Automotive Lifts

Final Statement of Reasons

Page 13 of 13

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY

AND HEALTH STANDARDS BOARD

2520 Venture Oaks, Suite 350

Sacramento, CA 95833

(916) 274-5721

FAX (916) 274-5743

www.dir.ca.gov/oshsb

1

Automotive Lifts

Final Statement of Reasons

Page 13 of 13

FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS

CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS

TITLE 8: Chapter 4, Subchapter 7, Article 19, Sections 3541 – 3546, 3548, and 3549

of the General Industry Safety Orders

Automotive Lifts

MODIFICATIONS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RESULTING FROM
THE 45-DAY PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

There are no modifications to the information contained in the Initial Statement of Reasons except for the following sufficiently related modifications that are the result of public comments and/or Board staff evaluation.

Section 3543. Marking Required.

Section 3543 contains the labeling/marking requirements for automotive lifts. Proposed subsection 3543(a)(4) pertains to older lifts manufactured before August 17, 1994, and would require the date of manufacture be labeled on a lift. Written comments indicate that providing the manufacture date for some very old lifts installed up to 60 years ago is problematic because manufacturing companies have gone out of business and such information is not available. A modification is proposed to permit the option of marking either the installation or manufacture date on these lifts. The revision is necessary to provide an option for the employer that is consistent with the current provisions of this subsection.

Section 3549. Descent Speed.

Section 3549 requires that all elements of any lift which control the speed of descent shall be so maintained that such speed will not exceed 20 feet per minute. Written comments were received stating that parallelogram and scissors style lifts do not descend at a constant rate due to the change in mechanical advantage of the elevating/lowering structure. The current standard requires instantaneous measurement of descent speed at the most rapid point of travel, a very impractical requirement not calculated to be of benefit to the user. A modification is proposed that would require the “average” descent speed to not exceed 20 feet per minute. The proposed modification is necessary to provide a practicable means to limit lift descent speeds and is also consistent with the provisions in the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/Automotive Lift Institute (ALI) ALCTV-1998 standard that address lift lowering speed.

Summary and Response to Oral and Written Comments:

I. Written Comments

Colorado Automotive Equipment Repair by email dated August 16, 2004.

Mr. G. Douglas Linberg, President, Norriton Hydraulics Incorporated by letter dated August 18, 2004.

Garage Equipment Corp by facsimile dated August 18, 2004.

Mr. Timothy Norris, Lube Air Systems by letter dated August 19, 2004.

Mr. Bob Fenzel, Owner, Northcoast Hydraulics by email dated August 18, 2004.

Ms. Lula Kogan, DES-Lift Inc., by facsimile dated August 18, 2004.

Mr. Bruce Anderson, President, Autolifters of America, Inc., by facsimile dated August 19, 2004.

Mr. Steven A. White, President, S.A. White Enterprises, Inc., by facsimile dated August 18, 2004.

Mr. Todd Downing by email dated August 18, 2004.

Mr. P. A. Tinaro Jr., President/Owner, Shore Equipment Company by facsimile dated August 18, 2004.

Manson Ryals, Lift King of Florida, Inc., by facsimile dated August 17, 2004.

Ms. Betty Johansen, Controller/Corporate Secretary, Iowa Fabrication & Design, Inc., by letter dated August 13, 2004.

Mr. Karl Huf, V.P., Melrose Technologies by facsimile dated August 17, 2004.

Mr. Claude Joannette, President, Equi-Pros CFJ by facsimile dated August 16, 2004.

Mr. Greg Smith, Equipment Sales by email dated August 16, 2004.

Mr. Jim Keeny, President, MTF Equipment Sales, Inc., by letter dated August 12, 2004.

Mr. Roger H. Ford, Sales Engineer, Double Check Company, Inc., by letter dated August 11, 2004.

Mobil Hydraulics by facsimile dated August 16, 2004.

Mr. Tom Alangatren, Mechanical contractor and lift installer, Aire-Draulic Service by facsimile dated August 12, 2004.

Mr. Andy Tallman, Chairman, Norco Industries, Inc., by facsimile dated August 12, 2004.

Mr. John P. Rydberg, President, American Material Handling, Inc., by facsimile dated August 12, 2004.

Mr. Stephen White, President, Aresco, Inc., by facsimile dated August 12, 2004.

Mr. Jeff J. Pratto, President, Pratto Sales, Inc, by facsimile dated August 12, 2004.

Ms. Lauris C. Kelly, President, Kelly Sales Corporation by facsimile dated August 12, 2004.

Mr. Randy Brown, Chairman - C.E.O., Complete Hydraulic Service & Sales, Inc., by facsimile dated August 13, 2004.

Mr. Anthony H. Smoorenburg, A.S.H. Automotive Service Equipment by email dated August 12, 2004.

Ms. Helen Underwood, Clifford Underwood Hydraulique by facsimile dated August 11, 2004.

Mr. Gary Wainwright, Weco Inc., by email dated August 11, 2004.

Mr. Bruce R. Kass, President, Maintenance Plus by letter dated August 11, 2004.

Mr. Daniel B. Jones, President, Northwest Equipment Sales by facsimile dated August 11, 2004.

Mr. Charles P. Galenas, Business Development Manager, Pundock Construction by facsimile dated August 11, 2004.

Mr. E. Bradley Hahn, Chairman, Globe Lift, LLC by letter dated August 12, 2004.

Mr. John B. LoRusso, President, Barlo Equipment Corporation by facsimile dated August 11, 2004.

Mr. Douglas W. Climenhaga, President, SVI International Inc., by letter dated August 12, 2004.

Similar (grouped) Comments:

Similar letters were received from all of the above-named commenters expressing support for the proposal as noticed for public comment. The commenters agree that the construction and testing requirements of the ANSI/ALI ALCTV-1998 standard for Automotive Lifts – Safety Requirements For Construction, Testing and Validation are reasonable and could be adopted. However, the commenters do not agree with the validation requirements of the standard. The commenters believe that adopting validation requirements will limit the choices of their customers with respect to safe proper lift selection, cost alternatives and application specific requirements. Costs associated with validation may have a negative impact on lift purchasers, smaller automotive lift suppliers, the scope of the entire product line, and lift safety.

Response to similar (grouped) comments:

These commenters support the standard as proposed and have expressed opposition to the Board on taking any further amendment to the proposal that includes the ALCTV 1998 validation provisions. Section 9.3 “Validation” of the ANSI/ALI ALCTV-1998 standard (ALCTV- 1998 standard) contains validation requirements that state in order to conform to the ALCTV standard, third party certification programs shall be administered by a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).

The Automotive Lift Institute (ALI) offers a program that fulfills this requirement. However, ALI correspondence clarifies that one does not have to be a member of ALI to have products certified by a NRTL. A NRTL is a laboratory which has been designated or recognized by the Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (federal OSHA) and must meet the requirements contained in federal standards located in 29 CFR 1910.7 pertaining to the recognition process for NRTLs. ALI indicates that one can have their products certified by any of the current eighteen NRTLs recognized or designated by federal OSHA.

The validation provisions require that all automotive lift models shall be tested for operational and physical conformance to the ALCTV-1998 standard. The testing must be witnessed by a NRTL. Section 9.3.3 of the validation provisions require that manufacturing facilities of the lift producer shall meet the quality control requirements set forth in the standard. Quality control conformance must be verified on an ongoing and continuing basis by frequent factory surveillance and plant visitation by the NRTL.

These commenters have expressed opposition (as outlined in the above summary of comments) to incorporating by reference the validation requirements of the ALCTV- 1998 standard. The Petition (Board File No. 438) submitted by ALI requested that the Board adopt the provisions of the ALCTV-1998 standard. However, the proposal does not include the validation requirements of the ALCTV-1998 standard. Section 3542 of the proposal would require that new automotive lifts manufactured after the effective date of the standards be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and meet the provisions of ALCTV-1998, Section 8, “Construction” and Section 9.2 “Testing” requirements for automotive lifts. The Board does not believe that further modification to the proposal is necessary as a result of these comments. The Board thanks these commenters for their comments and participation in the Board’s rulemaking process.

Mr. Chris Woodson, Autolift Services by facsimile dated August 19, 2004.

Comment No. 1:

Mr. Woodson states he has 40 plus years of experience in the automotive lift and equipment industry. He is the owner of a small family owned business. Mr. Woodson agrees that the construction and testing provisions of the ALCTV-1998 standard should be included in the proposal and he opposes the validation requirements.

Response:

See the above response to similar (grouped) comments.

Comment No. 2:

Mr. Woodson states the lift industry would be better served by the following: 1) Require all lift companies to be licensed, 2) Require ALI to have contractors as members provided they have 20 years of experience and eligibility open to those interested, and 3) Require mandatory safety inspections of lifts, like the commercial trucking, elevator, and crane industries. 4) Require licensed inspectors that would have to pass a state certified test, and 5) Require lock out/tag out procedures for work or repairs on defective equipment, and require instructions for the end user on safety and operation of lift equipment. He argued, “Installations, repairs, modifications and lack of service by unqualified technicians, illegal aliens and unlicensed contractors is where the real problem is.”

Response:

Provisions that would require special licensing, state certification or minimum years of experience for all lift companies is outside the scope of this rulemaking action as these issues were not addressed in the proposal noticed for public comment. Regarding comments about the qualifications of service technicians and suggested mandatory inspections, proposed subsection 3542(d) would require the operation, inspection and maintenance of automotive lifts to be performed by a qualified person in accordance with the procedures recommended by the manufacturer. Existing General Industry Safety Orders (GISO) section 3314 currently addresses effective lock out/tag out procedures for repair work. Therefore, the Board does not believe modification to the proposal is necessary as a result of this comment.

Comment No. 3:

Mr. Woodson stated that third party validation will not help a car mechanic that is working under a three year old lift that has not been inspected, properly maintained and repaired by a qualified technician.

Response:

See the response to comment No. 2. The Board thanks Mr. Woodson for his comments and participation in the Board’s rulemaking process.

Mr. Michael Rudert, President, Professional Automotive Equipment, Inc., by facsimile dated August 19, 2004.

Comment No. 1:

The majority of Mr. Rudert’s comments are the same as those previously summarized for similar (grouped) comments.

Response:

See the Board’s response to similar (grouped) comments.

Comment No. 2:

Mr. Rudert also stated his company distributes products produced by both ALI member manufacturers and non-member manufacturers. Mr. Rudert stated 16 ALI members are listed on the ALI website when last checked. Looking at their products, one sees a number of non-listed [not third party NRTL tested] products available by ALI member manufacturers. He further opines that even ALI members cannot afford the validation expenses involved with limited run hoists or hoists they do not want listed.

Response:

ALI requires 70% of the lift products shipped to be NRTL certified to maintain ALI membership. Therefore, there are likely to be lifts available from ALI members that have not been certified by a NRTL. It is noted that the validation provisions in the ALCTV-1998 standard, Section 9.3 would require that all lift models must be certified. However, the proposal does not include the validation requirements of the ALCTV-1998 standard. Therefore, the Board does not believe modification to the proposal is necessary as a result of this comment. The Board thanks Mr.Rudert for his comments and participation in the Board’s rulemaking process.

Mr. Joe Schmidt, Westside Equipment, by email dated August 12, 2004.

Comment:

Mr. Schmidt requested that the Board not adopt the recommendations in Petition No. 438 [submitted by ALI for the Board to adopt the provisions of the ALCTV-1998 standard] unless all lift manufacturers are involved. Mr. Schmidt questioned when the smaller manufacturers are gone, how the consumer would be able to afford the tool of their business.

Response:

Mr. Schmidt’s comment suggests a process to involve all lift manufacturers to achieve an outcome on the petition. The Board involved lift manufacturers in its process. The comment on the petitions outcome was not correlated to the proposal to be able to issue a response. The Board thanks Mr. Schmidt for his participation in the Board’s rulemaking process.

Mr. Stan Poweska, President, PKS Equipment & Engineering Inc., by letter dated August 16, 2004.

Comment No. 1:

Mr. Poweska’s company and its independent California distributors support the proposed changes to Title 8. Mr. Poweska concurs that the testing requirements of the ALCTV-1998 standard are reasonable and should be adopted into law. The letter urges the Board to adopt the proposal.

Response:

The Board thanks Mr. Poweska for his support of the proposal.

Comment No. 2:

Mr. Poweska stated opposition to the State of California adopting ALI’s recommendation to allow only the ALI certification program to validate [third party certify by a NRTL] automotive lift products.

Response:

The validation requirements, Section 9.3 of the ALCTV-1998 standard are not proposed for adoption. Further, ALI, in their correspondence, has made it clear that one need not use the ALI program to fulfill the validation requirements of the ALCTV-1998 standard. See the response to similar (grouped) comments.

Comment No. 3:

A number of paragraphs are related to ALI membership issues, market strategies, and the standards and policies of ALI.

Response:

These comments are not directly related to the proposal and its amendments to the existing provisions within the GISO, Article 19, “Automotive Lifts.” Therefore, the Board is unable to address these comments. The Board thanks Mr. Poweska for his comments and participation in the Board’s rulemaking process.

Mr. Steve J. Prater, Worth Equipment Parts & Service Co, Inc., by facsimile dated August 16, 2004.