INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS

CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
TITLE 8: Chapter 4, Subchapter 7, Article 25,
Section 3650(b) and (d) of the General Industry Safety Orders
Update of National Consensus Standard References for Industrial Trucks


PROBLEM ADDRESSED BY PROPOSED ACTION

Existing Section 3650(b) requires various types of industrial trucks to be labeled as being in compliance with the appropriate national consensus standard specific to the use and type of industrial truck. Section 3650(b) contains National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), Underwriter's Laboratory (UL) and ANSI/ASME national consensus standards for the design and construction of various types of industrial trucks such as "guided industrial vehicles", "rough terrain forklift trucks" etc.

The UL and ANSI/ASME standards have been updated. In order to ensure that recently manufactured industrial trucks are labeled as meeting the appropriate national consensus standards, the proposal will references the latest editions of these standards.

SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND FACTURAL BASIS OF PROPOSED ACTION

Section 3650. Industrial Trucks. General.
Subsection (b)

Existing Section 3650(b) requires various types of industrial trucks to be labeled as being in compliance with the appropriate national consensus standard specific to the use and type of industrial truck. The UL and ANSI/ASME standards have been updated with more recent publications, necessitating the proposed revisions discussed below.

Proposed subsection (b)(1) will require industrial trucks manufactured and acquired after September 1, 1991 through December 1, 1998 to have a tag or label stating compliance with the appropriate national consensus standard for industrial trucks listed in existing subsection (b).

A new proposed subsection (b)(2) will reference the most recent editions of national consensus standards pertaining to the types of industrial trucks listed in the regulation. The amendments are necessary to ensure industrial trucks are labeled as meeting the appropriate national consensus standard. It should be noted, with the exception of the ASME/ANSI B56.7-1987 standard, the affiliation with ANSI has been dropped from the B56.5 through B56.9 standards. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) is the sole sponsor of the latest publications of the B56.5 through B56.9 standards.

Subsection d
Existing subsection (d) contains the marking requirements for industrial truck front-end attachments other than factory installed attachments. The proposal will delete an unnecessary reference to the ANSI B56.1-1975 standard. The reference to the ANSI standard is unnecessary because no additional information is provided in the ANSI standard other than the verbatim language already existing in subsection (d). This is a non-substantive change and it will delete unnecessary language.

DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON

  1. NFPA 505-1987, Fire Safety Standard for Powered Industrial Trucks.
  2. Underwriters Laboratories (UL) 583-1991, Electric-Battery-Powered Industrial Trucks.
  3. UL 588-1991, Industrial Trucks, Internal Combustion Engine-Powered.
  4. American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) B56.5-1993, Safety Standard for Guided Industrial Vehicles and Automated Functions of Manned Industrial Vehicles.
  5. ASME B56.6-1992, Safety Standard for Rough Terrain Forklift Trucks.
  6. ASME/ANSI B56.7-1987, Safety Standard for Industrial Crane Trucks.
  7. ASME B56.8-1993, Safety Standard for Personnel and Burden Carriers.
  8. ASME B56.9-1992, Safety Standard for Operator Controlled Industrial Tow Tractors.

IDENTIFIED ALTERNATIVES THAT WOULD LESSEN ADVERSE ECONOMIC IMPACT ON SMALL BUSINESSES

No adverse impact on small businesses is anticipated from the implementation of the proposed amendments. Therefore, no alternatives which would lessen the impact on small businesses have been identified.

SPECIFIC TECHNOLOGY OR EQUIPMENT

This proposal will not mandate the use of specific technologies or equipment. This is because the proposal merely references the latest national consensus standards pertaining to the types of industrial trucks listed in the regulation.

Manufacturers design industrial trucks to meet the applicable standards listed in the regulation. Therefore, the regulated public and users of this equipment will not be required to obtain or install new equipment. In addition, the required permanent legible tag or label stating compliance with the applicable standard can be readily obtained from the industrial truck manufacturers, should one become necessary.

COST ESTIMATES OF PROPOSED ACTION

Costs or Savings to State Agencies
No costs or savings to state agencies will result as a consequence of the proposed amendments. Also see the paragraph under the above heading, Specific Technology or Equipment.

Impact on Housing Costs
The proposal will not affect housing costs.

Impact on Businesses
The proposal will not result in a significant adverse economic impact on businesses, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. Also see the paragraph under the above heading, Specific Technology or Equipment.

Cost Impact on Private Persons or Entities
The proposal will not require private persons or entities to incur additional costs in complying with the proposal.

Costs or Savings in Federal Funding to the State
The proposal will not result in costs or savings in federal funding to the state.

Costs or Savings to Local Agencies or School Districts Required to be Reimbursed
No costs to local agencies or school districts are required to be reimbursed. See explanation under "Determination or Mandate."

Other Nondiscretionary Costs or Savings Imposed on Local Agencies
This proposal does not impose nondiscretionary costs or savings on local agencies or school districts.

DETERMINATION OF MANDATE

The Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board has determined that the proposed regulations do not impose a mandate requiring reimbursement by the State pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of the Government Code because the proposed amendments will not require local agencies or school districts to incur additional costs in complying with the proposal. Furthermore, these regulations do not constitute a "new program or higher level of service of an existing program within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution."

The California Supreme Court has established that a "program" within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution is one which carries out the governmental function of providing services to the public, or which, to implement a state policy, imposes unique requirements on local governments and does not apply generally to all residents and entities in the state. (County of Los Angeles v. State of California (1987) 43 Cal.3d 46.)

These proposed regulations do not require local agencies to carry out the governmental function of providing services to the public. Rather, these regulations require local agencies to take certain steps to ensure the safety and health of their own employees only. Moreover, these proposed regulations do not in any way require local agencies to administer the California Occupational Safety and Health program. (See City of Anaheim v. State of California (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1478.)

These proposed regulations do not impose unique requirements on local governments. All employers - state, local and private - will be required to comply with the prescribed standards.

PLAIN ENGLISH STATEMENT

It has been determined that the proposal may affect small business. The express terms of the proposal written in plain English have been prepared by the Board pursuant to Government Code Sections 11342(e) and 11346.2(a)(1) and the informative digest for this proposal constitutes a plain English overview.

ASSESSMENT

The adoption of the proposed amendments to these regulations will neither create nor eliminate jobs in the State of California nor result in the elimination of existing businesses or create or expand businesses in the State of California.

ALTERNATIVES THAT WOULD AFFECT PRIVATE PERSONS

No alternatives considered by the Board would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the regulations are proposed or would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action.