Back to Federal guidance

Forward travel of powered industrial trucks

Summary A plant manager sought a variance from OSHA’s powered industrial truck travel rule. OSHA said the rule did not bar forward travel when the driver’s view was unobstructed, and denied the variance request without prejudice because the application lacked enough information and an equally safe alternative. OSHA now archives the response as potentially outdated.
Document
Federal opinion letter
Agency
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Document number
1986-02-12
Date issued
February 12, 1986
Status
Archived by the agency
OSHA archives this letter and says it may no longer represent OSHA policy.
Status last verified October 10, 2026

Apply this to your situation

This page explains the general guidance. Ask about your specific situation and see what current federal labor law says, with citations.

The current status of this document is unclear
OSHA archives this letter and says it may no longer represent OSHA policy. It may no longer reflect the agency's current position. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance, and verify current law before relying on anything here.
About this page: The full text below is the official document from Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Ezel adds the plain-English summary and tracks the document's status. The official source linked on this page is authoritative for any reliance.

NOTICE: This is an OSHA Archive Document, and may no longer represent OSHA Policy. It is presented here as historical content, for research and review purposes only.

February 12, 1986

Mr. Bernard Nobel
Plant Manager
Charles Jacquin et Cie., Inc.
[Recipient address omitted]
Dear Mr. Noble:

This is in reference to your letter dated January 29, concerning your request for a permanent variance from 29 CFR 1910.178(n)(4), Powered industrial trucks, of the Occupational Safety and Health Standards.

Your application, although it does not contain sufficient information, has been reviewed by our technical staff and discussed with the OSHA Area Office in Philadelphia. Section 1910.178(n)(4) does not preclude traveling forward with the load when driver's view is not obstructed. However, [illegible in source] and a variance would not seem to be appropriate or necessary. We are therefore suggesting that you discuss and resolve the matter with the Area Office.

Additionally, the requirements for a variance have not been met as you have not offered an alternative solution as safe and healthful as the requirements of the standard as required by Section 1905.11(b)(4). Your request is therefore denied without prejudice to the filing of another application. A copy of 29 CFR 1905 is enclosed for your guidance. Please refer to Section 1905.11 rather than 1905.10 for the necessary criteria to seek a permanent variance. Affected employees and their authorized employee representatives shall be notified of the denial of your application in the same manner they were informed of your request for a variance.

If I can be of any assistance, please contact my office at (202) 523-7193.

Sincerely,
James J. Concannon
Director
Office of Variance Determination

[Requester letter reproduced on OSHA page; omitted here.]

What does federal law require in your situation?

Ezel checks current federal labor law against your facts and answers with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace