OSHA Inspection: STARKEY FORD, INC.

Issued

2015-07-23 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-07-29 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2000.00 · Current $1400.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(a)(6): The employer did not ensure that all nameplates and markings were in place:  Shop - The Yale fork truck was not provided with a data plate specifying truck model, serial number, weight of the truck, the capacity and load center at maximum elevation, and identification of the front-end 30 inch forks attachment.

Issued

2015-07-23 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-07-29 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(a)(5): The powered industrial truck was equipped with front-end attachment(s) other than factory installed attachment(s), and the employer did not request that the truck be marked to identify the attachment(s), show the weight of the truck and attachment combination, and show the capacity of the truck with attachment(s) at maximum elevation with the load laterally centered.  Shop - The Yale fork truck was equipped with six foot fork extensions and was not marked to identify the fork extensions, show the weight of the truck and attachment combination, and show the capacity of the truck with the fork extensions at maximum elevation with the load laterally centered.

Issued

2015-07-23 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-08-18 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(a)(6): The employer did not ensure that all nameplates and markings were in place:  Shop - The six foot fork extensions used on the Yale fork truck were not marked to identify the lifting capacity of the extensions.

Issued

2015-07-23 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-08-18 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2000.00 · Current $1400.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(l)(1)(i): The employer did not ensure that each powered industrial truck operator is competent to operate a powered industrial truck safely, as demonstrated by the successful completion of the training and evaluation specified in this paragraph (l):  Establishment - The employer did not ensure that one of the two lift truck operators was competent to operate the Yale fork truck safely, as demonstrated by the successful completion of the training and evaluation specified in the paragraph (l).

Issued

2015-07-23 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-08-18 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2000.00 · Current $1400.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(l)(4)(iii): An evaluation of each powered industrial truck operator's performance was not being conducted at least once every three years:  Establishment - An evaluation of each powered industrial truck operator's performance was not conducted at least once every three years.

Issued

2015-07-23 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-07-29 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(m)(5)(i): When a powered industrial truck is left unattended, load engaging means were not fully lowered, controls were not neutralized, power was not shut off, and brakes set:  Shop - The emergency brake was not set on the unattended Yale fork truck.

Issued

2015-07-23 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-07-29 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2800.00 · Current $1960.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(o)(1): Load(s) on powered industrial truck(s) were not stable or safely arranged:  Establishment - On or about July 7, 2015 a plow loaded onto the fork extensions of the Yale fork truck was not stable, and fell off the forks striking a person near the load.

Issued

2015-07-23 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-07-31 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2000.00 · Current $1400.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.178(q)(7): Powered industrial truck(s) were not examined for defects before being placed in service daily:  Establishment - The Yale fork truck was not examined for defects daily before being placed in service.

Issued

2015-07-23 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-08-18 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $1200.00 · Current $840.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1): The employer did not develop, implement, and/or maintain at the workplace a written hazard communication program which describes how the criteria specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(f), (g), and (h) will be met:  Establishment - The employer did not develop and maintain at the workplace a written hazard communication program which describes how the criteria specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(f), (g), and (h) will be met.

Issued

2015-07-23 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-08-18 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1)(i): The written hazard communication program did not include a list of the hazardous chemicals known to be present, using an identity that was referenced on the appropriate safety data sheet:  Establishment - The employer did not maintain a list of the hazardous chemicals know to be present, using an identity referenced on the appropriate safety data sheet.

Issued

2015-07-23 00:00:00

Abate by

2015-07-29 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $400.00 · Current $280.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1904.29(a): 29 CFR 1904.29(a):  The employer did not use OSHA 300, 300-A, and 301 forms, or equivalent forms, for recordable injuries and illnesses. The OSHA 300 form is called the Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses, the 300-A is the Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses, and the OSHA 301 form is called the Injury and Illness Incident Report:  Establishment - The employer did not use the OSHA 300 form, Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses, to record injury(s) which occurred in 2015.