[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 159 (Tuesday, August 18, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49970-49973]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20024]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0259; FRL-9932-33-Region 6]

Clean Air Act Redesignation Substitute for the Houston-Galveston-
Brazoria 1-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area; Texas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a redesignation substitute demonstration provided by the State
of Texas that the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 1-hour ozone nonattainment
area (HGB area) has attained the revoked 1-hour ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) due to permanent and enforceable emission
reductions, and that it will maintain that NAAQS for ten years from the
date of the EPA's approval of this demonstration. Final approval of the
redesignation substitute demonstration will result in the State no
longer being required to adopt any additional applicable 1-hour ozone
NAAQS requirements for the area which have not already been approved
into the State Implementation Plan (SIP). In addition, final approval
will allow Texas to seek to revise the Texas SIP to remove anti-
backsliding measures from the active portion of its SIP if it can
demonstrate, pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(1), that such
revision would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any
applicable NAAQS, or any other requirement of the CAA.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 17,
2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2014-0259, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions.
     Email: Ms. Tracie Donaldson at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail or delivery: Ms. Mary Stanton, Chief, Air State and
Tribal Operations Section (6PD-S), Environmental Protection Agency,
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2014-
0259. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any

personal information provided, unless the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit
electronically any information that you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional information on submitting comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 6,
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tracie Donaldson,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To inspect the hard copy materials, please
contact Ms. Donaldson.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

I. Background

    In 1979, under section 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA
established primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone at 0.12 parts per
million (ppm) averaged over a 1-hour period (44 FR 8202, February 8,
1979). Primary standards are set to protect human health while
secondary standards are set to protect public welfare. In 1997 we
revised the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to set the acceptable
level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 ppm, averaged over an 8-hour
period (62 FR 38856, July 18, 1997).\1\ In 2008 we further revised the
primary and secondary ozone NAAQS to 0.075 ppm, averaged over an 8-hour
period (73 FR 16436, March 27, 2008). Ozone nonattainment areas are
classified based on the severity of their ozone levels based on the
area's ``design value'' (77 FR 30088, 30091, May 21, 2012). The design
value represents air quality in the area for the most recent 3 years.
The possible classifications are Marginal, Moderate, Serious, Severe,
and Extreme. Nonattainment areas with a ``lower'' classification have
ozone levels that are closer to the NAAQS than areas with a ``higher''
classification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Subsequently, we lowered the 8-hour ozone NAAQS to 0.075 ppm
and classified the Houston area as a Marginal nonattainment area for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008); 77 FR 30088
30089 (May 21, 2012). This rulemaking does not address the 2008
ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2004 we published a first phase rule governing implementation of
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (Phase 1 Rule) (69 FR 23951, April 30,
2004). The Phase 1 Rule revoked the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and provided
that 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas are required to adopt and
implement ``applicable requirements'' according to the area's
classification under the 1-hour ozone standard for anti-backsliding
purposes (40 CFR 51.905(a)(i)). In a revision to the Phase 1 Rule, we
determined that an area's 1-hour designation and classification as of
June 15, 2005 would dictate what 1-hour obligations constitute
``applicable requirements'' (40 CFR 51.900(f), May 26, 2005, 70 FR
30592).\2\ Applicable anti-backsliding requirements ensure continued
momentum toward reducing ozone levels (80 FR 12264, 12297, March 6,
2015). The rules governing ongoing implementation of revoked ozone
standards, including revisions to applicable requirements, was further
revised effective April 6, 2015 (40 CFR 51.1100, March 6, 2015, 80 FR
12264). This final rule also contains provisions addressing a
redesignation substitute for a revoked ozone standard. See 40 CFR
51.1105(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As of April 6, 2015, 40 CFR 51.900(f) was replaced by 40 CFR
51.1100(o). See 40 CFR 51.919 and 80 FR 12312, Mar. 6, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule for implementing the 2008 ozone NAAQS provides that
an area will be subject to the anti-backsliding obligations for a
revoked NAAQS until we approve (1) a redesignation to attainment for
the area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS or (2) a demonstration for the area
in a redesignation substitute procedure for a revoked NAAQS (40 CFR
51.1105(b)(1)). As explained more fully in the preambles to the
proposed and final rules, the redesignation substitute demonstration
must show that the area (1) has attained that revoked NAAQS due to
permanent and enforceable emission reductions and (2) will maintain
that revoked NAAQS for 10 years from the date of EPA's approval of the
showing. The rule also provides that if, after notice and comment
rulemaking, we approve a redesignation substitute for a revoked NAAQS,
the state may request that provisions for nonattainment new source
review (NSR) for that revoked NAAQS be removed, and that other anti-
backsliding obligations for that revoked NAAQS be shifted to
contingency measures provided that such action is consistent with CAA
sections 110(l) and 193 (40 CFR 51.1105(b)(2)).
    The HGB area consists of Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston,
Harris, Liberty, Montgomery and Waller counties in Texas. Under the
1990 CAA Amendments the area was classified as a Severe ozone
nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS (November 6, 1991, 56 FR
56694 and CAA section 181(a)(1)). We approved a 1-hour ozone attainment
demonstration for the area (71 FR 52670, September 6, 2006). However,
the EPA subsequently determined that the area failed to attain the 1-
hour ozone standard by its applicable attainment date of November 15,
2007 (June 19, 2012, 77 FR 36400). As discussed below, ambient air
quality monitoring data for ozone indicates that the area is now
attaining the 1-hour ozone standard.
    Texas provided the ``Redesignation Substitute Report for the
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria One-Hour Standard Nonattainment Area''
(redesignation substitute report) to EPA on July 22, 2014. This report
was developed consistent with the redesignation substitute option we
proposed to create in our June 6, 2013 proposal (which was subsequently
adopted in the March 6, 2015 final rule). The report is available
through www.regulations.gov (e-docket EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0259).

II. EPA's Evaluation of the Houston Redesignation Substitute Report

    To determine whether we should approve the 1-hour ozone
redesignation substitute for the HGB area we evaluated the
redesignation substitute report provided by Texas and the ambient ozone
data for the area in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) database. To
evaluate the report we used the applicable portions of our September 4,
1992 memo ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment'' (www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t5/memoranda/redesignmem090492.pdf). A detailed discussion of our evaluation can be
found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this action. The TSD
can be accessed through www.regulations.gov (e-docket EPA-R06-OAR-2014-
0259).

A. Has the area attained the revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS due to
permanent and enforceable emission reductions?

    Ambient air quality found in the AQS database shows that the HGB
area attained the 1-hour ozone standard at the end of 2013 and
maintained the standard the following year (Table 1). The area
continues to maintain the 1-hour ozone standard so far in 2015 based on
available data.

             Table 1--1-Hour Design Values for the HGB Area
                        [2011-2013 and 2012-2014]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Years                      1-Hour ozone design value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011-2013.................................  0.12 ppm (121 parts per
                                             billion).
2012-2014.................................  0.11 ppm (111 parts per
                                             billion).
Preliminary 2013-2015.....................  0.11 ppm (107 parts per
                                             billion).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2013, all monitors in the HGB area had expected exceedances less
than the threshold of 1.0 per year and only one monitor in the HGB
area, the Houston East monitor (C1), had more than 1.0 expected
exceedance in 2011 and 2012. A more detailed table of expected 1-hour
ozone exceedances for the HGB monitors based on ozone data can be found
in the TSD.
    The HGB area redesignation substitute report provides information
on emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and regulations that reduced these emissions.
NOX and VOCs are ozone precursors. Texas identified control
measures for both the 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP and the
1997 ozone attainment demonstration SIP that led to permanent and
enforceable emission reductions. The 1-hour ozone attainment
demonstration SIP was approved on September 6, 2006 (71 FR 52670). The
1997 ozone attainment demonstration SIP was approved on January 2, 2014
(79 FR 57). Additionally, we have approved SIPs for the HGB area that
document continuous emissions reductions due to permanent and
enforceable measures for the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone standards (70
FR 7407, February 14, 2005; 74 FR 18298, April 22, 2009; 79 FR 51,
January 2, 2014). Given our previous actions approving Texas SIPs
pertaining to permanent and enforceable measures, we agree with Texas'
conclusion that the area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS due to
permanent and enforceable emission reductions. More detail on our
review can be found in the TSD.

B. Will the area maintain the revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS for 10 years
from the date of our approval?

    To demonstrate that the HGB area will maintain the revoked 1-hour
ozone NAAQS for 10 years from the date of our approval of the
redesignation substitute, the Texas report provided information on
projected emissions of ozone precursors (Tables 2 and 3). The emission
projections show that (1) NOx emissions will continue to decrease
through 2026 and (2) VOC emissions will decrease through 2023 and
increase by 2.71 tons per year (tpy) from 2023 to 2026 (514.49 tpy in
2023 to 517.20 tpy in 2026, an increase of 0.5%). We reviewed this
information and agree with the conclusion that the area will maintain
the revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS for 10 years from the date of our
approval. Based on photochemical modeling analyses showing that the
formation of ozone in the HGB area is more sensitive to NOX
than to VOC emissions, the small increase in VOC emissions during the
10-year maintenance period is expected to be more than offset by the
18% decrease in NOX emissions during this same period. More
detail on our review can be found in the TSD.

                                        Table 2--NOX Emission Projections
                                                 [tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Category                        2011       2014       2017       2020       2023       2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources.................................     108.48     126.31     126.82     127.01     127.20     127.39
Area Sources..................................      21.15      22.19      22.90      23.28      23.17      23.23
On-Road Mobile Sources........................     181.28     127.70      88.85      69.80      59.28      54.51
Non-Road Mobile Sources.......................     121.11     106.99      94.99      83.70      75.54      68.98
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................     432.02     383.19     333.56     303.79     285.19     274.11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                        Table 3--VOC Emission Projections
                                                 [tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Category                        2011       2014       2017       2020       2023       2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources.................................      96.11     100.81     102.86     103.29     103.71     104.12
Area Sources..................................     308.74     321.92     332.43     339.67     342.58     346.13
On-Road Mobile Sources........................      80.92      60.43      46.51      40.51      38.09      36.93
Non-Road Mobile Sources.......................      49.92      38.33      33.34      30.86      30.11      30.02
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................     535.69     521.49     515.14     514.33     514.49     517.20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Action

    Based on the CAA's criteria for redesignation to attainment (CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)) and the regulation providing for a redesignation
substitute (40 CFR 51.1105(b)), EPA is proposing to find that Texas has
successfully demonstrated it has met the requirements for approval of a
redesignation substitute for the revoked 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS. We
are proposing to approve the redesignation substitute for the HGB area
based on our determination that the demonstration provided by the State
of Texas shows that the HGB area has attained the revoked 1-hour ozone
NAAQS due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions, and that it
will maintain that NAAQS for ten years from the date of the EPA's
approval of this demonstration. As we no longer redesignate
nonattainment areas to attainment for the revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS,
approval of the demonstration would serve as a redesignation substitute
under the EPA's implementing regulations. Under this proposed action,
Texas would no longer be required to adopt any additional applicable 1-
hour ozone NAAQS requirements for the area which have not already been
approved into the SIP (40 CFR 51.1105(b)(1)). If this proposed action
is finalized, it would also allow the state to request that the EPA
approve the removal or revision of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS nonattainment
NSR provisions in the SIP and, upon a showing of consistency with the
anti-backsliding checks in CAA sections 110(1) and 193 (if applicable),
shift 1-hour ozone NAAQS requirements that are contained in the active
portion of the SIP to the contingency measures portion of the SIP (40
CFR 51.1105(b)(2)). We note that because the HGB area was classified as
Severe nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the Severe
classification NSR requirements would continue to apply if the 1-hour
NSR provisions are removed (October 1, 2008, 73 FR 56983).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), this action is not a
``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this
action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely
proposes to approve a demonstration provided by the State of Texas and
find that the HGB area is no longer subject to the anti-backsliding
obligations for additional measures for the revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS;
and imposes no additional requirements. Accordingly, I certify that
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this proposed rule does not impose
any additional enforceable duties, it does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as
described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
This proposed rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor
will it have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), because it merely proposes to approve a demonstration
provided by the State of Texas and find that the HGB area is no longer
subject to the anti-backsliding obligations for additional measures for
the revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS; and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA.
This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    The proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.). Additionally, this proposed rule does not involve
establishment of technical standards, and thus, the requirements of
section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.
    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this proposed
rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it
does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. The rulemaking does not affect the level of protection
provided to human health or the environment because approving the
demonstration provided by Texas and finding that the HGB area is no
longer subject to the anti-backsliding obligations for additional
measures for the revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS does not alter the emission
reduction measures that are required to be implemented in the HGB area,
which was classified as Severe nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. See 73 FR 56983, October 1, 2008, and 40 CFR 51.1105.
Additionally, the proposed rule is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive
Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ozone.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: July 29, 2015.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2015-20024 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 02/12/2008 04:23 PM

To

Janet Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

RE: I set up a call-in for our  Wed 1-2:30 meeting, it's<PHONE_NUMBER> if you want to update the invitation you sent us

Thank you Janet!

Monday was rough; sorry I missed your call.  I look forward to

Wednesday,

heidi

-----Original Message-----

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 11:04 AM

To: King, Heidi R.

Subject: I set up a call-in for our Wed 1-2:30 meeting, it's

919-541-4376 if you want to update the invitation you sent us

_______________________________________

Janet F. Cakir, Ph.D.

Environmental Protection Specialist

Air Benefits Cost Group

109 TW Alexander Dr., (C439-02)

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 47 (Monday, March 11, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8633-8641]
[FR Doc No: 2019-04338]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918, and 1926

[Docket No. OSHA-2018-0008]
RIN 1218-AC99

Powered Industrial Trucks; Request for information

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for Information (RFI).

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

SUMMARY: OSHA requests information and comment on issues related to
requirements in the standards on powered industrial trucks for general,
maritime, and construction industries. OSHA is seeking information
regarding the types, age, and usage of powered industrial trucks,
maintenance and retrofitting of powered industrial trucks, how to
regulate older powered industrial trucks, the types of accidents and
injuries associated with operation of powered industrial trucks, the
costs and benefits of retrofitting powered industrial trucks with
safety features, and the costs and benefits of all other components of
a safety program, as well as various other issues. OSHA is also
interested in understanding whether the differences between the
standards for maritime, construction, and general industry are
appropriate and effective for each specific industrial sector. OSHA
will use the information received in response to this RFI to determine
what action, if any, it may take to reduce regulatory burdens while
maintaining worker safety.

DATES: Submit comments and additional material on or before June 10,
2019. All submissions must bear a postmark or provide other evidence of
the submission date.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments and additional materials, identified by
Docket No. OSHA-2018-0008, by any of the following methods:
    Electronically: Submit comments and attachments electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
Follow the instructions online for making electronic submissions.
    Facsimile: OSHA allows facsimile transmission of comments and
additional material that are 10 pages or fewer in length (including
attachments). Send these documents to the OSHA Docket Office at (202)
693-1648. OSHA does not require hard copies of these documents. Instead
of transmitting facsimile copies of attachments that supplement these
documents (for example, studies, journal articles), commenters must
submit these attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Room N-3653,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. These
attachments must identify clearly the commenter's name, the date of
submission, the title of this RFI (Powered Industrial Trucks), and
docket no. OSHA-2018-0008 so that the Docket Office can attach them to
the appropriate document.
    Regular mail, express mail, hand delivery, or messenger (courier)
service: Submit comments and any additional material (for example,
studies, journal articles) to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-
2018-0008 or RIN (1218-AC99), Room N-3653, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. (OSHA's TTY
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.) Contact the OSHA Docket Office for
information about security procedures concerning delivery of materials
by express mail, hand delivery, and messenger service. The hours of
operation for the OSHA Docket Office are 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., ET.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency's name, the
title of this RFI (Powered Industrial Trucks), and the docket no. OSHA-
2018-0008. OSHA will place comments and other material, including any
personal information, in the public docket without revision, and these
materials will be available online at http://www.regulations.gov.
Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about submitting statements they do
not want made available to the public and submitting comments that
contain personal information (either about themselves or others) such
as Social Security numbers, birth dates, and medical data.
    Docket: To read or download submissions or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the above address. The http://www.regulations.gov index lists all
documents in the docket. However, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not available publicly to read or download through the
website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection at the OSHA Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket
Office for assistance in locating docket submissions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Press inquiries: Frank Meilinger,
Director, OSHA Office of Communications; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    General and technical information: Lisa Long, Director, Office of
Engineering Safety, OSHA Directorate of Standards and Guidance;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Copies of this Federal Register notice: Electronic copies are
available at http://www.regulations.gov. This Federal Register notice,
as well as news releases and other relevant information, also are
available at OSHA's web page at http://www.osha.gov.
    References and Exhibits: Documents referenced by OSHA in this RFI,
other than OSHA standards and Federal Register notices, are in Docket
No. OSHA-2018-0008 (powered industrial trucks; request for
information). The docket is available at http://www.regulations.gov,
the Federal

eRulemaking Portal. For additional information on submitting items to,
or accessing items in, the docket, please refer to the ADDRESSES
section of this RFI. While most exhibits are available at http://www.regulations.gov, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is
not available to download from that web page. However, all materials in
the docket are available for inspection at the OSHA Docket Office.

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Introduction
    B. Fatality and Injury Data
    C. Regulatory History
    1. General Industry
    2. Shipyards, Longshoring, and Marine Cargo Handling
    3. Construction
II. Request for Information, Data, and Comments
    A. General Issues
    1. Types of Powered Industrial Trucks
    2. Truck Operation, Maintenance, and Training
    3. Incidents and Injuries
    4. Consistency Among OSHA Standards
    B. Consensus Standards
    1. American National Standards Institute
    2. National Fire Protection Association
    3. Other Standards
    C. Compliance Issues
    D. Economic Issues
    E. Other Comments/Suggestions/Concerns

I. Background

A. Introduction

    OSHA is considering whether or not to initiate rulemaking to revise
the powered industrial trucks standards for general, maritime, and
construction industries (29 CFR 1910.178, 1915.120, 1917.43, 1918.65,
and 1926.602(c), (d)). These regulations, promulgated in 1971 and
updated in 1998, are intended to protect operators of these trucks and
their coworkers. In this RFI, OSHA is seeking public comments that will
inform OSHA on potential updates to the powered industrial trucks
standards. The term ``powered industrial truck'' includes what are
commonly termed forklifts, but the term also includes all fork trucks,
tractors, platform lift trucks, motorized hand trucks, and other
specialized industrial trucks powered by an electric motor or an
internal combustion engine. The aim of this RFI is to seek public
comment on what aspects of the powered industrial trucks standards are
effective as well as those that may be outdated, inefficient,
unnecessary, or overly burdensome, and how those provisions might be
repealed, replaced, or modified while maintaining or improving worker
safety.
    OSHA's powered industrial trucks standards contain requirements for
machine design and construction, locations of use, maintenance,
training, and operations, among other requirements. OSHA initially
adopted the powered industrial trucks standard (29 CFR 1910.178) on May
29, 1971 (36 FR 10613), pursuant to section 6(a) of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651, 655),\1\ based
on the 1969 editions of the American National Standards Institute's
(ANSI) Safety Standard for Powered Industrial Trucks, B56.1, and the
National Fire Protection Association's (NFPA) standard for Type
Designation, Areas of Use, Maintenance and Operation of Powered
Industrial Trucks, NFPA 505. Since the promulgation of OSHA's powered
industrial trucks standard in 1971, these national consensus standards
have been updated a number of times. The most recent edition of ANSI
B56.1 was issued in 2018, in conjunction with the Industrial Truck
Standards Development Foundation (ITSDF) (OSHA-2018-0008-0002). The
most recent edition of NFPA 505 was issued in 2018 (OSHA-2018-0008-
0003). OSHA has updated the powered industrial trucks standards only
once, on December 1, 1998 (63 FR 66270), to revise the requirements for
operator training codified at Sec.  1910.178(l) and to include
references to Sec.  1910.178(l) in the standards for shipyards, marine
terminals, longshoring, and construction (Sec. Sec.  1910.16, 1915.120,
1917.1, 1918.1, and 1926.602(d)).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 6(a) directed OSHA, during the first two years after
the OSH Act became effective, to promulgate as an occupational
safety and health standard any national consensus standard or any
established Federal standard if such promulgation would improve
employee safety or health.
    \2\ See Docket OSHA-S008-2006-0639.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ANSI B56.1 defines the safety requirements relating to the elements
of design, operation, and maintenance of powered industrial trucks.
This national consensus standard has two basic parts. The first part
establishes manufacturer requirements to ensure hazards do not result
from the design and construction of powered industrial trucks at the
time of manufacture. This includes a variety of test methods to
determine load-handling capacity, which must also be indicated through
appropriate markings. When OSHA originally promulgated the powered
industrial trucks standard, the agency incorporated by reference the
design requirements section of ANSI B56.1-1969.
    The second part of B56.1 establishes guidelines for operators of
industrial trucks, including requirements for operator qualifications
and training, operator safety rules, and maintenance practices.
Although OSHA did not incorporate by reference the ANSI B56.1-1969 user
requirements in its powered industrial trucks standard, OSHA did base
some of the provisions on this part of the ANSI standard. Throughout
the years, ANSI/ITSDF has added other requirements to improve the
safety of industrial truck operators and other employees. Examples of
additions to the user requirements in B56.1 include:
     A requirement that operator training programs cover
hazards from carbon monoxide production by internal combustion engines
and common initial symptoms of exposure.
     A requirement that, prior to working on engine fuel
systems of liquefied petroleum (LP) gas-powered trucks with engines
that will not run, users must close the LP tank and vent fuel slowly in
a non-hazardous area.
     A requirement for stopping distances when descending
grades. This section states that when descending a grade, required
stopping distances must be greater and methods must be employed to
allow for this condition. Such methods include: Reducing speed,
limiting loads, and allowing for adequate clear space at the bottom of
the grade.
     A requirement to consider noise exposure of personnel in
the work area.
     A requirement regarding relocation of powered industrial
trucks. This section states that when using lifting equipment such as
elevators, cranes, ship hoisting gear, to relocate a powered industrial
truck, the user shall ensure that the capacity of the hoisting
equipment being used is not exceeded.
    The NFPA 505 standard contains fire safety guidelines for powered
industrial trucks including type designations, areas of use,
conversions, maintenance, and operations. This standard is designed to
mitigate potential fire and explosion hazards involving powered
industrial trucks, including fork trucks, tractors, platform lift
trucks, motorized hand trucks, and other specialized industrial trucks
powered by electric motors or internal combustion engines.
    When OSHA adopted the powered industrial trucks standard in 1971,
there were 11 designated types of trucks.\3\

NFPA has since listed an additional eight truck types: CGH, CN, CNS,
DX, G/CN, G/LP, GS/CNS, and GS/LPS.\4\ These are not listed in OSHA's
standard. NFPA first added type designations G/LP and GS/LPS, which are
both dual-fuel type trucks that operate on gasoline and/or liquefied
petroleum gas. NFPA next added new truck type designation DX, which is
a diesel-powered unit that is constructed to allow it to be used in
atmospheres that contain specifically named flammable vapors, dust, and
fibers. NFPA added a new section on compressed natural gas (CNG) that
included the addition of type designations CN, CNS, G/CN, and GS/CNS,
and made changes to the fuel handling and storage chapters for these
trucks, as well as for the dual fuel and converted trucks. NFPA's most
recent type designation is a compressed hydrogen-powered unit (CGH).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ These 11 designations represent the following truck types:
D-Diesel-powered unit; DS-Diesel-powered unit with additional
safeguards to exhaust, fuel and electrical systems; DY-Diesel-
powered unit with safe guards of DS unit and do not have any
electrical equipment including the ignition system and have
temperature limiting features; E-Electrically powered unit; ES-
Electrical powered unit with additional safeguards to electrical
systems to prevent hazardous sparks and limit surface temperatures;
EE-Electrical powered unit with safeguards of ES units and all
electric motors and electrical equipment enclosed; EX-Electrical
powered unit that differs from E, ES and EE units that allows it to
be used in certain atmospheres containing flammable vapors and dust;
G-Gasoline powered unit; GS-Gasoline powered unit with additional
safeguards to exhaust, fuel and electrical systems; LP-Liquefied
Petroleum powered unit; LPS-Liquefied Petroleum powered unit with
additional safeguards to exhaust, fuel and electrical systems.
    \4\ These eight designations are: CGH-Compressed hydrogen-
powered unit utilizing a fuel cell that has minimum acceptable
safeguards against inherent fire and electrical shock hazards; CN-
Compressed natural gas-powered unit that has minimum acceptable
safeguards against inherent fire hazards; CNS-Compressed natural
gas-powered unit that, in addition to meeting the requirements for
Type CN units, is provided with additional safeguards to the
exhaust, fuel, and electric systems; DX-Diesel-powered unit in which
the diesel engine and the electric fittings and equipment are
designed, constructed, and assembled in such a way that the unit can
be used in atmospheres that contain specifically named flammable
vapors, dusts, and, under certain conditions, fibers; G/CN-Gasoline
or compressed natural gas unit that has minimum acceptable
safeguards against inherent fire hazards; G/LP-Gasoline or liquefied
petroleum gas and has minimum acceptable safeguards against inherent
fire hazards; GS/CNS-Gasoline or compressed natural gas unit and, in
addition to meeting all the requirements for G/CN units, is provided
with additional safeguards to the exhaust, fuel, and electric
systems; GS/LPS-Gasoline or liquefied petroleum gas unit and, in
addition to meeting all the requirements for the G/LP units, is
provided with additional safeguards to the exhaust, fuel, and
electric systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These eight type-designated units--CGH, CN, CNS, DX, G/CN, G/LP,
GS/CNS, GS/LPS--have different requirements for safe operation,
maintenance, and handling due to their fuel source, but they are
generally the same in design and function as the 11 truck types
currently listed in OSHA's standard. For instance, the chapter in NFPA
505 for fuel handling and storage prohibits over-pressurizing fuel
cylinders and requires that pressure relief devices be free of plugging
and maintained in good operating condition; these requirements are not
reflected in OSHA's current standard.
    OSHA requests information from the public on the powered industrial
trucks standards to help the agency determine how to best protect
employees who use powered industrial trucks and eliminate unnecessary
burdens. OSHA is seeking public comments on whether and how the powered
industrial trucks standards should be amended.

B. Fatality and Injury Data

    Statistics show that, in some instances, powered industrial trucks
cause worker fatalities and injuries. Accordingly, OSHA is considering
ways to maintain or improve worker safety while modernizing its
standards and reducing any overly-burdensome requirements.
    Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) (OSHA-2018-0008-
0004) for the years 2011 through 2016 indicate a total of 1,357
fatalities resulting from the use of powered material hauling and
transport industrial vehicles and tractors. As shown in Table 1, the
annual number of fatalities ranged from 218 to 241, with an annual
average of 226 fatalities. The data show that the majority of these
fatalities, 1,169 (89 percent), occurred in five industry sectors:
Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting (788); manufacturing (126);
construction (94); wholesale trade (83); and transportation and
warehousing (78). Nearly all the fatalities, 1,316 (97 percent),
occurred during the use of powered forklifts, order pickers, platform
trucks, tractors, and power take-offs.
    With respect to injury data, BLS reports that, for the three most
recent years with complete results from the BLS surveillance system
(2014-2016), lost-workday injuries resulting from incidents associated
with powered industrial forklifts, trucks, and tractors ranged from
11,790 cases (2016) to 11,940 cases (2015) and averaged 11,857
cases.\5\ Over 90 percent of cases during this three-year period
involved powered industrial material hauling and transport vehicles.
The remainder involved tractors and power take-offs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ US Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Nonfatal
cases involving days away from work: Selected characteristics (2011
forward), 2011-2016, https://www.bls.gov/iif/ (accessed January 23,
2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA's data from the Severe Injury Reports (SIRs) mirror that of
BLS. The SIRs recorded 1,238 incidents from January 1, 2015, through
February 28, 2017, resulting in 1,123 hospitalizations and 193
amputations. Approximately 97 percent of the 1,238 incidents involved
powered forklifts, order pickers, platform trucks, pallet jacks,
airport utility vehicles, and other powered industrial material hauling
and transport vehicles, not elsewhere classified, while the remainder
involved tractors and power take-offs.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ U.S. Dept. of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Severe Injury Reports, https://www.osha.gov/severeinjury/index.html (accessed January 18, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11MR19.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11MR19.026

BILLING CODE 4510-26-C

C. Regulatory History

1. General Industry
    As previously noted, in June 1971, OSHA adopted the powered
industrial trucks standard, 29 CFR 1910.178, implementing several
measures to encourage worker safety. As part of that rulemaking, and
under section 6(a) of the Act, OSHA codified ANSI B56.1-1969, Safety
Standard for Powered Industrial Trucks, including the provisions
covering operator training.
    On December 1, 1998 (63 FR 66270), after notice and comment
rulemaking, OSHA published a final rule updating the provisions
covering powered industrial truck operator training, which was codified
at 29 CFR 1910.178(l). These provisions mandate a training program that
bases the amount and type of training required on the operator's prior
knowledge and skill; the types of powered industrial trucks the
operator will operate in the workplace; the hazards present in the
workplace; and the operator's demonstrated ability to operate a powered
industrial truck safely. Refresher training is required if the operator
is involved in an accident or a near-miss incident; the operator has
been observed operating the vehicle in an unsafe manner; the operator
has been determined during an evaluation to need additional training;
there are changes in the workplace that could affect safe operation of
the truck; or the operator is assigned to operate a different type of
truck. Evaluations of each operator's performance are required as part
of the initial and refresher training and each operator's performance
must be evaluated at least once every three years. These training
requirements apply to all industries (general industry, construction,
shipyards, marine terminals, and longshoring operations) that use
powered industrial trucks, except agricultural operations.
    Since the 1998 final rule on powered industrial truck operator
training, OSHA has not revised the general industry powered industrial
truck requirements or updated references to the national industry
consensus standard (B56.1) to include newer versions of that standard.
2. Shipyards, Longshoring, and Marine Cargo Handling
    In 1974, pursuant to Section 41 of the Longshore and Harbor
Workers' Compensation Act, the Secretary issued the existing shipyards
and longshoring regulations (39 FR 22074, June 19, 1974). These
regulations appear at 29 CFR part 1915 for shipyards and 29 CFR part
1918 for longshoring. Because the OSH Act comprehensively covers most
private employers, the longshoring standards also were applied to
shoreside cargo handling operations (i.e. marine terminal operations)
at 29 CFR part 1917. In addition, in accordance with 29 CFR
1910.5(c)(2), OSHA applied the general industry standards to shoreside
activities not covered by the older longshoring rules. Under section
1910.5(c)(2), a general industry standard covering a hazardous
condition applies to shoreside activities not covered by a specific
standard addressing that hazard. Shipyards are covered by the general
industry standard.
    On July 5, 1983 (48 FR 30886), OSHA published the final standard
for marine terminals (29 CFR part 1917). This rule was intended to
further address the shoreside segment of marine cargo handling (29 CFR
1917.27). The marine terminals standard includes requirements for
powered industrial trucks at 29 CFR 1917.43.
    On July 25, 1997, OSHA published a final rule revising the marine
terminals standard (29 CFR part 1917) and the longshoring standard (29
CFR part 1918), and improving the training requirements for powered
industrial truck operators in the marine cargo handling industries (62
FR 40142). Then, on December 1, 1998 (63 FR 66238), OSHA adopted a
final rule for shipyard employment (29 CFR 1915.120), Powered
Industrial Truck Operator Training, which set forth training
requirements applicable to shipyard employment identical to the
requirements in the general industry powered industrial truck training
standard at 29 CFR 1910.178(l).
3. Construction
    In 1971, under section 6(a) of the OSH Act, the Secretary of Labor
adopted the existing Federal standards that had been issued under the
Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act as OSHA construction
standards (36 FR 7340, April 17, 1971). The provisions pertaining to
powered industrial trucks used in construction are contained at 29 CFR
1926.602(c). Paragraph 1926.602(c)(1)(vi) states:

    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, by incorporating by reference the same 1969 ANSI standard
that was the source document for the general industry standard at 29
CFR 1910.178, the powered industrial truck construction standard
imposes the identical powered industrial truck requirements on the
construction industry as applied to general industry.
    On December 1, 1998, 29 CFR part 1926 was amended by adding a new
paragraph (d), which provides the same powered industrial truck
operator training requirements for construction work as adopted at 29
CFR 1910.178(l) for general industry.

II. Request for Information, Data, and Comments

    OSHA is seeking information, data, and comments (information),
including information on anticipated costs, cost savings, and benefits
related to the questions below, that will inform the agency's analysis
of technological and economic feasibility and will help determine what
action, if any, should be taken to repeal, replace or modify outdated,
unnecessary or overly burdensome aspects of the powered industrial
trucks standard while maintaining or improving worker safety. OSHA is
providing the following questions to facilitate responses to this RFI,
but commenters may supply other information pertaining to the RFI not
explicitly solicited by the questions. When responding, please
reference the specific question number that you are responding to,
provide a detailed response, explain the reasons behind your views,
and, if possible, identify, and provide relevant information on which
you rely, including, but not limited to, data, studies, and articles.
Throughout this RFI, OSHA requests economic data on issues such as
current practices and compliance resource expenditures. In your
response, please provide details on your establishment including number
of employees and categories of employee occupations; industry
identification (by North American Industrial Classification System 6-
digit code if available); and the primary types of goods or services
produced by your company. This information will help OSHA develop a
more accurate analysis of the impacts of any potential rule. OSHA will
carefully review and evaluate the information, data, and comments
received in response to this Federal Register notice to decide on an
appropriate course of action.

A. General Issues

1. Types of Powered Industrial Trucks
    OSHA's current powered industrial trucks standards list 11
different types of powered industrial trucks, while NFPA 505-2018 lists
19 different types of powered industrial trucks (the ANSI B56.1
standard does not list types of

powered industrial trucks). OSHA is considering adding these eight new
truck types to modernize its standard and improve worker safety. The
eight new truck types not currently listed in OSHA's powered industrial
trucks standards are:
     CGH: Compressed hydrogen-powered unit utilizing a fuel
cell that has minimum acceptable safeguards against inherent fire and
electrical shock hazards.
     CN: Compressed natural gas-powered unit that has minimum
acceptable safeguards against inherent fire hazards.
     CNS: Compressed natural gas-powered unit that, in addition
to meeting the requirements for Type CN units, is provided with
additional safeguards to the exhaust, fuel, and electric systems;
     DX: Diesel-powered unit in which the diesel engine and the
electric fittings and equipment are designed, constructed, and
assembled in such a way that the unit can be used in atmospheres that
contain specifically named flammable vapors, dusts, and, under certain
conditions, fibers.
     G/CN: Gasoline or compressed natural gas unit that has
minimum acceptable safeguards against inherent fire hazards.
     G/LP: Gasoline or liquefied petroleum gas unit that has
minimum acceptable safeguards against inherent fire hazards;
     GS/CNS: Gasoline or compressed natural gas unit and, in
addition to meeting all the requirements for G/CN units, is provided
with additional safeguards to the exhaust, fuel, and electric systems.
     GS/LPS: Gasoline or liquefied petroleum gas unit and, in
addition to meeting all the requirements for the G/LP units, is
provided with additional safeguards to the exhaust, fuel, and electric
systems.
    (a) Please provide OSHA with data on characteristics such as usage,
specifications, capacity, function, ages, and lifespans of trucks in
your fleet for the 19 truck types listed in the NFPA standard. Please
include information on the number of each type of truck you use, the
number of employees assigned to operate these trucks, and for what
activities each type of truck is used.
    (b) In addition to these 19 truck types, should OSHA consider
including any other types of powered industrial trucks in a future OSHA
standard? What would be the basis for inclusions, given that those
types are not currently in NFPA 505-2018?
    (c) How commonly used are the eight powered industrial truck types
identified in NFPA 505-2018 but not in OSHA's current standard?
    (d) In the Supporting Statement for the 2017 Information Collection
Request of the standard on powered industrial trucks (29 CFR 1910.178)
(Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control No. 1218-0242 (September
2017)), OSHA estimated that 1.8 million workers operate 1.2 million
trucks within all affected establishments in construction, general
industry, longshoring, marine terminals, and shipyards.\7\ Do these
estimates accurately reflect the current number of workers and trucks
affected by the standard on powered industrial trucks in general
industry (29 CFR 1910.178)? If not, should the number of workers and
trucks be adjusted up or down and by how much?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Docket Exhibit OSHA-2011-0062-0009, Document ID 0009, p. 5,
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=OSHA-2011-0062-0009. As
reported in that document (2017 ICR supporting statement), ``In
1998, OSHA published a final rule in which it revised the operator
training requirements specified by paragraph (l) of the Standard
(see 63 FR 66238). As part of this rulemaking, the agency performed
a Final Economic Analysis (FEA) (see 63 FR 66262). Using data from
the FEA for the burden hour and cost estimates described below, OSHA
finds that the Standard applies to employers using an estimated
1,210,679 powered industrial trucks operated by about 1,816,018
workers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Truck Operations, Maintenance, and Training
    (a) Do you perform training in-house or contract out to
specialists?
    (b) If you provide training in-house, do you purchase training
modules or develop your own?
    (c) Who actually provides the training (e.g., supervisor, safety
and health specialist)?
    (d) Is your current training limited to truck operations and
maintenance or do you manage a broad occupational safety and health
training program that includes training on trucks? For all of your
workplace safety and health training programs, please provide details
on length, frequency, scope, and types of technical resources deployed
(e.g., DVDs, online courses, hands-on training, computer simulation or
robotics).
    (e) Are OSHA's current training requirements adequate or excessive?
If not adequate, what modifications or additional requirements should
OSHA consider? If excessive, what requirements are unnecessary or
overly burdensome?
    (f) Does your workplace have a training program that you think is
more effective than that required by the OSHA standard?
    (g) Please share the aspects of the program in your workplace that
you recommend OSHA consider and provide any data to support its
effectiveness.
    (h) Are you using any powered industrial truck aftermarket
equipment, such as a back-up camera or perimeter sensor alarm? Is such
equipment effective in reducing accidents?
    (i) What number or percentage of powered industrial trucks in use
have rollover protection or enclosures?
    (j) Can powered industrial trucks without rollover protection be
retrofitted? If so, how, and what is your estimate of that cost?
    (k) How often do you inspect your powered industrial trucks? Please
describe your inspection procedures and provide any checklists that are
used.
3. Incidents and Injuries
    (a) What are the most common types of workplace incidents and
injuries involving powered industrial trucks that have occurred in your
facility or industry (e.g., rollovers, struck by, falling off docks)?
    (b) What are the most common causes of hazardous incidents
involving powered industrial trucks (please specify those factors)?
Please provide case reports, redacted data, or aggregated data, and
information quantifying and describing such incidents.
    (c) Which activities involving powered industrial trucks result in
the most incidents (e.g., loading, unloading, traveling, backing up)?
    (d) Do more incidents occur with older equipment? If so, please
provide detailed information on why the older equipment is more
hazardous.
    (e) Do incidents vary by type of industrial truck, and if so, how?
4. Consistency Among OSHA Standards
    (a) If OSHA determines that it is necessary to revise the general
industry standard, how should the agency consider revising the maritime
and construction powered industrial trucks standards?
    (b) Should OSHA's maritime and construction standards be identical
or, at least, substantially similar to the general industry standard?
    (c) Are there differences specific to the maritime and construction
industries that should be addressed through different requirements?

B. Consensus Standards

1. American National Standards Institute
    As previously stated, OSHA's standards addressing powered
industrial trucks reference ANSI B56.1, developed in 1969. However,
this consensus standard has been updated several times since then with
the latest version published in 2018 (ANSI/ITSDF B56.1a).
    (a) Do the requirements in the 2018 edition of ANSI/ITSDF B56.1a
adequately protect workers operating powered industrial trucks?
    (b) What requirements, if any, are missing from this ANSI standard
that would ensure safety for employees during powered industrial truck
operations?
    (c) Does compliance with ANSI/ITSDF B56.1a-2018 address most
hazards commonly encountered with powered industrial trucks and is it
better or preferable than the existing OSHA regulation? Please explain.
    (d) Are there any hazards not addressed by ANSI/ITSDF B56.1a-2018?
    (e) Are there any requirements in ANSI/ITSDF B56.1a-2018 that
reduce worker safety?
2. National Fire Protection Association
    The National Fire Protection Association standard (NFPA 505-2018)
is the fire safety standard for powered industrial trucks and covers
truck types, designations, areas of use, maintenance, and operation of
powered industrial trucks.
    (a) Does compliance with the NFPA standard ensure that workers are
protected from hazards associated with the operation of powered
industrial trucks, or are there additional procedures OSHA should
consider?
    (b) Are employers currently in compliance with this consensus
standard? If not, what provisions are employers not following? Why?
3. Other Standards
    Are there other standards OSHA should consider or use if the agency
determines it is necessary to revise its powered industrial trucks
standards?

C. Compliance Issues

    (a) If OSHA decides to revise the standards based on the most
recent ANSI and NFPA standards, what requirements, if any, in ANSI/
ITSDF B56.1a-2018 and NFPA 505-2018 would make it difficult or
impossible for older equipment to be in compliance?
    (b) If OSHA revises the standards on powered industrial trucks,
should OSHA consider grandfathering in powered industrial trucks
manufactured before a certain date and, if so, what date would that be?
Please provide your reasoning for that date.
    (c) Would it be appropriate for grandfathering dates to vary for
different types of truck?
    (d) If OSHA decides to consider grandfathering older equipment, is
there a future date OSHA should set beyond which the ``grandfathered''
clause (or safe harbor) should not apply?
    (e) How many older powered industrial trucks are you using? What
type of trucks are these and what do you use them for?
    (f) How many powered industrial trucks do you use that do not have
seat belts?
    (g) Can any of these trucks be retrofitted with seat belts? If so,
how, and what is your estimate of that cost?
    (h) What is the average life span of a powered industrial truck?

D. Economic Issues

    (a) Please describe in detail any provision of the current standard
that you believe is outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective; or imposes
costs that exceed benefits. Please provide information supporting your
view, including data, studies, and articles.
    (b) To what extent do employers already comply with the current
ANSI consensus standard (ANSI/ITSDF B56.1a-2018)? Are there situations
where equipment could be easily retrofitted to meet the requirements
contained in the revised consensus standard ANSI/ITSDF B56.1a-2018?
Please include information on the type of vehicle and modifications
necessary, including how much time is required to perform the
retrofitting, the type of worker who could do the retrofitting, and the
cost of equipment needed for the vehicle modification or the cost to
contract out the work.
    (c) What are the baseline practices in your industry with respect
to complying with the provisions of consensus standards relating to
training, operation, maintenance, or work practices?
    (d) Is there older equipment that cannot be updated without
significant cost, and what factors would contribute to the costs of
retrofitting or augmenting older equipment to achieve compliance with
ANSI/ITSDF B56.1a-2018? Please specify the types of costs (i.e., labor,
materials, equipment, and consultant fees) that affected employers
would incur to comply with ANSI/ITSDF B56.1a-2018 and the costs per
unit (e.g., worker, machinery, energy). If a new OSHA standard required
changes that applied to older powered industrial trucks, at what cost
of compliance expense would it be more cost effective simply to replace
older trucks with newer ones?
    (e) If OSHA incorporated the requirements of NFPA 505-2018 into its
standards and applied it to older powered industrial trucks, would
employers retrofit or augment their older trucks, or replace them with
already-compliant trucks?
    (f) Are there particular impacts on small entities from a revision
to the powered industrial trucks standards that references current
consensus standards, including ANSI/ITSDF B56.1a--2018?
    (g) Would small entities face economic or technological feasibility
challenges to comply with revised standards that reference current
consensus standards?
    (h) Do you identify as a small entity in your industry? If so, what
is the basis for that identification (for example, reliance on Small
Business Administration size standards)? If you are uncertain as to
your qualifications as a small entity, please provide details on your
establishment size in terms of number of employees and categories of
employee occupations; industry identification (by North American
Industrial Classification System 6-digit code, if available); and the
primary types of goods or services produced by your company.
    (i) Please describe in detail the technical or financial concerns
that employers encounter when implementing or planning the
implementation of safety programs for powered industrial trucks.
    (l) OSHA requests comments, particularly from small entities, on
current practices with respect to safe handling and operation of
powered industrial trucks. Please identify the practices that are
critical to safe handling and operation of powered industrial trucks
(i.e., those practices whose absence would significantly compromise the
safety of employees). Please discuss the role of employee training in
your safety programs involving powered industrial trucks and the
perceived benefits of employee training. Where possible, please
estimate the cost per employee for any component of your safety
programs involving powered industrial trucks.

E. Other Comments/Suggestions/Concerns

    OSHA invites interested persons--including employers, trade
associations, workers, worker organizations, and public health and
safety organizations--to submit information, comments, data, studies,
and other materials on the

issues and questions in this RFI. In particular, OSHA invites comment
on specific issues and requests information and data about practices at
affected establishments in general industry, construction, shipyard
employment, and marine cargo handling. When submitting comments in
response to questions or issues raised or revisions that OSHA is
considering, OSHA requests that you explain your rationale and, if
possible, provide data and information to support your comments and
recommendations.

Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this notice pursuant
to 29 U.S.C. 653,655, and 657, Secretary's Order 1-2012 (77 FR 3912;
Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR part 1911.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on March 5, 2019.
Loren Sweatt,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2019-04338 Filed 3-8-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P