matters pertinent to the 
issues raised;
    4. To regulate the conduct of those present at the hearing by 
appropriate means;
    5. At the Judge's discretion, to question and permit the 
questioning of any witness and to limit the time for questioning; and
    6. At the Judge's discretion, to keep the record open for a 
reasonable, stated time (known as the post-hearing comment period) to 
receive written information and additional data, views and arguments 
from any person who has participated in the oral proceedings.
    OSHA recognizes that there may be interested persons who, through 
their knowledge of safety or their experience in the operations 
involved, would wish to endorse or support certain provisions 

[[Page 3110]]
in the standard. OSHA welcomes such supportive comments, including any 
pertinent accident data or cost information that may be available, so 
that the record of this rulemaking will present a balanced picture of 
the public response on the issues involved.

XVI. State Plan Standards

    The 25 States with their own OSHA approved occupational safety and 
health plans must adopt a comparable standard within six months of the 
publication date of the final standard. These States are: Alaska, 
Arizona, California, Connecticut (for State and local government 
employees only), Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, 
Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York (for State and local government 
employees only), North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, 
Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Virgin Islands, Washington, and 
Wyoming. Until such time as a State standard is promulgated, Federal 
OSHA will provide interim enforcement assistance, as appropriate, in 
those States.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR part 1926

    Construction industry, Motor vehicle safety, Occupational safety 
and health, Transportation.

XVII. Authority

    This document was prepared under the direction of Joseph A. Dear, 
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. 
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20210.
    Accordingly, pursuant to section 4, 6(b), 8(c) and 8(g) of the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), 
the Construction Safety Act (40 U.S.C. 333), Secretary of Labor's Order 
No. 1-90 (55 FR 9033), and 29 CFR part 1911, it is proposed to amend 29 
CFR part 1926 as set forth below.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 22nd day of January, 1996.
Joseph A. Dear,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.

PART 1926--CONSTRUCTION SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for subpart O of part 1926 would be 
revised to read as follows:

    Authority: Section 107, Construction Work Hours and Safety 
Standards Act (Construction Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 333); secs. 4, 6, 
8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 
655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 
(41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), or 1-90 (55 FR 9033), as 
applicable. Section 1926.602 also issued under 29 CFR part 1911.

    2. Section 1926.602 is proposed to be amended by adding a new 
paragraph (d) and by adding appendices A and B to read as follows:


Sec. 1926.602  Material handling equipment.

* * * * *
    (d) Powered industrial, truck Operator training.--(1) Operator 
qualifications. (i) The employer shall ensure that each powered 
industrial truck operator is capable of performing the duties that are 
required to operate the truck safely.
    (ii) Prior to permitting an operator to drive except for training 
purposes, the employer shall ensure that each operator has received the 
training required by this paragraph, that each operator has been 
evaluated by a designated person while performing the required duties, 
and that each operator performs the required duties competently.
    (2) Training program implementation. (i) The employer shall 
implement a training program and ensure that only trained operators who 
have successfully completed the training program are allowed to operate 
powered industrial trucks. Exception: Trainees under the direct 
supervision of a designated person shall be allowed to operate a 
powered industrial truck provided the operation of the vehicle is 
conducted in an area where other employees are not near and where the 
conditions are such that the trainee can safely operate the truck.
    (ii) Training shall consist of a combination of classroom 
instruction (Lecture, discussion, video tapes, and/or conference) and 
practical training (demonstrations and practical exercises by the 
trainee).
    (iii) All training and evaluation shall be conducted by a 
designated person who has the requisite knowledge, training and 
experience to train powered industrial truck operators and judge their 
competency.
    (3) Training program content. Powered industrial truck operator 
trainees shall be trained in the following topics unless the employer 
can demonstrate that some of the topics are not needed for safe 
operation.
    (i) Truck related topics.
    (A) All necessary operating instructions, warnings and precautions 
for the types of trucks the operator will be authorized to operate;
    (B) Similarities to and differences from the automobile;
    (C) Controls and instrumentation: location, what they do and how 
they work;
    (D) Power plant operation and maintenance;
    (E) Steering and maneuvering;
    (F) Visibility (including restrictions due to loading);
    (G) Fork and attachment adaption, operation and use limitations;
    (H) Vehicle capacity;
    (I) Vehicle stability;
    (J) Vehicle inspection and maintenance;
    (K) Refueling or charging and recharging batteries;
    (L) Operating limitations; and
    (M) Any other operating instruction, warning, or precaution listed 
in the operator's manual for the type vehicle that the employee is 
being trained to operate.
    (ii) Workplace related topics.
    (A) Surface conditions where the vehicle will be operated;
    (B) Composition of probable loads and load stability;
    (C) Load manipulation, stacking, unstacking;
    (D) Pedestrian traffic;
    (E) Narrow aisles and other restricted places of operation;
    (F) Operating in hazardous classified locations;
    (G) Operating the truck on ramps and other sloped surfaces that 
could affect the stability of the vehicle;
    (H) Other unique or potentially hazardous environmental conditions 
that exist or may exist in the workplace; and
    (I) Operating the vehicle in closed environments and other areas 
where insufficient ventilation could cause a buildup of carbon monoxide 
or diesel exhaust.
    (iii) The requirements of this section.
    (4) Evaluation and refresher or remedial training. (i) Sufficient 
evaluation and remedial training shall be conducted so that the 
employee retains and uses the knowledge, skills and ability needed to 
operate the powered industrial truck safely.
    (ii) An evaluation of the performance of each powered industrial 
truck operator shall be conducted at least annually by a designated 
person.
    (iii) Refresher or remedial training shall be provided when there 
is reason to believe that there has been unsafe operation, when an 
accident or a near-miss occurs or when an evaluation indicates that the 
operator is not capable of performing the assigned duties.
    (5) Certification. (i) The employer shall certify that each 
operator has received the training, has been evaluated as required by 
this paragraph, and has demonstrated competency in the performance of 
the operator's duties. The certification shall include the name 

[[Page 3111]]
of the trainee, the date of training, and the signature of the person 
performing the training and evaluation.
    (ii) The employer shall retain the current training materials and 
course outline or the name and address of the person who conducted the 
training if it was conducted by an outside trainer.
    (6) Avoidance of duplicative training. (i) Each current truck 
operator who has received training in any of the elements specified in 
paragraph (d)(3) of this section for the types of truck the employee is 
authorized to operate and the type of workplace that the trucks are 
being operated in need not be retrained in those elements if the 
employer certifies in accordance with paragraph (d)(5)(i) of this 
section that the operator has been evaluated and found to be competent 
to perform those duties.
    (ii) Each new truck operator who has received training in any of 
the elements specified in paragraph (d)(3) of this section for the 
types of truck the employee will be authorized to operate and the type 
of workplace in which the trucks will be operated need not be retrained 
in those elements before initial assignment in the workplace if the 
employer has a record of the training and if the employee is evaluated 
pursuant to paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section and is found to be 
competent.

Appendix A--Training of Powered Industrial Truck Operators

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

A-1. Operator Selection

    A-1.1. Prospective operators of powered industrial trucks should 
be identified based upon their ability to be trained and permitted 
to perform job functions that are essential to the operation of a 
powered industrial truck. Determination of the capabilities of a 
prospective operator to fulfill the demands of the job should be 
based upon the tasks that the job demands.
    A-1.2. The employer should identify all the aspects of the job 
that the employee must meet/perform when doing his or her job. These 
aspects could include the level at which the employee must see and 
hear, the physical demands of the job, and the environmental 
extremes of the job.
    A-1.3. One factor to be considered is the ability of the 
candidate to see and hear within reasonably acceptable limits. 
Included in the vision requirements are the ability to see at 
distance and peripherally. In certain instances, there also is a 
requirement for the candidate to discern different colors, primarily 
red, yellow and green.
    A-1.4. The environmental extremes that might be demanded of a 
potential powered industrial truck operator include the ability of 
the person to work in areas of excessive cold or heat.
    A-1.5. After an employee has been trained and appropriate 
accommodations have been made, the employer needs to determine 
whether the employee can safely perform the job.

A-2. The Method(s) of Training

    A-2.1. Among the many methods of training are the lecture, 
conference, demonstration, test (written and/or oral) and the 
practical exercise. In most instances, a combination of these 
methods has been successfully used to train employees in the 
knowledge, skills and abilities that are essential to perform the 
job function that the employee is being trained to perform. To 
enhance the training and to make the training more understandable to 
the employee, employers and other trainers have used movies, slides, 
video tapes and other visual presentations. Making the presentation 
more understandable has several advantages including:
    (1) The employees being trained remain more attentive during the 
presentation if graphical presentation is used, thereby increasing 
the effectiveness of the training;
    (2) The use of visual presentations allows the trainer to ensure 
that the necessary information is covered during the training;
    (3) The use of graphics makes better utilization of the training 
time by decreasing the need for the instructor to carry on long 
discussions about the instructional material; and
    (4) The use of graphics during instruction provides greater 
retention by the trainees.

A-3. Training Program Content

    A-3.1. Because each type (make and model) of powered industrial 
truck has different operating characteristics, limitations and other 
unique features, an optimum employee training program for powered 
industrial truck operators must be based upon the type vehicles that 
the employee will be trained and authorized to operate. The training 
must also emphasize the features of the workplace that will affect 
the manner in which the vehicle must be operated. Finally, the 
training must include the general safety rules applicable to the 
operation of all powered industrial trucks.
    A-3.2. Selection of the methods of training the operators has 
been left to the reasonable determination of the employer. Whereas 
some employees can assimilate instructional material while seated in 
a classroom, other employees may learn best by observing the conduct 
of operations (demonstration) and/or by having to personally conduct 
the operations (practical exercise). In some instances, an employee 
can receive valuable instruction through the use of electronic 
mediums, such as the use of video tapes and movies. In most 
instances, a combination of the different training methods may 
provide the mechanism for providing the best training in the least 
amount of time. OSHA has specified at paragraph (d)(2)(ii) that the 
training must consist of a combination of classroom instruction and 
practical exercise. The use of both of these modes of instruction is 
the only way of ensuring that the trainee has received and 
comprehended the instruction and can use the information to safely 
operate a powered industrial truck.

A-4. Initial Training

    A-4.1. The following is an outline of a generalized forklift 
operator training program:
    (1) Characteristics of the powered industrial truck(s) the 
employee will be allowed to operate:
    (a) Similarities to and differences from the automobile;
    (b) Controls and instrumentation: location, what they do and how 
they work;
    (c) Power plant operation and maintenance;
    (d) Steering and maneuvering;
    (e) Visibility;
    (f) Fork and/or attachment adaption, operation and limitations 
of their use;
    (g) Vehicle capacity;
    (h) Vehicle stability;
    (i) Vehicle inspection and maintenance;
    (j) Refueling or charging and recharging batteries.
    (k) Operating limitations.
    (l) Any other operating instruction, warning, or precaution 
listed in the operator's manual for the type of vehicle the employee 
is being trained to operate.
    (2) The operating environment:
    (a) Floor surfaces and/or ground conditions where the vehicle 
will be operated;
    (b) Composition of probable loads and load stability;
    (c) Load manipulation, stacking, unstacking;
    (d) Pedestrian traffic;
    (e) Narrow aisle and restricted place operation;
    (f) Operating in classified hazardous locations;
    (g) Operating the truck on ramps and other sloped surfaces that 
would affect the stability of the vehicle;
    (h) Other unique or potentially hazardous environmental 
conditions that exist or may exist in the workplace.
    (i) Operating the vehicle in closed environments and other areas 
where insufficient ventilation could cause a buildup of carbon 
monoxide or diesel exhaust.
    (3) The requirements of this OSHA Standard.

A-5. Trainee Evaluation

    A-5.1. The provisions of these proposed requirements specify 
that an employee evaluation be conducted both as part of the 
training and after completion of the training. The initial 
evaluation is useful for many reasons, including:
    (1) the employer can determine what methods of instruction will 
produce a proficient truck operator with the minimum of time and 
effort;
    (2) the employer can gain insight into the previous training 
that the trainee has received; and
    (3) a determination can be made as to whether the trainee will 
be able to successfully operate a powered industrial truck. This 
initial evaluation can be completed by having the employee fill out 
a questionnaire, by an oral interview, or by a combination of these 
mechanisms. In many cases, answers received by the employee can be 
substantiated by contact with other employees or previous employers. 


[[Page 3112]]


A-6. Refresher or Remedial Training

    A-6.1. (The type of information listed below would be used when 
the training is more than an on-the-spot correction being made by a 
supervisor or when multiple instances of on-the-spot corrections 
have occurred.) When an on-the-spot correction is used, the person 
making the correction should point out the incorrect manner of 
operation of the truck or other unsafe act being conducted, tell the 
employee how to do the operation correctly, and then ensure that the 
employee does the operation correctly.
    A-6.2. The following items may be used when a more general, 
structured retraining program is utilized to train employees and 
eliminate unsafe operation of the vehicle:
    (1) Common unsafe situations encountered in the workplace;
    (2) Unsafe methods of operating observed or known to be used;
    (3) The need for constant attentiveness to the vehicle, the 
workplace conditions and the manner in which the vehicle is 
operated.
    A-6.3. Details about the above subject areas need to be expanded 
upon so that the operator receives all the information that is 
necessary for the safe operation of the vehicle. Insight into some 
of the specifics of the above subject areas may be obtained from the 
vehicle manufacturers' literature, the national consensus standards 
[e.g. the ASME B56 series of standards (current revisions)] and this 
OSHA Standard. Appendix B--Stability of Powered Industrial Trucks 
(Non-mandatory appendix to paragraph (d) of this section)

B-1. Definitions

    To understand the principle of stability, understanding 
definitions of the following is necessary:
    Center of Gravity is that point of an object at which all of the 
weight of an object can be considered to be concentrated.
    Counterweight is the weight that is a part of the basic 
structure of a truck that is used to offset the weight of a load and 
to maximize the resistance of the vehicle to tipping over.
    Fulcrum is the axis of rotation of the truck when it tips over.
    Grade is the slope of any surface that is usually measured as 
the number of feet of rise or fall over a hundred foot horizontal 
distance (this measurement is designated as a percent).
    Lateral stability is the resistance of a truck to tipping over 
sideways.
    Line of action is an imaginary vertical line through the center 
of gravity of an object.
    Load center is the horizontal distance from the edge of the load 
(or the vertical face of the forks or other attachment) to the line 
of action through the center of gravity of the load.
    Longitudinal stability is the resistance of a truck to 
overturning forward or rearward.
    Moment is the product of the weight of the object times the 
distance from a fixed point. In the case of a powered industrial 
truck, the distance is measured from the point that the truck will 
tip over to the line of action of the object. The distance is always 
measured perpendicular to the line of action.
    Track is the distance between wheels on the same axle of a 
vehicle.
    Wheelbase is the distance between the centerline of the front 
and rear wheels of a vehicle.

B-2. General

    B-2.1. Stability determination for a powered industrial truck is 
not complicated once a few basic principles are understood. There 
are many factors that influence vehicle stability. Vehicle 
wheelbase, track, height and weight distribution of the load, and 
the location of the counterweights of the vehicle (if the vehicle is 
so equipped), all contribute to the stability of the vehicle.
    B-2.2. The ``stability triangle'', used in most discussions of 
stability, is not mysterious but is used to demonstrate truck 
stability in a rather simple fashion.

B-3. Basic Principles

    B-3.1. The determination of whether an object is stable is 
dependent on the moment of an object at one end of a system being 
greater than, equal to or smaller than the moment of an object at 
the other end of that system. This is the same principle on which a 
see saw or teeter-totter works, that is, if the product of the load 
and distance from the fulcrum (moment) is equal to the moment at the 
other end of the device, the device is balanced and it will not 
move. However, if there is a greater moment at one end of the 
device, the device will try to move downward at the end with the 
greater moment.
    B-3.2. Longitudinal stability of a counterbalanced powered 
industrial truck is dependent on the moment of the vehicle and the 
moment of the load. In other words, if the mathematic product of the 
load moment (the distance from the front wheels, the point about 
which the vehicle would tip forward) to the center of gravity of the 
load times the weight of the load is less than the moment of the 
vehicle, the system is balanced and will not tip forward. However, 
if the load-moment is greater than the vehicle-moment, the greater 
load-moment will force the truck to tip forward.

B-4. The Stability Triangle

    B-4.1. Almost all counterbalanced powered industrial trucks have 
a three point suspension system, that is, the vehicle is supported 
at three points. This is true even if it has four wheels. The steer 
axle of most trucks is attached to the truck by means of a pivot pin 
in the center of the axle. This three point support forms a triangle 
called the stability triangle when the points are connected with 
imaginary lines. Figure 1 depicts the stability triangle.

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[[Page 3113]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP30JA96.002



BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
    B-4.2. When the line of action of the vehicle or load-vehicle 
falls within the stability triangle, the vehicle is stable and will 
not tip over. However, when the line of action of the vehicle or the 
vehicle/load combination falls outside the stability triangle, the 
vehicle is unstable and may tip over. (See Figure 2.)

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[[Page 3114]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP30JA96.003



BILLING CODE 4510-26-C

[[Page 3115]]


B-5. Longitudinal Stability

    B-5.1. The axis of rotation when a truck tips forward is the 
point of contact of the front wheels of the vehicle with the 
pavement. When a powered industrial truck tips forward, it is this 
line that the truck will rotate about. When a truck is stable the 
vehicle-moment must exceed the load-moment. As long as the vehicle-
moment is equal to or exceeds the load-moment, the vehicle will not 
tip over. On the other hand, if the load-moment slightly exceeds the 
vehicle-moment, the truck will begin the tip forward, thereby 
causing loss of steering control. If the load-moment greatly exceeds 
the vehicle-moment, the truck will tip forward.
    B-5.2. In order to determine the maximum safe load moment, the 
truck manufacturer normally rates the truck at a maximum load at a 
given distance from the front face of the forks. The specified 
distance from the front face of the forks to the line of action of 
the load is commonly called a load center. Because larger trucks 
normally handle loads that are physically larger, these vehicles 
have greater load centers. A truck with a capacity of 30,000 pounds 
or less capacity is normally rated at a given load weight at a 24-
inch load center. For trucks of greater than 30,000 pound capacity, 
the load center is normally rated at 36- or 48-inch load center 
distance. In order to safely operate the vehicle, the operator 
should always check the data plate and determine the maximum 
allowable weight at the rated load center.
    B-5.3. Although the true load moment distance is measured from 
the front wheels, this distance is greater than the distance from 
the front face of the forks. Calculation of the maximum allowable 
load moment using the load center distance always provides a lower 
load moment than the truck was designed to handle. When handling 
unusual loads, such as those that are larger than 48 inches long 
(the center of gravity is greater than 24 inches), with an offset 
center of gravity, etc., then calculation of a maximum allowable 
load moment should be undertaken and this value used to determine 
whether a load can be handled. For example, if an operator is 
operating a 3000 pound capacity truck (with a 24 inch load center), 
the maximum allowable load moment is 72,000 inch-pounds (3,000 times 
24). If a probable load is 60 inches long (30 inch load center), 
then the maximum weight that this load can weigh is 2,400 pounds 
(72,000 divided by 30).

B-6. Lateral Stability

    B-6.1. The lateral stability of a vehicle is determined by the 
position of the line of action (a vertical line that passes through 
the combined center of gravity of the vehicle and the load) relative 
to the stability triangle. When the vehicle is not loaded, the 
location of the center of gravity of the truck is the only factor to 
be considered in determining the stability of the truck. As long as 
the line of action of the combined center of gravity of the vehicle 
and the load falls within the stability triangle, the truck is 
stable and will not tip over. However, if the line of action falls 
outside the stability triangle, the truck is not stable and may tip 
over.
    B-6.2. Factors that affect the lateral stability of a vehicle 
include the placement of the load on the truck, the height of the 
load above the surface on which the vehicle is operating, and the 
degree of lean of the vehicle.

B-7. Dynamic Stability

    B-7.1. Up to this point, we have covered stability of a powered 
industrial truck without consideration of the dynamic forces that 
result when the vehicle and load are put into motion. The transfer 
of weight and the resultant shift in the center of gravity due to 
the dynamic forces created when the machine is moving, braking, 
cornering, lifting, tilting, and lowering loads, etc., are important 
stability considerations.
    B-7.2. When determining whether a load can be safely handled, 
the operator should exercise extra caution when handling loads that 
cause the vehicle to approach its maximum design characteristics. 
For example, if an operator must handle a maximum load, the load 
should be carried at the lowest position possible, the truck should 
be accelerated slowly and evenly, and the forks should be tilted 
forward cautiously. However, no precise rules can be formulated to 
cover all of these eventualities.

[FR Doc. 96-1216 Filed 1-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P