Kevin Ian Schmidt

Here is the next in my series where I examine the effect the loss of Chevron deference could have on OSHA standards and workplace safety, this week we are reviewing OSHA 1910.178 Powered Industrial Trucks.

If you missed any of my previous articles, here they are:

• OSHA and the loss of Chevron Deference – I explore the ramifications to OSHA and workplace safety when vague statutes must be clarified through court action instead of through clarification from agency SMEs.
• PPE and the loss of Chevron Deference.- I explore how the loss of Chevron Deference can have an impact on PPE standards within OSHA regulations.
• Machine Guarding and the loss of Chevron Deference – Machine guarding protects employees, but with the regulations being written even slightly vague, clarification can come from court actions and drag on, while employees are potentially unsafe.
• LoTo and the loss of Chevron Deference – I explore the ambiguities of OSHA 1910.147 and review several of the issues from the loss of Chevron Deference.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard 1910.178 serves as a critical foundation for ensuring the safe operation of powered industrial trucks (PITs), commonly known as forklifts. While the standard offers a comprehensive framework with specific regulations, it also contains areas of ambiguity that necessitate further interpretation.

This inherent tension between specificity and ambiguity can be challenging. On the one hand, detailed regulations provide clear guidelines for employers and employees alike, minimizing confusion and promoting consistent safety practices. However, overly prescriptive rules might not account for the diverse situations encountered in real-world workplaces.

OSHA addresses these ambiguities through “letters of interpretation.” These non-mandatory documents offer OSHA’s official clarification on specific points within the standard. While they hold significant weight, they are not legally binding, and with the loss of Chevron Deference the OSHA letters of interpretation aren’t even given the weight of being expert

Here are some of the main ambiguities and the specific clarifications provided:

Ambiguities of OSHA Powered Industrial Truck Standard

• Definition of a Powered Industrial Truck
  • The scope of what constitutes a powered industrial truck (PIT) can be particularly unclear, especially given the continuous evolution of technologies and the introduction of various types of machinery. Traditionally, PITs include vehicles like forklifts, pallet jacks, and order pickers, which are powered by electric motors or internal combustion engines. However, as technology advances, new equipment emerges that does not fit neatly into these conventional categories, creating ambiguity about what machinery falls under the OSHA 1910.178 standard.
  • For instance, the development of automated guided vehicles (AGVs) and autonomous mobile robots (AMRs) used in warehouses and manufacturing settings presents a challenge. These machines often perform similar functions to traditional PITs but operate using advanced robotics and automation technologies. Determining whether these newer types of equipment are subject to the same regulations as traditional PITs can be complex and unclear.
  • Moreover, hybrid machinery that combines features of PITs with other types of industrial equipment adds another layer of complexity. These hybrid machines might include elements of forklifts along with other functionalities, leading to confusion about their classification and the specific safety standards that should apply.

• Operator Training and Certification
  • • The specifics of what constitutes adequate training for powered industrial truck operators, who qualifies as a trainer, and how often retraining should occur can be quite ambiguous. This ambiguity poses significant challenges for employers striving to comply with OSHA standards and ensure the safety of their employees.
    • Firstly, “adequate training” involves formal instruction, practical training, and performance evaluation, but the exact content and depth are not clearly defined. Employers may struggle with determining necessary topics, training duration, and the balance between theory and practice, leading to inconsistent training quality.
    • Secondly, identifying who qualifies as a trainer is another area of uncertainty. OSHA requires trainers to have the “knowledge, training, and experience” to train and evaluate operators, but these qualifications are not explicitly detailed, causing confusion about the necessary credentials, certifications, or experience levels.
    • Thirdly, the frequency of retraining is ambiguous. While OSHA mandates retraining under certain conditions, such as unsafe operation or accidents, it does not specify a regular interval, leading to either neglecting necessary retraining or conducting it too frequently.

Check Out: Important Components of a Powered Equipment Program

• Maintenance and Inspection
  • The requirements for the frequency and extent of inspections and maintenance routines are not always explicitly clear. While OSHA mandates that powered industrial trucks (PITs) must be regularly inspected to ensure their safety and proper functioning, the standard does not provide specific guidelines on how often these inspections should occur or the detailed processes involved in maintaining the equipment. This lack of explicit detail can lead to uncertainty among employers about how frequently they need to perform inspections and what constitutes a thorough maintenance routine.
  • Employers may find it challenging to determine the appropriate intervals for inspections, whether daily, weekly, or monthly, based on the usage and condition of the equipment. Additionally, the standard does not always specify what aspects of the PIT should be included in these inspections or how comprehensive the maintenance procedures should be. This ambiguity can result in variations in how different organizations approach equipment maintenance, potentially impacting overall safety and compliance.

• Modifications and Attachments
  • The standard does not always specify which types of modifications or attachments are permissible without impacting the safe operation of powered industrial trucks (PITs). While OSHA regulations provide general guidelines for the safe operation of PITs, they lack detailed criteria on what modifications or attachments can be added without compromising safety. This ambiguity can create uncertainty for employers about which alterations are acceptable and which may pose risks.
  • For example, modifications such as changing the truck’s load capacity or adding new attachments like extended forks or platforms can potentially affect the stability and operational characteristics of the PIT. However, the standard does not always provide clear guidance on how to evaluate these modifications or ensure they do not negatively impact the truck’s safety features.
  • Employers may struggle to determine whether modifications require manufacturer approval or if additional safety measures are necessary to accommodate new attachments. This uncertainty can lead to inconsistent practices and potential safety hazards if modifications are not properly evaluated and implemented.

Clarifications for PIT from OSHA Letters of Interpretation

1. Definition of a Powered Industrial Truck
   • OSHA has clarified that PITs include forklifts, pallet jacks, order pickers, and other specialized industrial trucks powered by electric motors or internal combustion engines. This definition helps employers understand the range of equipment covered by the standard.
2. Operator Training and Certification
   • OSHA requires that training be site-specific and include both formal instruction and practical training. Trainers must have the necessary knowledge, training, and experience to train operators and evaluate their competence. Refresher training is required when there is a demonstrated need, such as after an incident or when new equipment is introduced.
3. Maintenance and Inspection
   • OSHA’s letters of interpretation specify that PITs must be inspected daily or at the beginning of each shift if they are used continuously. Maintenance records should be kept, and any identified issues must be addressed before the PIT is used again.
4. Modifications and Attachments
   • OSHA has clarified that modifications and additions that affect the capacity and safe operation of the PIT must not be performed without the manufacturer’s prior written approval. This includes the use of attachments such as forks, platforms, or other add-ons that could impact stability and handling.

Examples of Clarifications from Letters of Interpretation

1. Training Clarification
   • A letter clarified that retraining is required if the operator is observed driving in an unsafe manner, involved in an accident or near-miss, or assigned to drive a different type of truck. Additionally, changes in the workplace that affect safe operation necessitate retraining.
2. Inspection and Maintenance Clarification
   • Clarification was provided that daily checks should include tire condition, fluid levels, the functioning of brakes and steering, and the condition of the forks. Documentation of these checks, while not explicitly required, is highly recommended.
3. Attachments Clarification
   • OSHA specified that any attachment used must be included in the training program, and operators must understand how the attachment affects the truck’s operation and handling characteristics.

By addressing these ambiguities through letters of interpretation, OSHA provides crucial clarity and guidance on the requirements for powered industrial trucks (PITs). These interpretations help bridge gaps in the standard, offering detailed explanations and specific examples that assist employers and employees in understanding their responsibilities and compliance obligations.

This enhanced clarity helps organizations navigate complex aspects of PIT regulations, such as permissible modifications, inspection frequency, and proper maintenance routines. By offering concrete guidance, OSHA’s letters of interpretation facilitate safer and more consistent practices across various industries.

Employers can more effectively implement safety measures, ensure proper equipment use, and adhere to maintenance protocols, while employees benefit from a clearer understanding of safe operation procedures. Overall, these clarifications promote a more reliable and uniform application of safety standards, contributing to a safer working environment and reducing the risk of accidents and compliance issues related to PITs.